UK Tech Sector Reacts To Brexit: Some Anticipate Slow Down, Some Contemplate Relocation

In the aftermath of the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union, UK's technology industry is reassessing its position, with many of them considering moving to a continental location. According to reports, Samsung, LG, and Acer have noted that the UK leaving the EU will affect their operations. From a BBC report:As news of Brexit broke, tech firms including BT, TalkTalk and software firm Sage reported share price falls. [...] "I have concerns that the local market might slow down," said Drew Benvie, founder of London-based digital agency Battenhall. From a report on The Guardian:Britain's financial technology sector is particularly hard-hit, with the prospect of losing access to European markets an unappealing one. "Fintech" has long been one of the UK's most promising growth areas, in part due to London's position as the financial capital of Europe. [...] Not one of the 14 billion-dollar tech firms based in the UK the Guardian asked said leaving the EU would be good for their business.Toby Coppel, the co-founder of venture capital firm Mosaic, said: "The next entrepreneur who's 22 years old, graduating from a technical university in Germany may, instead of moving to London to do their Fintech startup, decide to go to Berlin instead. I think that's one of the biggest concerns I have about the trajectory of the London technical ecosystem."

Comments

Don't Panic

[SuperKendall]

It's still really up in the air what "leaving" means, beyond "UK not subject to absurd EU regulations".

You can be pretty sure deals will be worked out such that mobility between EU states will be nearly what it was for professionals, doubly so for businesses.

The whole "financial disaster" angle is a load of crap, the pound is already re-stabilizing and didn't fall that far to start with!

Re:Don't Panic

[Hylandr]

The media has a tendency to turn a birds fart into disaster.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be one of the ones who voted leave. Norway is good preview of future of England. Kiss Scotland and Ireland goodbye. Norway had to accept Euro schengen zone and many of the EU regulations in which they have no say in. But hey they aren't a member of EU so that's something. Hate to see this as a American even though my planned trip to UK will be considerably more affordable.

Re:Don't Panic

[Ash-Fox]

"The next entrepreneur who's 22 years old, graduating from a technical university in Germany may, instead of moving to London to do their Fintech startup, decide to go to Berlin instead. I think that's one of the biggest concerns I have about the trajectory of the London technical ecosystem."

Can we get stats on the last few years of 22 year old entrepreneurs from Germany that did a fintech startup in London?

Re:Don't Panic

[NotInHere]

Well yeah there are lots of ideas in the room. One is what maybe lots of the leave campaigners would like to see, is even more extra regulations only for the UK. Basically it gets all the profits without having to give its own share. Maybe even like the TAFTA where US companies can send their genetically modified crops to the EU? I don't know that this is something the EU will want to do.

Some things are really sure though:

1. The UK will need *some* countries to trade with. If its not the EU, then maybe some other country will do.
2. If the UK is given lots of extra regulations, other countries will demand this as well, like norway, or even current EU members. In fact already now there are demands coming in from current EU members.
3. The EU is in a much better position than the UK, simply due to sheer size. Threatening with an exit is always a good tool, but once you are out you have nothing to threaten with anymore, but still all the same problems.

Well lets see what the UK will do with that extra money they don't send to the EU anymore. Anyway, if they were actually paying what other countries of their size do, they would have spared lots more, but as they already had extra regulations within the EU, the part they have available now is much smaller.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! They don't make any money if you don't either keep watching or refreshing the page to see if the WW3 starts over some kids throwing eggs. The DA's are in on it too and those kids need 3-4 felonies pinned on them, so you'll always remember that DA's name.

Re:Don't Panic

[NotInHere]

Yeah now with the pound low, I might even want to do tourism on that island.

So see, the brexit which has destroyed two trillion, its great for the tourism economy at least!

Re:Don't Panic

[Kohath]

Because the same rich European elites who benefit from the pre-Brexit conditions will stand to benefit from those conditions mostly continuing. And they're the people in charge of the EU.

Re:Don't Panic

[guruevi]

Exactly, the EU zone has only been beneficial to business and the Soviet Bloc countries (business moving there for cheap labor and eventually even further east was the whole objective for the forming of the EU). Before the EU and even now, similar business-friendly arrangements have been made amongst European and even Asian countries without any EU government involvement. The EU and later on the Euro destroyed the sovereignty of individual nations (now only nations by name only for traditions' sake), the Brits were at least smart enough to maintain some of their distance when the Euro came along. The EU socialized the losses of its members on a continental scale (Greece etc) while the affluent Western Europe had their middle class evaporate to pay for it and many of those countries (Netherlands, Belgium and France) will soon follow the UK.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hylandr]

This guy gets it.

Re:Don't Panic

[unimacs]

I agree it is really early. However, it would seem to me that the EU has a built-in incentive to isolate the UK. If you can leave the EU without meaningful consequences, then the EU will collapse as other member countries start to bail.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Norway is more or less an EU member, shares all the benefits and pays in but has no political power in EU. Benefits cost the same whether you are a member or not. UK was never a "full member", as UK had a lot of exemptions from rules and regulations while at the same time wielding political power. Power they wielded to make a mess of EU as possible.

Not having UK in EU might be a good thing, at least we'd have a lot less of bitching and bickering over nothing. The most stupid about this, is that if UK wants the benefits they will pay now full price as they will not have any political power in EU to reduce their members fee.

Re:Don't Panic

[byornski]

They lost Ireland years ago. If you mean Northern Ireland, there is little impetus there to change what people are seeing as peace. Factions on the far sides might want to play it that way but it's basically not going to happen. The south was/is in a financial crisis that was solved by the UK saying we'll bankroll them and their own austerity. Norway is not in the Euro but has accepted the schengen agreement for free travel. They do not pay so much in but they get more say on domestic rights.

Re: Don't Panic

[joh]

So the US also is in he EU? Never knew that! Looks even worse at least...

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

No way UK will ever get all those exemptions back if they want to rejoin. Veto powers, keeping the pound, EU tax rebates, and etc. Brexit will not stop the "brown" people from immigrating to the UK and many EU regulations will still apply.

Re: Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Northern Ireland is at peace now, but wait till there is a EU land border there and the people demand EU membership possibly through reunification of Ireland...

Re:Don't Panic

[omtinez]

I mostly agree with you, but you also need to consider that the rest of the EU states might want to make an example out of the UK as far as trading and regulations go to make it less tempting for other nations to follow suit.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's still really up in the air what "leaving" means, beyond "UK not subject to absurd EU regulations".
Would you are to cite one of these "absurd EU regulatons"?

The anti-EU tabliods liked making up "EU regulatons", none of which actually existed.
Various British governments kept slipping extra regulations into EU directives and blaming europe, but those regulations only applied to the UK.

Would you care to be the first to detail one of these "absurd EU regulations"?

Re: Don't Panic

[byornski]

I'm claiming Irish citizenship through a reverse agreement. Anyone born on the island before 2005 can claim it. On a darker note, I didn't say it would bring peace. If anything it will inflame tensions in NI. Source : From NI

Re:Don't Panic

[William Robinson]

Exactly. And now UK has Vijay Mallya with all the money stolen^H^H^H^H^H^H earned from India, UK should pose brave postures.

BTW, how does strikethrough works on slashdot?

Re: Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT smaller bureaucracy ?

A whole lot of that now has to be recreated, just for Britain. I'm sure there was a lot of pissyness "It's not ours" i.e. it's more expensive to buy our way through, but losing the EU doesn't automatically mean a drop in costs here.

Re:Don't Panic

[lucm]

there's the one who tried to kill trump

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Norway is more or less an EU member, shares all the benefits and pays in but has no political power in EU. Benefits cost the same whether you are a member or not. UK was never a "full member", as UK had a lot of exemptions from rules and regulations while at the same time wielding political power. Power they wielded to make a mess of EU as possible.

Not having UK in EU might be a good thing, at least we'd have a lot less of bitching and bickering over nothing. The most stupid about this, is that if UK wants the benefits they will pay now full price as they will not have any political power in EU to reduce their members fee.

Par for the course. Modern political elites everywhere are CRIMINALLY STUPID beyond recognition (with varying degree of idiocy). I don't blame the British people, after all you can vote however you want, against or for your own interests. Witness what happens in the good old US of A. Two generations of rednecks voting against their own interests because who the hell knows. The blame of the British disaster is 100% on Cameron and the Tory party by indicting a referendum that should never have even been contemplated in the first place. That said I don't know what's more hilarious, the brexit, the post-brexit lies or the desire for another referendum that sets the clock straight again. This is Homer Simpson kind of stupidity. It just bogles the mind.
What do the British gain post-brexit ? Dissolution sooner or later of the United Kingdom, loss of all the exceptions they had in the EU, loss of political power in the EU. I just can't wrap my mind around such a stupid disaster. It's the proverbial "cutting off the nose to spite the face". From now on I can never again consider a British subject as an intelligent person. Not after what they have done to themselves. The British Empire is over guys, maybe that news still hasn't reached your wretched island. Always always blame the damn mail.

Re:Don't Panic

[aepervius]

Firstly the "absurd" regulation angle is overrated : a lot of what people call absurd regulation were actually industry internal proposed regulation to offer standardization. Stop reading the sun or swallowing advert telling you stupid stuff about 109 pillow laws when in really it isn't.

Secondly it IS already happening. Some financial industry were allowed to be in UK because the UK was in Europe. If UK is not, those industry may not remain in London because by law they must be in a member state. So no matter the agreement , those have to GO.

As for deal being worked out, everybody be it the politician or the folk of each country , clearly said they won't give a good deal to the UK. Neither do they have an insensitive to ! They are already pressuring to have a quick brexit and short negotiation, which will almost certainly turn out not so good for UK.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the same rich European elites who benefit from the pre-Brexit conditions will stand to benefit from those conditions mostly continuing. And they're the people in charge of the EU.

