Right! Apart from being the 6th largest economy, a nuclear power, a permanent member of the security council, a member of FVEY, the home of two of the best universities in the world, home to London, being a cultural powerhouse for several centuries, home to one of the most established and trusted legal systems in the world, and printer of the pound sterling, the UK is basically completely irrelevant now.

... Brexit is a shit-show and probably a bad idea, but perhaps let’s keep the hyperbole to a minimum, eh?

I live in England and I have very little faith in the legal system, either in its laws or in the prison system. In fact, between criminalizing posession of some pornographic cartoons and the Snooper's Charter, not to mention the mandate that ISPs keep your history metadata for 9 months now, I have lost all faith in the English legal system. The populace that is apathetic to encroachments on rights, freedoms, and privacy, much like how it is currently trending in the US, is even worse given that there is no constitution to protect those rights, and we have to trust this government to create a 'bill of rights'. I can't be the only one incredibly cynical about what that would entail.

> At their trial the judge told the defendants, "If hanging were still an option you would have been executed."

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Conlon

Considering the amount of cases in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Overturned_conviction... I would not put too much trust in the UK legal system.

Sure, the salaries are higher, but the expenses eat up most of it.

And people don't have the option of cheap countryside, living off their own land.

I love the UK, but it's got some serious problems.

But yeah, at least on the world stage, it's not completely irrelevant.

If the US decided it didn't want the UK to be a nuclear power then I don't think we'd be able to maintain the capability for very long.

There's more than just two! Admittedly only Oxbridge are consistently top 10 but there are a disproportionate number of other UK unis in the top 200.

It’s easy to predict - just consider what the worst, most self-destructive course of action available is, and voila, you know what the British government will do next.

based on what?

the government is pulling out of anything where the ECJ has jurisdiction, which you might not agree with, but is perfectly consistent with leaving the EU's institutional control

the EPO is not under the control of the ECJ

When people imagine a more politically integrated EU, I bet they don't imagine that government run by whoever they consider the kookiest people in the body politic. Imagine that EU integration proceeded apace, and Duda, or Orban, or Johnson became the popularly-elected President of the EU. (The current EU executive structure would never be adequate, of course, in a more politically integrated future.)

Federalism, in principle, is no bad thing - but it should keep to regulation and overarching legislation while letting states largely self govern (i.e. the EU model) rather than top-down tactical governance, which is where the US has ended up.

Ultimately, it’s a question of identity. Americans call themselves Americans. Europeans call themselves French, Dutch, Greek. That shared identity is the key to preventing war - everything else is just a means to that end.

The US couldn’t maintain federalism, and the EU will ultimately end up in the same place. There is no additional structural protection in the EU, there just hasn’t been enough time to erode the sovereignty of the individual member states yet. In some respects, the EU is actually structurally worse. For example, the EU has no equivalent to our anti-Commandeering principle, so the central government can force the member states to execute EU legislation using the apparatus of the domestic governments.

afraid not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-4057...

> The UK joined Euratom when it joined the EEC in 1973. It is a separate legal entity from the EU, but is tied up with its laws and institutions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

you may want to revisit essentially everything you've posted here, because most of it is just flat out wrong

The dint on the UPC and other EU organisations due to this, is a function of the existentially problematic manner in which the EU was formed.

Europe would work much better with a series of consistent bilateral treaties on issues such as patents and regulations, instead of trying to be a Federal Superstate led by the Chancellor of Germany ... who incidentally chose Urusula Von Der Leyen, not the electors, who didn't even know who she was literally at the time they voted. If that fact alone is not cause enough for revolution.

Switzerland, Norway, Iceland would be welcome with open arms, they just don't want to join.

The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so and at the end of the day, the UK is comparatively rich by EU standards.

This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.

More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.

Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.

Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.

The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.

pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity

realpolitik always wins

> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.

this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either

the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires

> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,

it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined

when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing.

> this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either

It was widely reported at the time. Here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...

> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires

Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.

> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".

And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...

have you actually read the article?

> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus

so not the Norwegian government

> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles

so not the UK government

> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.

the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis

if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty

I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.

Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.

Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.

> This means the return of violence to that region.

It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.

Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".

While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.

None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.

At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.

Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.

The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.

The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.

That's not true.

The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).

Also: "The German car industry will demand it", "The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU", etc. All of this has been falsified in the last four years. The integrity of the single market and of the European project is turning out to be much more valuable to EU member states than the highly rebated UK contributions.

The shit about BMW's and Prosecco was just nationalist bollocks, but that doesn't mean that the loss of the UK budget contribution isn't real. Likely end outcome is EU budget struggles a bit for a few years, then UK rejoins as an associate or whatever new category they come up with.

I have also been an anglophile since I can remember, so I am quite disappointed with the UK. I think I'm not alone in this.

Regarding the budget round: my impression is that the struggle comes from the situation caused by covid more than anything else. Brexit became a niche interest in the EU, most people are not paying attention or really care about it anymore.

Notice that the contribution of the UK after rebates amounted to 9 billion euros, in comparison to a yearly EU budget of about 165 billion euros, which is in itself 1% of the EU's GDP. While I am sure that the EU misses that contribution, I find it hard to believe that it is a huge problem.

A state can only join the EU by virtue of a democratic decision according to the constitution of the Member State itself, and there are strong requirements on prospective Member States to be themselves proper democracies with separation of powers in order to be allowed to join.

Granted, these requirements have been slightly overlooked when it came to the UK: the House of Lords is undemocratic, one could say outdated, and would almost certainly not be tolerated in any other candidate state.

So, the EU might be complex, but in what sense exactly is it undemocratic?

As is the case with the chief executive in most parliamentary systems, by voting for an MP (in the case, MEP) of the party which backs their preferred (or opposes their opposed) candidate for leader.