If the EU continues to treat the UK as nothing happened you can bet your ass the other big countries will give the finger to Germany and opt out as well. Starting from France and the Netherlands.

Re:Don't Panic

[phantomfive]

If "losing the 22 year old entrepreneur" segment is the worse thing that happens, I guess the UK will be ok.

Re:Don't Panic

[Calydor]

You only need one who makes it and suddenly he represents many millions of pounds in tax revenue, employment, etc.

So basically they're complaining that the Brexit makes winning a lottery a little harder.

Re:Don't Panic

[Fire_Wraith]

The UK already had a pretty good deal, in that it basically was able to pick and choose - and even got extra concessions a few months back, in advance of the vote. At this point, further conciliation will only hurt the EU, because it will encourage other countries in the bloc to try the same, at which point, it won't be much of a bloc at all.

No, the EU is probably going to react very negatively, if only to make an example out of Britain. They'll play hardball, because economically speaking, Britain needs the other EU members more than the EU needs them (even if there will be pain all around). Look at where British trade goes now - something like 36% of it goes to major EU members. That's more than they trade with the USA and China combined (~20%), and that's aside from the fact that right now it's Britain using EU trade deals with the USA and China, not its own separate ones. The EU is going to insist that all its regulations apply to any products made in Britain that are sold in the EU, and at that point, it becomes cheaper for the manufacturers in Britain to apply the same to their domestic market. The reason the EU will do this is simple - they don't want France going "well we want our own special deal too." No, they'd rather freeze Britain out as an example.

Re:Don't Panic

[peppepz]

Exactly, the EU zone has only been beneficial to business

Yes, an open market is the best possible condition for creating jobs. That's what anyone with a basic competence in economy says, so there must be some truth in it.

and the Soviet Bloc countries (business moving there for cheap labor and eventually even further east was the whole objective for the forming of the EU). Before the EU and even now, similar business-friendly arrangements have been made amongst European and even Asian countries without any EU government involvement.

So the EU is evil, but also the EU doesn't matter, because rich people will move their businesses to China anyway?

The EU and later on the Euro destroyed the sovereignty of individual nations (now only nations by name only for traditions' sake),

People elect both their local governments and the European parliament. Their local governments nominate the European government and it also has to be approved by the European parliament. And that government has very limited powers to begin with. The EU didn't destroy our sovereignty any more than the administrator of a condominium destroys the flat owners' ownership.

Of course, if member states send into the EU institutions their worst politicians who failed at home, it's a problem. But hardly a fault of the EU.

the Brits were at least smart enough to maintain some of their distance when the Euro came along.

The Brits have, among other things, a religious leader as unelected, unreplaceable Head of State and Lord Spirituals sitting alongside elected members of the Parliament. To each his own.

The EU socialized the losses of its members on a continental scale (Greece etc) while the affluent Western Europe had their middle class evaporate to pay for it and many of those countries (Netherlands, Belgium and France) will soon follow the UK.

The EU budget accounts for 1% of the total taxes paid by European citizens, how can one see its wealth evaporate because of a fluctuation of up to 1% in his expenses? It's globalization what hit the middle class; it has allowed us to pay less for iPhones without automatically giving us back a way to pay for food and housing. But I can hardly see how being a smaller country in the global maket can help fight that.

Plus, this whole "the North paying for the South" subtly racist propaganda is toxic. Britain was the poorest among the big nations when it joined the EEC. Currently, it is France, Italy and Spain who pay for the British rebate and not the other way around.

Re:Don't Panic

[LSD-OBS]

From now on I can never again consider a British subject as an intelligent person. Not after what they have done to themselves.

I'm British and I have been trying to explain exactly the same fucking points as listed by you, but these people really are too stupid to understand what's in their own best interests. What's even worse, most of the people in the Remain camp were themselves too busy breathing through their mouths to actually mount an intellectually sound defense against some of the absolute bullshit proferred by the Leavers.

So I'm kinda with you on this.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Can we get the stats on how many people don't understand placeholder names or the use of personification as a literary technique?

I have never ridden the Clapham omnibus. I've probably never even seen it. And yet, legally, I am the man on it.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Are you referring to a Prussian aristocrat or a dive-bomber?

Re:Don't Panic

[ooloorie]

That will be (pinky to lips) one million pounds in tax revenues.

Re:Don't Panic

[ooloorie]

Can we get the stats on how many people don't understand placeholder names or the use of personification as a literary technique?

You evidently don't, because the reply used the same literary device.

I.e., the TFA used a stupid literary device in order to avoid having to provide the facts, and Ash-Fox echoed that stupid literary device right back.

If you're still too dense to understand it, the actual meaning of the response was: "You're trying to bamboozle people and you don't have any data, that's why you're hiding behind literary devices. If you have any actual data, put it on the table."

Re:Don't Panic

[smallfries]

Helmut struggled for a few years. The culture shock was more than he anticipated, and his slightly autistic traits made it difficult to build the network he needed to launch. He stuck it out for 2 years and 5 months before he quit. In that time living in in the "fintech scene" cost him 123,000 euros (about 5 billion pounds post brexit).

Statistically speaking we should see another 22-year old German fintech chancer in 1.6 years, although it is doubtful they will want to leave the EU. Most probable is a young chap called Boris from Frankfurt.

Re:Don't Panic

[smallfries]

Without access to Japanese wartime records can you really be sure the intersection is empty?

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Various British governments kept slipping extra regulations into EU directives and blaming europe, but those regulations only applied to the UK.

Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

D: Samantha! Samantha! Look at this bally cucumber! It's as bent as a pig's willy! Disgraceful!

S: Well why don't you pass a law that they have to be straight, dear?

D: Don't be silly, they'll laugh at me. And the farmers will gripe about the waste. Flipping mud-bottied oinks.

S: Then get the EU to do it and blame it on the barmy Belgian bureaucrats!

D: Brilliant! More Pimms, darling?

Re:Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

I don't think the EU will be punitive, as I don't think they will need to be. The UK really isn't ready to negotiate an exit (we only have between a dozen and twenty experienced trade negotiators, according to a former top official at the Foreign Office. See EU referendum: Is Britain ready for Brexit?.)

And we won't just be having to negotiate trade deals with the EU, we will now have to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries, where trade deals were previously with the EU.

I think as things progress, there will be a lot of "regrexit" as the true implications sink in. And as for other countries in the EU, I think that watching the struggle the UK will have on leaving will "concentrate minds" wonderfully!

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean Northern Ireland, there is little impetus there to change what people are seeing as peace. Factions on the far sides might want to play it that way but it's basically not going to happen.

Nope, no one wants to change the situation in Northern Ireland. Oh, wait -

"Sinn Fein calls for a referendum on Irish reunification"
"Northern Irish people are scrambling for Irish passports after Brexit"
"Brexit: The same recklessness that has tipped us out of the EU could cause Northern Ireland's departure from UK"

Re:Don't Panic

[Catmeat]

Britain will likely try to join EFTA - European Free Trade Association, currently Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein - TL;DR it's the EU Lite.

This, together with the EU, make up the European Single Market. Free movement of goods, services and people will continue. Though a lot is going to be completely up in the air - reciprocal deals for health care for example.

Re:Don't Panic

[encad]

You only need one who makes it and suddenly he represents many millions of pounds in tax revenue, employment, etc.

And I can live really well with most of them not having any success.

Imho most Fintechs just exist in places with too little financial regulation and oversight, so the fewer of them the better.

They dont really produce something tangible or create great value of service, so from a societal view they are just leeches and we already have regulated banks for that.

Re:Don't Panic

[serviscope_minor]

Oh gosh you've picked on the curved bananas one. It is just tragic how people voted off the depths of such ignorance.

That was a UK law which we persuaded Brussels to apply EU wide, so we could sell our Class I fruit to everyone else without an expensive and tedious re-sorting.

Yeah Europe and its laws are so evil.

Re:Don't Panic

[Invalidator]

That comment is proof how little Americans understand about Europe and the EU.

But anyway: certainly it is in the best interests of the EU and all member states to give the UK all the benefits they want and absolve them of all responsibilities they don't want. That way, they'll set a great model for any other states that also want to leave .

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

He didn't echo anything back and you wouldn't recognise a literary device if it was carved on a flagstone and shoved it up your arse, sideways.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/...

He just asked a dumb question because he's either an over-literal aspie or a troll pretending to be one.

Re:Don't Panic

[serviscope_minor]

Would you care to be the first to detail one of these "absurd EU regulations"?

He's one of slashdot's resident religious libertarians. Basically any law that doesn't directly allow you to shoot trespassers is an "absurd regulation" according to him.

Re:Don't Panic

[serviscope_minor]

TL;DR it's the EU Lite.

Not compared to what we currently have it isn't! Every other country in the EFTA is also in Schengen. Quite possibly what we've just voted to do is join Schengen, and lose our say in a large number of regulations.

Re:Don't Panic

[bothemeson]

The Green Party was consistent in being pro EU. They are generally excluded from the media debates as - (1) the First Past the Post favours the largest parties and the only other party that small is the UKIP - who make far better headlines for the media. (2) The print media are 80% owned by 5 anti-EU individuals who stand to gain more media power in a post-Brexit UK. (3) The UK Civil Service (completely anti-EU) are also very antagonistic towards their communitarian ethos.

Re: Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Didn't Eire pass a law legalising gay marriage recently? That wouldn't happen if they were all raving bead-jigglers. I guess it's mostly old people in the pews these days, cramming for their finals.

Re:Don't Panic

[JaredOfEuropa]

Maybe the "financial disaster" comes from the fact that this Brexit put a giant turd in their double Dutch sandwich or whatever it's called. Some of the tax avoidance schemes are based on tax-free transfers to Cyprus and/or the Netherlands, and when the UK leaves the EU, that will no longer be free.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

No way UK will ever get all those exemptions back if they want to rejoin. Veto powers, keeping the pound, EU tax rebates, and etc. Brexit will not stop the "brown" people from immigrating to the UK and many EU regulations will still apply.

I can see the veto powers and rebates be gone once the UK leaves. The currency is part of the EMU deal and there are other countries that have joined the EU but stayed out of the EMU agreement.

What the "leavers" don't get is that the EU membership is and has always been completely voluntary. Countries join the union because they think that it will actually be beneficial and I believe that it has been.

In a way I think that the Brexit movement serves an important message. By showing to people that the EU isn't something forced upon them and that they can leave if they want to they will have to consider that the current member states are there because they think that it is beneficial to be part of a much larger union.
I don't see any reason to be hard on the UK for leaving. Letting them leave without hassle, and if they so wish at a later date, letting them rejoin will send a strong message.
Countries like Norway and Switzerland that have decided to stay out could very well decide to join if it is clear that having a change of mind isn't the end of the world.
Countries that blame the EU for their own problems will have to consider the downsides and benefits about it for real and perhaps (Not very likely, I know.) realize that the problems they have would be even worse without the union.

Freedom and kindness are strong tools. They could be rough on the person on the other end and not always be what they asked for but they shouldn't be underestimated.

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct headline: "British politician too stupid to buy working toaster, blames EU".

Re:Don't Panic

[JaredOfEuropa]

Exactly what they're saying in Brussels; they are bent on "digging fire corridors" as they call it: make the most dire economic consequences a reality, in order to make an example out of Britain. Thankfully a few national European leaders have already objected and said that the Brexit is to be conducted in an orderly fashion and on friendly terms. Which makes sense: isolating Britain is going to hurt the EU as well, in a big way.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Consumer protection in the UK is actually stronger than the EU mandates, and it's strongly enforced. The equal pay act was passed in 1970, before Britain joined the EEC (or whatever it was called then).

Re:Don't Panic

[jonwil]

What will probably happen is that professionals and skilled migrants (who can demonstrate that they will be earning more than enough money and paying more than enough tax to cover their healthcare and other liabilities) will be allowed in but unskilled labor (the kind that is "taking lobs away from hard working British people") and those who want to come over and do the minimum they need to do to qualify for free treatment of whatever medical problems they have before heading home will be refused entry.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Not the point. People are claiming that all these things (and some of them definitely do exist - the one restricting the power of vacuum cleaners, for example) were basically false flag operations. I'm waiting for evidence of that.

Re: Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

It won't be Juncker (EU Commisssion) having the main say in all this, it will be Merkel and the other national leaders (i.e. EU Council of Ministers), and she has already said that there is 'no need to be nasty'.

Then again, I think the process (and negotiated end result, if any) will be painful enough for the UK without the need for the rest of the EU to be nasty!

Re: Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

He's been ranting on but you never know whether it's him or the booze talking. They don't call him Druncker for nothing.

Re:Don't Panic

[AmiMoJo]

Individual countries are going to be looking out for their own interests. For example, Spain sees this as a great opportunity to get joint sovereignty over Gibraltar. Realistically we won't be able to resist their efforts, because once we are out of the EU they can make the border crossing so slow and painful for non-EU citizens, and depending on the deal we get maybe even require a visa.

Some in the French government are talking about moving the border for Calais back to the UK too. Even if it doesn't happen, it's great leverage. Again, depending on the deal we do, I can't see them wanting to maintain a completely foreign border on their soil.

Re: Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Don't be silly. Bill Gates was younger than that when he started Microsoft.

Er, hang on...

Re:Don't Panic

[Megol]

You assume that there are no advantages to be member of the EU. Even for a "eurosceptic" that is a strange position to take.

The UK will have worse terms in the future, sure. But that's because their current EU terms were very good, partially because the UK is an important part of the European economy and having them as a member would be beneficial for the EU as a whole. But bending over backwards for someone that explicitly said they do not want to be part of the community is foolish. No punitive measures needed - just common sense.

Re:Don't Panic

[ThePhilips]

I've read that EFTA also has membership fees, and in case of UK the sum would be comparable to what UK pays (net amount) now into the EU budget (more than 2Bln pounds).

Re:Don't Panic

[ThePhilips]

Currently, it is France, Italy and Spain [theguardian.com] who pay for the British rebate and not the other way around.

This is misleading. The data simply show what countries would have to pay how much, if Britain didn't have the rebate.

The rebate is already applied on the Island. The rebate money do not flow back to UK - they never leave it in the first place.

Re: Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT smaller bureaucracy ?

This. The claim that the Bureaucrats in Brussels are a burden is absurd. The city of London employs more bureaucrats than the EU so the efficiency of EU bureaucrats to population size is orders of magnitude better.

Re:Don't Panic

[jcr]

these people really are too stupid to understand what's in their own best interests

Or maybe they understand better than you do, that it's a good thing to be able to vote out your legislators if they're fucking you over.

Re:Don't Panic

[jcr]

And why would the EU with 450+ M people give such good deals to the UK ?

Because the UK is a huge market for them.

-jcr

Re:Don't Panic

[iris-n]

I think you are mostly right, except for the part you say that France might want its own deal too. This is unthinkable. The EU is France and Germany. All these regulations that the British wanted to get rid off were championed by the French. Even the Euro was a French idea, rammed down Germany's throat. If France wants out, or wants its special deal, it is the end of the EU.

Re:Don't Panic

[peppepz]

You're right, I forgot that the Lords Temporal aren't elected either. :-)

Re: Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

And the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland has vetoed equal marriage rights in Northern Ireland on three separate occasions now. The other big party in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, is known as a "republican" party, but to compare with US politics, it is more helpful to swap the labels round.

Re:Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

That has happened because the situation in Northern Ireland has changed. One of the main reasons why they wanted Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland is because of the benefits than free trade and an open border with the South would bring. Being fellow members of the EU meant that they could have those benefits while still being part of the UK. After the border was opened, unemployment in Newry, a city close to the border, fell from 30% to 6%, thanks mainly to people from the South visiting the city to go shopping, and businesses being able to export their goods much more easily to the South.

Re:Don't Panic

[peppepz]

It's more complicated than that. Since apparenty the Northern nations weren't happy to pay for Mrs Thatcher's reimbursement, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark obtained a special exemption, and they pay less for the British rebate. That's why it's up to France, Italy and Spain to pay up.

Re:Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

No it won't. These 22 year old entrepreneurs are the future big employers in the country. Pretty much every big business started out that way.

Re:Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

I was on the No. 88 bus yesterday
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-...

Re:Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

From now on I can never again consider a British subject as an intelligent person. Not after what they have done to themselves.

Please, there were 48% of us who did vote to remain in the EU. Indeed, live in one of the few English councils where the 'Remain' votes were in the majority (Wirral). Also don't forget London, Scotland and Northern Ireland either, where the majority were for 'Remain'.

Also the young generally voted 'Remain' rather than 'Leave'. (I should add that I am in an age range where, as a 'Remain' voter, I was in a minority!)

Re:Don't Panic

[MrKaos]

Not having UK in EU might be a good thing, at least we'd have a lot less of bitching and bickering over nothing.

The leavers in the UK seem to be the 'pompous gits' and I'm wondering if the EU isn't partially releived that the dead weight is gone. It's like being snubbed by one of your favoured friends and seeing their true colours.

Really sad for the UK citizens under 50 though.

Re:Don't Panic

[arkhan_jg]

"the pound is already re-stabilizing and didn't fall that far to start with!"

a) no it isn't
b) 10% isn't a big fall????

It's fallen to the lowest level since 1985. It's the 3rd largest currency fall ever, of any currency. It's twice the fall that happened on 'black wednesday' when we crashed out of the ERM - which caused a whopping recession and soaring interest rates.

The FTSE only stabilised after the Bank of England offered an extra £250 billion - yes, with a b - in liquidity to banks, who were amongst the hardest hit.

And that was ONE day of post referendum trading.

HSBC have said they will move at least 1000 jobs to the EU if the leave the single market. The rescue of Port Talbot - 11,000 jobs - is under threat as potential investors are backing out now due to Brexit. Tech, cars, financial services, and all other sorts companies that rely on exports to the EU are all looking at if they'll be better off in Ireland or Scotland (assuming it leaves the UK) to stay inside the EU single market.

The bonfire of the UK economy has literally only just started. Petrol is going up next week due to the sterling crash, electricity & gas prices will follow, and food prices will be going up soon - we import 40% of it.

Re:Don't Panic

[Kjella]

Remember Norway is more or less an EU member, shares all the benefits and pays in but has no political power in EU. Benefits cost the same whether you are a member or not.

Mostly because politically we were painted in a corner. The politicians were massively in favor of the EU (85% of parliament before the 1993 election, 70% after) but the people refused (52,2% no). Our closest neighbours and trade partners Sweden and Denmark joined, so there was barely anyone else left to trade with and we're not even 1/10th the size of the UK so walking it alone was hopeless. So the politicians made an agreement that formally gave us veto power to everything and in practice none because by then all the EU members had agreed, that way we formally didn't hand over any sovereignty.

The UK is different, people talk as if they must do something. They don't have to be in the EU any more than Canada must join the United States and bend knee to Washington DC. Sure they'll be the little one in the relationship and I'm sure that'll be hard for the "British empire" but they're 61 million people, not 4.3 million as we were back in 1994. Well, maybe less if the UK falls apart but that's still up in the air. In any case, that's enough to stand on their own two feet.