But since you asked look at how little power a British MP has to get a private member's bill through to a vote. In actual fact the only private member's bills that get a vote let alone pass are those with government support.

Also the House of Common's isn't really democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It took 886,400 votes to get 1 Green MP but only 25,900 votes per SNP MP. Similarly 38,300 per Conservative MP to 336,000 per LibDem MP. That's an order of magnitude difference between votes to power.

However, that depends a lot on what happens in the intervening decade to failing intra-Europe states such as Hungary and Poland.

now that the opt-outs are gone it'll never happen

rejoin died on 31st Jan 2020

this makes Leave's argument better, not worse

or around 0.35% a year, which isn't going to make the UK into a poor nation (and if Scotland, NI and Wales left it then England's would skyrocket)

meanwhile, in reality: the virus has knocked 20% off actual GDP in 4 months

I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.

Anyway as I said in my comment above, we don't fully know, but we're sure going to find out soon enough.

> We don't really know what the second-order effects will be, such as the brightest people moving abroad and companies permanently closing or leaving, as well as the general loss of influence.

so what do you think they were modelling? nothing at all?

> I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.

a reduction in growth is not a overall loss, sorry

I think there is a lot of 'good riddance' feelings in the EU population towards the UK right now but that is mostly driven by the way the media creates this black and white, us vs them divisive messages, none of which has any basis in reality.

The UK had for many years served as the ironclad under which more budget conservative countries protected themselves in EU negotiations. The UK got all the hate and the stereotype of the 'difficult' person in the room and all the other countries got there defensive stand preserved.

With the UK now leaving it's likely that the Netherlands or the 'New Hanseatic league' will probably fill the role of the 'difficult' person in the room.

Irrespective of all the sanguine media, the UK still has a great deal of positive points that make it attractive for businesses when compared with other EU countries:

- Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example)

- Functioning/Expedient Legal system

- Competitive tax framework

- Access to VC levels of funding for startups mostly biased towards London, but still

- The volume of funding available for University research and spin-offs (when comparing with other EU countries)

- Network effects with the US.

- An internal 60mil people consumer market, with a fairly high median disposable income (specially when compared with the EU27 median) and credit-friendly.

The EU project has a lot of ideals and visions sliding along a spectrum. There should never be a situation where if you do not agree with me than you are against me, that is reductionist and will never work in a EU wide project with some many heterogenous countries and cultures. In my opinion we cannot artificially accelerate what is likely a multi-generational mind shift (slow creep towards an EU federation) with process-driven reforms.

If I dare making a prediction I don't think the UK will be in a scenario of having to ration insuline medication or riots in the street as some describe, I also don't think the UK will be business as usual as some conservatives describe. It will mostly likely be somewhere in between because as with most things in reality this situation is nuanced and complex.

That's only nice on short term. Easily being able to fire people is fun, until there's too much of a difference between top and low earning. Eventually it'll just lead to huge problems. You avoid loads of issues by ensuring there's not a gigantic difference between top earners and low earners. E.g. it should NOT be ok that people work multiple jobs, or can barely scrape by.

IMO less inequality will eventually be better for a country; tax income could be higher, more influence as result. Similarly, if people think they have no good future, why follow things like do no crime.

See e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I... (income increases on bottom 20% of earners result in GDP growth): > This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class.

UK seems very riot-resistant, I guess we have to see what the wreckage of the economy looks like after Covid. The best prediction I've heard was that we'll simply forget that the UK used to be a richer country than Ireland. Although that may be driven into sharper relief by a border poll ...

I genuinely hope we can get rid of VAT once we leave the EU as it won't be mandated anymore, but that's wishful thinking on my part. We're probably too dependent on it now. :(

The press in the U.K. is attacking UN agencies daily - it would not surprise me in the slightest if the U.K. decided the SC was too constraining, their veto not big enough.

Same goes for NATO - the ERG want out, and feel the contributions are an unfair burden. They are right now opaquely “streamlining” the military. How that helps meet the NATO commitment, not clear.

Everyone said {the many things that have come to pass over the past few years} would never happen, that it would be an insane choice.

At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice, so I’d put money (actually, I have, I am shorting sterling, hard, as a hedge) on them leaving both the UN and NATO.

The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.

Somewhat true, but so does the UK with its unelected upper house! Having Ian Botham made a permanent legislator because of his "loyalty" to the Party is not really the stuff of a democratic country.

The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.

Two wrongs don't make one right.

>The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.

This is the whole point of my initial comment. You can't just dismiss all criticism of the EU as racist and xenophobic. That just causes more divisiveness and bad will.

the (elected) EU parliament cannot initiate legislation, only the (unelected) commission can

EU: the elected parliament is a rubber stamp on the unelected commission's agenda

UK: the unelected house is a rubber stamp on the elected house's agenda

It's a bit like saying that the UK in undemocratic because the civil service drafts the laws.

Got a citation for that? My impression is euroskeptics love America and NATO.

At this point I am beginning to wonder what is behind the pattern.

Are we witnessing the failure of governments acting in the best national interests because they have finally become fully subverted from within by selfish forces? A common pattern to the madness in the US and the madness in the UK is that an inner circle stand to get very rich from all the goings-on.

When France and UK became part initial members the SC. They were still colonial powers controlling a lot of the world, and won the war, they are no longer have that kind of strength or influence.

If a new council were created in the somewhat near future it would be because power dynamics have shifted far enough that the current council is no longer useful, from the current members UK and France are most likely to ones for that shift and not enjoy similar rights. New powers at the table could be EU as a whole, India, Brazil perhaps Japan and Germany etc.

again, based on what?

half of your posts here are speculation based on no substance whatsoever

what did the UK ever do to you?