Re:Don't Panic

[mestar]

"Firstly the "absurd" regulation angle is overrated : a lot of what people call absurd regulation were actually industry internal proposed regulation to offer standardization."

Standardization is a weird word to use when you wanted to say "barriers to entry."

Re:Don't Panic

[Ash-Fox]

I genuinely believe it was a stupid literary device and an emotive argument, especially when we're talking fintech.

Re:Don't Panic

[swb]

I think panic angle is manufactured by the media.

To the extent that Brexit challenges the "free" trade mindset, the media represents the transnational corporate community who sees one less free opportunity to arbitrage actual geographic market differences, labor prices and product prices. The media is so closely aligned with these business interests that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The larger part of the panic is the existential panic of the media which is heavily invested in the idealistic politics of the EU, the anti-nationalism, the open borders and free movement and the pro-diversity politics which underlies it. There's also the rational-bureaucratic aspect of it, the kind of heavy, rational, "data" and "fact" based central administration that they admire.

I think the media's political alarms are ringing loudly -- they realize that the vote for Brexit is a vote against the media's long term political agenda and they worry this is the first domino to fall and it will only encourage other political forces also opposed to their agenda, various right wing parties opposed to immigration and in favor of stronger local controls.

I just don't see how Brexit works out to near the panic it's made out to be. The UK isn't physically relocating thousands of miles away and the basic aspects of the UK economy aren't really changing, and to the extent that they will change, the change will take years. The only major losers (and I doubt they ever really lose...) are the transnational corporations and the political advocates of open borders, diversity and central administration.

Re: Don't Panic

[UdoKeir]

Perhaps you're unaware of this, but the upper house of the UK Parliament is unelected. The lords cannot be "voted out". This is in contrast to the EU which is considerably more democratic.

Re:Don't Panic

[AmiMoJo]

Compared to the yen, the pound is down by about 30% since January. The cumulative effect is pretty severe.

Re:Don't Panic

[Barsteward]

Get a grip and some info. We have a VETO on those type of things so its not a problem at all if we don't want it to happen (but we lose that when we leave so EU can do what they like)

Re:Don't Panic

[Barsteward]

oh shit... not more tourists clogging up the place..... :o) - its made my holiday outside of the UK more expensive

Re:Don't Panic

[Barsteward]

the remain responded with facts (and a bit of over egging the pudding) but the small minded people are not really interested in facts, scare mongering headlines are all they read and unfortunately, the right wing papers are too eager to supply. Facts are always lost in a story.

Re: Don't Panic

[Barsteward]

thats not the worst issue as they are supposed to be a "reforming" chamber. Its the fact we have a government that only 30% of the population voted for is the main anti-democratic issue. The coalition was closer to democracy than we have ever had in the last 30 years or so.

Re: Don't Panic

[Samantha Wright]

From the same totally unbiased Russia Today article:

On the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany should substantially increase its defense spending.

Re: Don't Panic

[rossdee]

WTF? Russia was invaded in 1941, so the 70th anniversary would be 2011.

Re:Don't Panic

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

The media has a tendency to turn a birds fart into disaster.

As a proud parrot owner, I can tell you that a bird farting usually means disaster. Whenever she farts, it usually means she has diarrhea. Trying to get that stuff off the carpets is not a joke.

Re:Don't Panic

[Rei]

I think the prevailing sentiment in the EU is that it'll be fine *after* they can get all of these loose ends tied up it'll be a mixed bag (smaller / weaker market, but no more UK hindering everything that they try to do); however, until that point the divorce process is going to create a huge amount of uncertainty.

Re:Don't Panic

[Ed_1024]

And this is one of the reasons why there was a majority vote to leave in the UK. What started as a kind of civil service for the countries of Europe, i.e. there to implement policy agreed and set by those countries, has morphed over the years in a Politburo of unelected wannabe emperors who make rules and decisions with virtually no reference to anyone else.

If you want anyone to blame, Juncker and his pals have to take their share of it. Bureaucracy instead of democracy...

Re: Don't Panic

[jcr]

Perhaps you're unaware that the lords don't get to impose taxes.

-jcr

Re: Don't Panic

[jcr]

This is in contrast to the EU which is considerably more democratic.

That's a baldfaced lie. The European Parliament isn't even allowed to propose legislation.

-jcr

Re:Don't Panic

[pr0nbot]

The prospect of a further 15-20 years of (largely unelected) Conservative rule makes these protections, aka "red tape" / "stifling bureaucracy" / etc, less certain than they would have been under (largely unelected) EU direction.

Re:Don't Panic

[alvinrod]

Also, there's a good deal of money to be made when people are in a panic and selling like crazy.

Re: Don't Panic

[Samantha Wright]

Yeah, they probably meant to write 75th. Not many Nazi invasions in the summer of 1946.

Re:Don't Panic

[michelcolman]

Fortunately they still have a lot of immigrants from India doing entrepreneuring.

Re:Don't Panic

[Computershack]

Norway had to accept Euro schengen zone and many of the EU regulations in which they have no say in. .

http://www.aecr.eu/less-than-1...

Re:Don't Panic

[AmiMoJo]

The UK taking up the Norwegian model would be the best thing for all involved.

The UK gets to keep its free trade with the rest of the EU, and vice versa. We also get to keep freedom of movement.

The UK no longer has a say in the EU, so it can move ahead without one major partner who isn't really committed. The UK will also lose its rebate and other benefits, making the system fairer and increasing its income.

Other right wing parties in the EU will be neutralized as voters see that leaving is pointless, because you end up in more or less the same position as you started but with no influence or control. Thus there is little need for the EU to punish the UK to ensure it doesn't experience further break-up.

UK citizens get to keep most of their rights, especially their human rights which the UK government is just itching to repeal but which are also mandatory for Single Market members. The otherwise inevitable recession might be averted.

Re:Don't Panic

[Rei]

Sure they'll be the little one in the relationship and I'm sure that'll be hard for the "British empire" but they're 61 million people, not 4.3 million as we were back in 1994.

63 million right now. But soon enough they'll be 56-58m; no way Scotland is sticking around after this, and they could possibly lose Northern Ireland, depending on how this goes. The number could drop even lower if they start driving out immigrants. They might end up smaller than Tanzania.

Between the population loss, loss of territorial waters, and the general financial loss as a consequence to BRexit, I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK end up smaller than Italy, Brazil and India. Smaller than France is pretty much guaranteed (and after the recent currency plunge, probably already is so).

Re:Don't Panic

[thegarbz]

The whole "financial disaster" angle is a load of crap, the pound is already re-stabilizing and didn't fall that far to start with!

You do realise the pound is restabilising because banks around the world have frozen currency transactions to the pound? I could convert money into pounds right now if I want to, that leads to a hell of a stable currency.

beyond "UK not subject to absurd EU regulations"

Yet most of the absurd EU regulations that people fear will still be quite relevant to the UK if they want to trade in the EU. They will now be in much the same position as Switzerland and Norway who put up with all the lovely EU regulations but without a voice on the EC.

Re: Don't Panic

[Noah Haders]

If I were EU, I would slap so many tariffs on UK just as a lesson to other EU members of what happens when you leave.

Re:Don't Panic

[thegarbz]

Remain camp were themselves too busy breathing through their mouths to actually mount an intellectually sound defense against some of the absolute bullshit proferred by the Leavers.

This right here should have been a warning sign to all. The summary of the debate so far:

Remain: We have what we have now more or less. Leaving could be better, but could be worse we just don't know and it's risky.
Leave: INDEPENDENCE DAY. Kick out the immigrants. Save squillions of pounds that we can feed into a healthcare system we don't actually believe in (remember who is running this campaign). Fuck the EU. Rise up against those anti-democratic overloards. We're sooo much better than them. Don't listen to experts, we don't need those damn experts. *Froths at the mouth*.

Without any political knowledge or skin in the game, these debates alone should have made people vote remain. If there was a good reason to leave then you wouldn't need all the hyperbole and to some extent blatant lies, and the leave camp should have stood up on it's merits. It didn't.

Re:Don't Panic

[SuricouRaven]

The single biggest issue driving the leave campaign was immigration. If we keep freedom of movement, this issue will not be addressed, so I'm expecting a lot of resistance to that.

Re:Don't Panic

[Rei]

(the second part referring to GDP)

Re:Don't Panic

[SuricouRaven]

It's a good plan.
1. Closer the border.
2. Watch the economy in Gibraltar crumble to nothing. Wait for mass-unemployment.
3. Make the people of Gibraltar an 'offer they can't refuse' - joint control with the UK, or else poverty.

Re:Don't Panic

[SuricouRaven]

The vacuum cleaner regulation applied only to domestic vacuum cleaners, and the power limit was very generous. It was to combat the issue of manufacturers building deliberately inefficient appliances to inflate their power figures - because customers are idiots, and will buy a 2500W vacuum cleaner because it has a really big number.

Re: Don't Panic

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

This is naive, to put it politely. Ask Norway. They are not in the EU, and yet have to comply with the "absurd EU regulations" (whatever those might be) if they want to place their product on the EU market. It's just that they don't have the right to vote on them. Swell. Besides, the GB is a part of the EU for a LONG time already. GB voted on those "absurd regulations" just as well. Now whining about them is dishonest populism. Think about something else: just how easy-peasy do you think will it be for the GB to negotiate good contracts with the EU? It took Swiss 8 years (!!!), and that was without everybody and their dogs being pissed at them. Oh, and Swiss had a lot to offer. GB much less so. So yes, the elderly and the rurals in the GB just royally screwed their country. Maybe also the EU as a such. No investor in their right mind will put their money in the GB for quite some time.

Re:Don't Panic

[blogagog]

You sound like you think GB being free from the EU is a bad thing. Sure, it's bad for large corporations that depend upon regulations to stifle startups. But other than that, everyone wins.

Re:Don't Panic

[serviscope_minor]

You need to produce proof that it was the UK that originated it.

Ah so do you promise to recant your position if I provide proof that it was held based on incorrect facts? I'm not going to waste my time if the answer is "no".

P.S. I wasn't eligible to vote.

Typical nutjob: you're not actually able to read. I know you're not eligible, which is why I worded what I said to say that you're merely representative of the astonishing stupidity here not actually an example of it.

Re: Don't Panic

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

You do understand the difference between laws and regulations, right? http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Re:Don't Panic

[ooloorie]

He just asked a dumb question because he's either an over-literal aspie or a troll pretending to be one.

You're evidently talking about yourself there.

Re: Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not real negotiations. The eu will put down some pieces of papers and brits will sign them. Thats all really.

Re: Don't Panic

[guruevi]

The Dutch natives, like the French, Belgian and British natives are getting fed up with European law though. NL had great freedom of information laws, when companies like the RIAA pushed for anti-piracy taxation on media, the Dutch said "ok, but then copying music on them is legal". The EU recently destroyed that exception in favor of the media industry.

That is just one example, the EU has been overthrowing a lot of legal culture (legalized squatting, immigration requirements and limits, taxation on foreign businesses, copyright, patents, even drug laws) in an effort to make an all-powerful federal-style government instead of a UN-style role it originally was going to be.

Re:Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

OK, John Lewis was 28 when he opened his first shop.

Re:Don't Panic

[LSD-OBS]

The thread was *literally* about the fact that people voting have no idea what the outcome of their vote means, and this is what you come up with?

Fucksakes. Way to illustrate perfectly the intellectual level of the debate.

Re:Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

What benefits were there to being a member of the EU, relative to being a member of the EEC? What did the EU bring that wasn't already basically in place with just the EEC?

Note that whilst I am not a citizen of an EU country, I've been traveling to and in Europe for 25 years. And pre-EU, I had freedom of movement. Post-EU, the same thing. And the ONLY time I had a surprise "passport inspection" on an international train (Paris to Brussels) was in 1999, after the EU was created (we stopped in the middle of nowhere, several police got on board and asked to see everyone's passport. They departed at the next tiny nowhere stop with 2 men in handcuffs).

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Cameron wasn't against the idea of a EU army, he said he'd support it as long as other countries paid their fair share towards it. Understandable since we have a higher military budget.

Very good reason to leave IMO, along with the democratic argument.

Re:Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yep, best to retaliate against an economy bigger than France, twice the size of Spain, bigger than all in Europe save Germany. That'll show them! After all, the UK only imports 7% of France's exports. 10% of Germany's exports. 7.3% of Spain's exports. 9% of the Dutch exports. Yep, throw up those regulations and tariffs and put one of your top trading partners on notice. That'll show them!

Re:Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

The UK never had Shengen in the first place, why would they have to have it now?

Re:Don't Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the UK needs the EU more than the opposite based on market size alone. The EU does not have to go soft on the UK and send a clear message to its members.

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Switzerland, one of the EU's wealthiest economies with a very strong economy voted to leave Schengen in 2014. And it's outside of the EU. And it just said last week that it's no longer interested in joining the EU.

And France rejected the EU, And The Netherlands rejected the EU. And Iceland ripped up it's EU application.

This institution is the institution that gave us TTIP, the treaty that would give corporations the right to sue any EU government that introduces legislation that effects it's profits even when that government is legislating to protect workers rights or the environment or public services or food standards. When did I ever get to vote for them?

Re: Don't Panic

[An dochasac]

I'm claiming Irish citizenship through a reverse agreement. Anyone born on the island before 2005 can claim it. On a darker note, I didn't say it would bring peace. If anything it will inflame tensions in NI. Source : From NI

You'd better check your sources. Ireland's Citizenship referendum ended Irish citizenship by birth in 2005 after a campaign reminiscent of UKIP's xenophobic frothing at the mouth. Tax-funded RTE and the Irish newspapers played up rumors of hundreds of "non-national" anchor babies being born in Dublin airport every day, just as state media, BBC decided to report scary UK immigration statistics on election day. Contrary to popular belief, public funding of broadcasting doesn't magically make it less biased than the US corporate-owned media, the BBC used TV licenses from white and non-white British citizens to fund shows such as George Mitchell's Black and White Minstrel show until the late 1970s.

Ireland's citizenship referendum didn't do as much damage as the Brexit vote because sensible heads in Dáil Éireann interpreted that populist vote as slightly less tyranny of the majority than the majority would have preferred. A grandfather rule allowed parents of Irish born children born before 2005 to have the equivalent of a dodgy green card, with expensive renewals every three years via a chaotic and draconian bureaucracy, proof that we are supporting ourselves and proof that we had not committed ANY crimes (we had to submit documentation of any parking tickets and speeding fines.) This was not citizenship, it was limbo and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If you've found a short-cut to Irish citizenship, don't tell the others who've wasted years, spent thousands of Euro and presented their first born child (I kid you not.) They will tell you to get to the back of the queue.

Let's hope Britain's parliament has as much courage to do the right thing despite what mob democracy prescribes. Referendums would have kept institutionalized slavery and segregation well into the 21st century.

Re: Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

The UK is typically one of the top-3 export destinations for goods and services from Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, etc. Yes, wise to slap massive tariffs on someone who single-handedly consumes 9% (or more) of your total exports. Start a trade war with one of your top-3 trading partners - great!

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

because once we are out of the EU they can make the border crossing so slow and painful for non-EU citizens,

I don't believe you thought that through, what would happen to Spains tourism?

I'd be a really good example of a country cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

Re: Don't Panic

[hackwrench]

That has nothing to do with whether or not they are.currently acting.in their own best interest and is actually the opposite of what is being argued. They need to become experts in their own self interest and vote accordingly.

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Some financial industry were allowed to be in UK

There's a word for that, it's called protectionism. Not the right way to run an economy.

Re:Don't Panic

[Ol Olsoc]

Cameron wasn't against the idea of a EU army, he said he'd support it as long as other countries paid their fair share towards it. Understandable since we have a higher military budget.

Very good reason to leave IMO, along with the democratic argument.

As well, when the next European War starts, it can be against nations rather than a civil war. And before someone marks me as troll, the history of Europe is full of them killing each other. I suspect after the EU eventually collapses, it will happen again.

Re:Don't Panic

[Ol Olsoc]

The media has a tendency to turn a birds fart into disaster.

As a proud parrot owner, I can tell you that a bird farting usually means disaster. Whenever she farts, it usually means she has diarrhea. Trying to get that stuff off the carpets is not a joke.

I always thought that was a parrot's version of Rocket Assisted Take Off.

Re: Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

Then shouldn't we stay and try and reform it? I have no problem with giving the European Parliament more power. I also don't have a problem with electing our commissioners. Interestingly, neither of these reforms were proposed by Cameron.

However, I think neither of these would have been acceptable to those in the 'leave' camp. In the end, any 'lack' of democracy wasn't the issue. They just wanted 'out'.

Re:Don't Panic

[Dunbal]

the history of Europe is full of them killing each other.

The history of the WORLD is about people killing each other. Over politics. Fashion. Religion and worshiping the wrong god. Worshiping the right god in the wrong way. Speaking a funny language. Etc. Saying that Europe has a history of killing each other can't be used as a logical argument for anything, since that's pretty much the base state of all humanity anyway.

Re: Don't Panic

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm claiming Irish citizenship through a reverse agreement. Anyone born on the island before 2005 can claim it. On a darker note, I didn't say it would bring peace. If anything it will inflame tensions in NI. Source : From NI

You'd better check your sources. Ireland's Citizenship referendum ended Irish citizenship by birth in 2005 after a campaign reminiscent of UKIP's xenophobic frothing at the mouth.

The real reason was Family Guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

(Peter meets his Irish Father)

Re: Don't Panic

[Noah Haders]

U.K. Is still in nato, and is bound by article XI of the nato charter help out any other member.

Re:Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." (Yeats).

Re: Don't Panic

[Dunbal]

Operation Barbarossa - launched June 22nd 1941. Almost exactly 75 years ago to the day. But RT made a typo. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater because of a typo. After all Russia Today must be TOTALLY biased because it makes typos. Nobody else makes typos.

Re: Don't Panic

[Dunbal]

Except maybe in Paraguay...

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Switzerland has voted to control immigration, EU had a hissy fit.

Re:Don't Panic

[Sesostris III]

... But other than that, everyone wins.

Not the young, who apparently quite like the ability to move, study, live and work freely throughout the EU.

Re:Don't Panic

[AmiMoJo]

Tourists have to enter Spain once per holiday. If it takes 30 minutes, it's no big deal, just annoying.

Many British citizens living in Gibraltar need to enter Spain five times a week or more for work. That's why there was such a massive remain vote. Spain has already tried delaying entry and it was extremely effective, but couldn't last because of EU rules. If the UK leaves the rules no longer apply, and Gibraltar is screwed.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Now this --^ is trolling, The lords do not typically initiate legislation, the commons does.

The EU OTOH is not democratic what-so-ever, we can vote for MEPs who are the least powerful people in the EU with the Commission being the most powerful, but of course we can't vote for the Commission.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

And how much of the UK population voted for the Commission?

Re:Don't Panic

[Kohath]

For predicting what people might decide to do in the future? It's about as good as any of the other varieties of guessing. If you have a 100% certain method of predicting the future, please post it here.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

I'm 'leave camp' and it's pretty obvious that the Commission would not choose democracy. The EEC was told to come up with a more democratic constitution / treaty. It didn't.

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

65 million now!! The population has been rising fast!

Re:Don't Panic

[blogagog]

They've been able to move, study, live and work freely throughout the EU since the 1950s. That won't change. Take a look at Norway, for example. Something that WILL change is the amount of dole that will be available to them. It remains to be seen whether it will go up or down though.

Re:Don't Panic

[Enigma2175]

As a proud parrot owner, I can tell you that a bird farting usually means disaster. Whenever she farts, it usually means she has diarrhea. Trying to get that stuff off the carpets is not a joke.

How you differentiate bird shit from bird diarrhea? It seems like they would be pretty much the same.

Re:Don't Panic

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

Parrots and cockatoos tend to have pretty solid excrement. When they have something akin to diarrhea it's all over the place...

Re:Don't Panic

[Dunbal]

The skids have been greasing for a long time. However unlike what Jean Claude Jucker and his massive ego proposes, I don't believe for one minute that it's the "EU" that has prevented another European catastrophe. Minor other points like perhaps NATO, nuclear weapons and the promise of mutually assured destruction have had much, MUCH more influence and will continue to do so.

In fact one could argue that the EU which was already well underway in the 1990's did nothing to prevent say, the Balkan crisis... again NATO fixed that problem. And NATO will continue to fix problems. Because NATO is stronger than any single European nation. It is the proverbial club to beat the rest back into line, when it's not pretending that the Russians are coming.

Re: Don't Panic

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

SUN also seems to disagree with your view (now it does, it was the prominent proponent of leave): http://indy100.independent.co....

Re: Don't Panic

[bestweasel]

The northern Irish vote was more or less split between the Catholic counties who wanted to stay in the EU so the border with their brethren in the Republic of Ireland would stay open and the Protestants who want to stay with England no matter what.

Re:Don't Panic

[Rei]

Then again, if you want figures newer than the 2011 census, then you need figures newer than that for other countries as well ;)

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

Do they all have 5 years experience in entrepreneuring 3.2 even though it only came out last week?

Re:Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

The UK was never PART of the EU - that's the point! They exempted themselves from many aspects, including the EU's redefinition of "freedom of movement". That won't change. The UK was never a full participant and always required proof of identity and travel ON DEMAND. It often didn't demand it - but could, because it reserved the right by not being a signatory to the Schengen agreement.

Re:Don't Panic

[Hognoxious]

There are about 55,000 articles on teh interwebs referring to "the next Bill Gates". Are they speculating about what Mr & Mrs Gates of Burgsville Idahoma will call their eagerly awaited bundle of joy or are they saying, in a roundabout way, "the next big tech entrepreneur"?

Re:Don't Panic

[LynnwoodRooster]

OK, name the benefits. What benefits arose from the EU that were not already being realized with the prior EEC?

Re:Don't Panic

[Ash-Fox]

That's nice, dear.

Re: Don't Panic

[The Wannabe King]

The Commission is invested by, and can be dismissed by, the democratically elected European Parliament. Sure, the Parliament could have been given wider powers, but that would make the EU more like a federation, and that was unpopular in many countries, including the UK.

Re: Don't Panic

[The Wannabe King]

The Commission was voted in by the EU Parliament where the UK has (had?) its fair share of votes. You don't directly elect the UK Cabinet either.

Re:Don't Panic

[lordholm]

You again... can't you even get simple things right?

Switzerland, one of the EU's wealthiest economies with a very strong economy voted to leave Schengen in 2014. And it's outside of the EU. And it just said last week that it's no longer interested in joining the EU.

Switzerland did not vote to leave Schengen, the voted to abolish the freedom of movement parts of their association agreement with the EU. That agreement granted access to the common market and provided freedom of movement to EU citizens to go to Switzerland and Swiss to go to the EU and work.

And France rejected the EU, And The Netherlands rejected the EU. And Iceland ripped up it's EU application.

France and the Netherlands rejected the constitutional treaty, not the EU. They didn't want a constitution so we do not have one now. The result is that we keep on with amending treaty after treaty.

Note that there are significant differences between the constitutional treaty and Lisbon. For one thing the symbol part is gone, for another thing the constitutional treaty removed the "ever closing union" part which forms the basis for a lot of case law from the ECJ. In my opinion, the removal of that clause was enough to reject the constitutional treaty as it was written.

Iceland did cancel their application, I think this was the only thing you wrote that was actually correct.

This institution is the institution that gave us TTIP, the treaty that would give corporations the right to sue any EU government that introduces legislation that effects it's profits even when that government is legislating to protect workers rights or the environment or public services or food standards. When did I ever get to vote for them?

TTIP is not yet finalised and is the product of a request from Obama to have such treaty. Likely, in its current form, it will be rejected by the Council of Ministers and the EP (using majority voting), the Council of Ministers is controlled by member state parliaments, and they can mandate that the minister votes in a certain way. There are certain problems with the TTIP, but virtually all international treaties gives effected legal persons the right to sue governments or use an arbitration court to settle issues when one party violates the treaty and causes financial harm. Note that such law suites / arbitration procedures are only if the treaty provisions are violated. Any other legislative act that causes financial harm is not subject to such court proceedings.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

You don't directly elect the UK Cabinet either.

The Cabinet is made up of elected MPs.

The Commission is still a quango, people who were not elected by EU citizens put in to positions that are unaccountable to the PEOPLE of the EU.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Democracy is not democracy if it isn't direct. If I did not get to vote for these people ever then that is not democracy. I don't care if some politician chose somebody, that's not democracy because I can't vote the person out if they don't represent me.

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

Switzerland did not vote to leave Schengen, the voted to abolish the freedom of movement parts of their association agreement with the EU.

Schengen is the freedom of movement parts.

The EU Constitution got a few words changed they renamed it to the Lisbon Treaty, it's pretty much the same thing. that's what they mostly voted against, they weren't asked again. - how many people in the EU were asked if they agreed with it? I certainly didn't? Extremely undemocratic.

The reason The Commission keeps hitting us with crap like TTIP is because they are not democratically accountable. I'm starting to think we need to give politicians 12 month terms in this fast moving world because they're not paying attention to the electorate.

Re:Don't Panic

[serviscope_minor]

The UK never had Shengen in the first place, why would they have to have it now?

We managed to negotiate a very special deal as a member of the EU. We're leaving and renegotiating. What makes you think they're going to give us a better deal than the rest of EFTA?

Re:Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

TTIP is not yet finalised and is the product of a request from Obama to have such treaty. Likely, in its current form, it will be rejected by the Council of Ministers and the EP (using majority voting), the Council of Ministers is controlled by member state parliaments, and they can mandate that the minister votes in a certain way. There are certain problems with the TTIP, but virtually all international treaties gives effected legal persons the right to sue governments or use an arbitration court to settle issues when one party violates the treaty and causes financial harm. Note that such law suites / arbitration procedures are only if the treaty provisions are violated. Any other legislative act that causes financial harm is not subject to such court proceedings.

TTIP is nasty shit, corporations have tried to put in 'treaty provisions' that basically say their profits can't be affected by new laws. It seems like you're trying to defend this crap.

Re:Don't Panic

[lordholm]

Schengen is about traveling, not working in another member state. Schengen is not the same as freedom of movement, it is the zone that does not check passports on border crossings. There are actually two such zones in the EU, the Schengen zone and the common travel area (which includes Ireland and the UK). The freedom of movement is another thing which means that you have the right to move to another country and _work_ there.

Any EU citizen can move to Ireland or the UK (well for another couple of years at least), even if those two member states are outside of Schengen. That is freedom of movement.

If any person _travels_ from one Schengen member to another one, there will be no passport checks. You drive over the border and only see a sign saying "Welcome to XYZ". That is Schengen.

As an example, some years ago, I moved to the UK and lived there for about 2 years. When moving to the UK, I exercised the right to freedom of movement to work in the UK, but I still had to show a passport when entering the UK as the UK is not in Schengen.

Re:Don't Panic

[lordholm]

There are several issues, one is the secrecy of the talks. This is never good as secrecy will mean that fewer eyes look at it, which leads to bugs, and it prevents a public debate on the issues being discussed, I am not defending TTIP as such, there are some clauses that have been proposed that are very questionable from my perspective.

I am however defending the ratification process which is reasonable. Also the fact that you can file for arbitration is reasonable, as any type of law must be enforceable in some way (and treaties are law).

Re: Don't Panic

[Dunbal]

You do realize I cited the article from Die Welt too, right? Except since it was in German, most people would have trouble with the translation. But I guess you're one of those people who thinks that news becomes tainted if it hasn't passed through Mr. Murdoch's hands.

Re:Don't Panic

[PeonPete]

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Paypal didnt create anything of value??? The vast majority of fintech innovation is coming out of the US and UK, with Australia (here) starting to build up a head of steam.

Re:Don't Panic

[adhdengineer]

The situation here hasnt changed that much tho. If there were a referendum for a united ireland tomorrow the vote would still fall fairly neatly down the old tribal lines. I don't think there are many protestants that would vote for it. It may have affected the catholic vote that would have voted against the united ireland, believing they had the best of both worlds, but i've never seen any data on the % of catholics that would vote against a united ireland so it's hard to quantify...
But no-one has told me yet who's going to pay the £9 billion quid that the north gets from the UK government over and above the tax income.
In short the south can't afford a united ireland unless it's bank rolled by the EU, and if we do end up leaving the EU then they'll be £8.5 billion quid in the red already.
Same problem with the scots, tho they can fuck off for all I care. Especially if it stops them winging on.

Re: Don't Panic

[The Wannabe King]

You get to vote directly for the people with the power to invest and dismiss the Commission, just like you can vote for MPs with the same powers towards the Cabinet. Being a member of the House of Commons is not a requirement for being appointed to the Cabinet, so you haven't necessarily voted for the Cabinet member either. (Non-MPs can, and have recently been, named peers to join the Cabinet.) In other countries being a member of the national assembly is not a requirement to join the Government, so you can't expect the entire EU to follow something that may only be done in the UK.

Finally, commissioners are appointed by their respective governments (who answer to their respective parliaments). If you want the commissioners to be drawn from the EU Parliament, EU would have to change from being a cooperation between sovereign European states primarily represented by their governments (as is usual in international affairs) to a European federated state where final power rests in the federal EU Parliament. That may be viewed as more democratic (I don't agree, though), but I think few Europeans want to go that far now.

Re:Don't Panic

[adhdengineer]

we pay 8.5 billion net.

Re:Don't Panic

[ThePhilips]

In 2013. In 2014 the figure is different and it is counted differently, and the budget/spendings underwent change.

As written here:

2014 was the first year under the new MFF for 2014-2020, which contains lower overall figures than the preceding spending plan. The weight of regional spending and research and development gradually increases until 2020, while the share of agriculture decreases year on year, unlike under the previous MFF where it was the biggest spending area. This change is reflected already in 2014, with regional and agricultural resources on par with 42% of the budget.

Re: Don't Panic

[jcr]

So, if they disagree with you, it's just because they don't know as much as you do about where their self-interest lies.

I'm curious: does your supercilious contempt for the people around you serve you well in your daily life?

-jcr

Re:Don't Panic

[jonbryce]

Last time there was a survey on it, about 52% of Catholics would have voted against a United Ireland. 6% of Protestants would have voted in favour of it.

Re: Don't Panic

[MrL0G1C]

It's simple, voting for someone and that someone putting their mate into a position that is actually more powerful than their own is not democratic.

Voting for someone who can then be voted out is just about democratic, more democratic is voting directly on policies.

Once you introduce a degree of separation you destroy the democratic element. This is clearly shown by the Commissioners not giving a **** what we think. If the EU was democratic then would would give a fuck.

Re:Don't Panic

[balbeir]

So, what are the chances that the backpedaling gains so much momentum that we never get to the UK invoking article 50 ?

Re:Don't Panic

[rolandw]

As a mentor at a London based start-up school in the last few years I have seen a rapid shift to the brightest and most innovative new wannabie entrepreneurs coming to London from other EU memberstates rather than from the UK - at least attending our school. They have good ideas and plenty of determination and significantly out do most of the home grown people.

Re:Don't Panic

[DarenN]

Yeah, but the flip side is that the EU cannot really give the UK a sweetheart deal - the best deal on the table will have to be a Norweigan style EEA membership, otherwise the benefits of being in the EU are non-obvious.

Re: Don't Panic

[DarenN]

Smaller. Beureaucracy.....

There are 55,000 eurocrats working for the commission (source). There are 60,000 in Birmingham alone (according to the same link) and for the UK as a whole there were 405,573 in 2015 according to the UK's own statistics.

The UK joined the EU as an economic basket case in 1973, and its trajectory since has been largely upward. This simple fact was lost in the debate. In every way, the UK is more prosperous now than it was then. Obviously, this is an aggregate and some areas have faced particular hardships, the older mining areas in particular but that was nothing to do with Brussels and everything to do with internal politics. The NHS funding issues are nothing to do with migrants and everything to do with the current government attempting to cut back. The migrant integration issues have almost nothing to do with EU migrants, and nearly all the problems occur because of immigration from former imperial holdings like Pakistan and (to a lesser extent) India. The European Court of Human Rights (a particular bugbear of the Daily Mail) is not related to the EU, it predated the EU and the UK is still subject to it.

The leave arguments were trivially debunkable but very emotive, and the remain arguments were basically putting a sheet over their head and saying "woooooo, scary". It really doesn't help that the UK government (and they're not alone in this) spent the last 40 years justifying every single unpopular decision by claiming that the EU made them do it. They are reaping what they sowed, and we can only hope that 1973 isn't their destination.

Re:Don't Panic

[DarenN]

The commissioners are nominated by the governments, the councils of ministers still have most of the power and there are more civil servants in Birmingham than Brussels.

Re: Don't Panic

[Samantha Wright]

The typo was never the issue; it was the non-sequitur of mentioning World War II. It's generally regarded as pretty darn insensitive to imply that the Germany of today has spiritual continuity with the Nazis.

Blown way out of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

Every bit of damage done now is self inflicted. The UK is still the UK. No country has refused to do business with them. People who are panicking shouldnt be in the finance industry. This is going to make the people who invest very rich when everyone realizes what dumb dumbs they were for dumping their shares.

Re:Blown way out of proportion

[Cederic]

Prices are still higher than two weeks ago. The media focus on the markets plummetting is sensationalist rather than informative.

After two days,

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where slashdot stands on the issue

Re: After two days,

[Bing Tsher E]

Right now you're experiencing a Slashdot thread dominated by the European time zones. Most regular USian Slashdotters are still sleeping in on Sunday morning.

UK Tech Sector?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a joke?

Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Anonymous Coward]

has zero people born in the UK and about sixty people born in the EU, this is going to hurt. The UK economy is driven by people that are not from the UK, even if the vast majority of the the people driving the economy aren't from the UK.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, when someone anonymously posts something that's completely unverifiable, I'm going to assume it must be true. Sure I will. Starting... now.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ledow]

I can't share the exact quote with you, but my girlfriend is a Dr in a London hospital department. Her lab basically tells you if you have cancer if you are one of the millions of people who live in or around London.

In her department, which requires high-end medically-skilled professionals, her boss posted after Brexit. The basic gist was "Don't worry, everyone, your cancer diagnosis will still be safe in the hands of our department consisting almost entirely of Spanish, Italian, German, French, Polish, Greek, ...... personnel for the time being".

Throughout the NHS the picture is the same. Majority EU and then Non-UK workers. Or universities. Almost all the major universities have majority non-UK lecturers and professors (which actually means something here - a professor is a much higher grade of personnel than in the US, you'll be incredibly lucky to meet a professor outside of academia).

And it's not just as simple as "things will carry on". My girlfriend came over as an EU citizen. She has "leave to remain", so she can stay and live and work in the UK. But to get permanent citizenship, she would have to marry or go through a lengthy immigration process (including a stupid test asking questions about kings and queens that I, as a natural Brit, would be baffled by). Coming out of the EU could revoke that leave to remain. Nobody's sure at the moment and we only have two years to work that out.

If that's taken away, or the paperwork involved in heinous, or even if the process that's required is overwhelmed by all the EU people working in the UK suddenly applying to stay here, then you have quite a situation that is an awful lot of effort to sit through. And they are already disgusted and feeling unwanted because of the Brexit vote.

It's like a state voting itself out of the USA. Imagine how you'd feel as the out-of-state worker who's just been voted against, made to feel unwelcome, contemplating being in a "foreign" state, and may have to jump through all kinds of hoops to carry on your normal life that you've had for YEARS.

We're going to lose an awful lot of talent, from students coming to our universities to the lecturers teaching them, from the waitresses on minimum wages to the doctors earning a fortune. And there's no way that it will become a zero-paperwork process for any of the above, which just adds costs and hassle.

We're now basically a foreign country. If you're American you may not understand that - do you have automatic right to live in any other country in the world? Because before the vote, we have had that guaranteed for decades. We can just up sticks, go to Sweden and start up a life like anyone else, without even bothering with paperwork or visas.

We've (potentially) just thrown that in the bin, which means a lot of people who found that convenient and wanted to live in Britain are now unwelcome and may be forced to leave, or put under such scrutiny that they decide to go to one of the other dozens of countries just 30 miles away, where they don't have any of that hassle.

Watch the NHS, education, and the large businesses. They're all about to suffer, even if they don't immediately collapse.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ThePhilips]

Well, he is kinda making the Leavers point. His office in the UK has 60 people in it, and not a one is a local person. The entire office is foreign-born. It doesn't get more "they took our jobs" than that.

The counter-argument would be: how many of the unemployed UK citizens could take the positions?

At the peek of unemployment in Germany 15 years ago, they did a research and found that while there were 1.5M unemployed, there ware also around 2.5M open positions. Almost no one out of the unemployed could take the positions because they lacked qualification and/or education. That research was more or less the final nail in the coffin of Germany's pervasive and very popular anti-immigration policies of the past.

The irony is, back then, the Germany was the main opponents of the free worker movement in EU - while the UK was actually an ardent proponent who talked Germany into it.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[blind biker]

I can't share the exact quote with you, but my girlfriend is a Dr in a London hospital department. Her lab basically tells you if you have cancer if you are one of the millions of people who live in or around London.

In her department, which requires high-end medically-skilled professionals, her boss posted after Brexit. The basic gist was "Don't worry, everyone, your cancer diagnosis will still be safe in the hands of our department consisting almost entirely of Spanish, Italian, German, French, Polish, Greek, ...... personnel for the time being".

This is proof of class warfare at its best (worst): the financial elites have figured out that paying for highly skilled personnel educated in Britain was too expensive. It is much better to import highly educated but cheaper labor from abroad. Incidentally, Britain used to have effectively free higher education a couple of decades ago, but the same financial elites (who hold the real power, including political) decided that such social benefits are now unnecessary, since labor from abroad comes pre-educated.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Kjella]

For the UK it's "easy", they make their own rules now. I doubt they'll make up any fuss about getting tourist/work/study visas, permanent residence might get harder though. That is, if you lose your current job or your studies are over you might have to go back to your home country. But they might grant some grandfather clause saying if you're already here you can stay until you choose to move, if ever. If push comes to shove though and she's still your girlfriend in two years, make as much or as little as you will of it but give her a ring.

The other way is far more uncertain, the EU bureaucracy is not going to jump through hoops to help UK citizens in EU countries. They might find themselves at the back of the line with the same requirements as someone from America, Africa or Asia. So I'd be far more worried if you were in an EU country and your girlfriend came from the UK. I suppose there's a chance that if the EU plays hardball the UK will feel a need to respond in kind, but hopefully by then the ruffled feathers will have settled so they can come to some reasonable agreement.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ledow]

And yet the population of Britain hasn't grown that much past projections since 1970.

Under EU employment law, we actually DO discriminate on language skills. That's another "absolute bollocks" rumour. Doctors and qualified medical professionals - and especially those from outside the UK - are required to sit tests or demonstrate competency on this exact requirement, in fact. The EU does not affect that at all, and certainly the French would be up in arms against such a law first as they are much more protective of their language.

Agreed on the welfare support, however, but that's not a problem that Brexit fixes. As you say, many other EU countries do just what we need to do.

But if a migrant worker can do a qualified or professional job, pay tax, get paid and still have enough send enough home, who the hell are we to get in their way or say they shouldn't be in the country? Freeloaders, yes, but again, why are "British" freeloaders okay but "EU" ones not? Get rid of them all by changing welfare criteria.

It's possible the UK will recognise my girlfriend as a citizen, but it's by no means guaranteed. The guarantee that existed as an EU member is gone. That affects career decisions. If she gets offered a job back in her home country, it's going to be taken account of. The problem, again, is not the EU or lack of it. It's the complete lack of any official statement, or clear process, to solve the problem.

You could announce THIS SECOND that all current workers in certain sectors would be given permanent leave to remain. But they haven't. Such confusion is going to lose workers as offers change each side of the Channel in the next two years.

Delay, confusion and uncertainty is what we've voted for, over stability, clarity and ALWAYS still having the option of negotiating or leaving at a later date. Exiting is - for the next generation at least - a one way trip.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ThePhilips]

[...] are you telling me you won't reinvest in training one of your own to take the job as opposed to letting in a foreigner?

That's what Germany did. In addition to relaxing the stance on immigration, they did reform the education system, introduced subsidies for reeducation of employed, and free education for unemployed.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Not to mention the UK was never part of the Schengen Agreement, so freedom of movement was NOT guaranteed in the first place...

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[LynnwoodRooster]

The UK was never a part of the Schengen agreement and thus did not have the freedom of movement that exists in the rest of the EU. There won't be any change in immigration in the UK as a result - because there was no EU regulations over immigration in the first place.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[cardpuncher]

Unfortunately, they'll have to put up with more of this. Mind you, there must be something wrong with your recruitment policy - the world is full of Geordie exiles who've had to move to find work and are desperate to get back hoome...

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Kohath]

Why do people make up stories like this about the future? You don't know the future. Stop pretending to yourself and everyone else that you do.

Watch the NHS, education, and the large businesses. They're all about to suffer, even if they don't immediately collapse.

I guess people thought the benefits to these institutions weren't worth the costs. Empathy for the people bearing those costs might have helped.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ledow]

Technically every story about the future is made-up.

However, I just said "watch". That means "Observe and/or see if I'm right".

Higher education is funded by foreign students paying to study at a UK university. That's much harder if the EU students can't live here automatically but have to go through any kind of process. Those people teaching them are also, a vast proportion, non-UK citizens (with leave to remain). Their lives just got harder too, especially if they are sending taxed money home.

The problem is that 48% of "people" didn't believe that. If 48% of people didn't like broccoli, would we just stop eating it across the world? That's far too low a "minority" to base a huge decision on, and so quickly and completely into a one-way journey.

The people bearing the costs of the NHS, education and business are - everyone. Immigrants included.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Kohath]

Ok, but you missed the empathy part. You're arguing your side without acknowledging the other side. They're people, just like you.

The needs of NHS, education, and big business don't automatically outweigh everything else. And if, as you say, these institutions are largely made up of non-UK people, you shouldn't expect a government established for the benefit of UK-people to represent those institutions as well as you'd like.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Kohath]

Thanks. That's exactly what I mean by stories about the future. We don't know. We shouldn't pretend we do.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[LynnwoodRooster]

The Schengen agreement predates the EU. By about a decade. That's not going to change.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This is proof of class warfare at its best (worst): the financial elites have figured out that paying for highly skilled personnel educated in Britain was too expensive. It is much better to import highly educated but cheaper labor from abroad.

So the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani dentist would consider to be prosperity. Humanity still wins, doesn't it?

The British are still a class unto themselves. Given the fact that your place of birth predicts your income more than most things, I don't see why one should cry about talented people from elsewhere having a shot at a decent life.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[ledow]

Marrying your first cousin in legal in the UK. Always has been.

Europe taking immigrants from outside Europe? Not really a Brexit issue, not directly. We will still have the same problem.

And swarms flooding in? The population is barely around predictions of the same made in the 1970's. We're not "swarmed" anywhere. At all. But observer bias, and all that.

But what really shows me I'm wasting my time is that you've linked to an anti-Muslim article as an example of why Britain should get out of the EU on the basis that "immigrants are Muslim" and "Muslims are trouble" (paraphrasing, but that's basically your gist right?)

Re: Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Cederic]

Unless almost all 60 of those are minimum wage call center staff, in which case tax revenues are more than offset by in-work benefits, the costs to the NHS, child support, etc..

Or maybe they're all Indian IT staff, in which case they're paying their own way - but at the same time, helping destroy the British IT industry. I've seen that too often.

Why couldn't they just employ British people and avoid needing to build new housing, expand public services and suffer the congestion caused by a rising population?

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Cederic]

And yet the population of Britain hasn't grown that much past projections since 1970.

"It is estimated that net migration plus births to foreign-born parents has accounted for 85% of UK population growth since 2000." - http://www.migrationwatchuk.or...

Projections or not, migration is very much responsible for population growth, and people just don't want to live in a sardine can packed tight against their neighbours.

Get rid of them all by changing welfare criteria.

Erm. That's what Cameron tried to do earlier this year, and the EU said 'no'.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[Cederic]

You're conflating passport-less travel with the automatic rights to live and work somewhere.

The UK currently supports the EU freedom of movement, while being outside of the Schengen area - although the one land-border between the UK and another EU country does operate indistinguishably from a Schengen border.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[luis_a_espinal]

[...] are you telling me you won't reinvest in training one of your own to take the job as opposed to letting in a foreigner?

That's what Germany did. In addition to relaxing the stance on immigration, they did reform the education system, introduced subsidies for reeducation of employed, and free education for unemployed.

Which is something I will always applaud Germany for. And this is something the UK and us on the other side of the Atlantic should do (but won't because stupidity is our forte.)

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[luis_a_espinal]

You hypocrites crack me up; are you telling me you won't reinvest in training one of your own to take the job as opposed to letting in a foreigner?

Oh please, it's not like folks here are lining up demanding training. For every one that bitchs about not finding a job and wanting their low-value-added jobs coming back from China in their little, economically depressed towns, there is one going to North Dakota and Texas and finding a job there, or learning a new trade and shit.

You are demanding that we train our local talent, and that's great. But that requires some time of government intervention to either provide that type of education, or to coerce private companies to do so. And that has always been a bridge too far to the general voter.

I remember a time when companies would train their employees, specially their white collar ones. No more. And that's purely a function of how people vote. You do not have a right to demand companies to train you (or not replace you with a possibly better educated worker across the world) unless you have a government that gives you that right.

This country has been content producing HS students who can't add fractions and voting for a government-hands-off approach to adult/vocational training (as it exists in Germany or Japan). And then you act surprised when you reap the fruits of that labor and Chinese workers take your job making cheap trinkets.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[hucker75]

So we start using our own people instead of those from other countries. So we start making stuff ourselves instead of importing it. Good.

Re:Considering our office in Newcastle...

[trickyb]

You could announce THIS SECOND that all current workers in certain sectors would be given permanent leave to remain. But they haven't. Such confusion is going to lose workers as offers change each side of the Channel in the next two years.

The current UK government was very strongly "pro-Remain". Now that the country has voted "Leave", they have absolutely no incentive to smooth the transition. Sorry if it sucks for you and your girlfriend, but for a politician, pissing on his/her opponents will always be their utmost priority - even if it harms you, your girlfriend, or even the entire country.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean England, which is the only piece of the UK which will be out of the EU in five years. Scotland will be independent, Northern Ireland will reunite with Ireland, and Gilbraltar will become a self-ruling part of Spain.

From what I can tell

[rsilvergun]

the trouble with Britain and America right now is that there's been 40 years of policy that benefits well educated upper middle class college grads and hurts blue collar workers. The Blue collar guys sucked it down in stride for those 40 years but it sounds like they're at their wits end. They're desperate to do _something_ but they don't know what. They've got a lot of ideology and beliefs that make it hard to go the Scandinavian Socialism route to solve their economic problems and there's no way they can compete on a global stage with slave labor let alone the coming robots. But they've got to do something Britain gets "Brexit" on over here we get Trump.

Not sure about the UK but 20 years ago phone polls would like the upper cast keep tabs on voting patters and focus their political campaigns, but now that everybody has a cell phone and you can't do polling calls to them the old political tricks aren't working. It doesn't do any good to have even unlimited funds if you don't know where to put them and you needed those phone polls to tell you what to do next. So Britain had no idea Brexit was coming (Cameron's resignation showed that) and the US is desperately trying to Stop Trump...

It's gonna get really, really messy from here on out.

Re:From what I can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe for unskilled blue collar workers. Show me a licensed plumbers, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, crane operators, much more without a job and I'll find them a job within a day. -American in construction industry

Re:From what I can tell

[ShanghaiBill]

the trouble with Britain and America right now is that there's been 40 years of policy that benefits well educated upper middle class college grads and hurts blue collar workers.

The problem is not "policy" but "reality". The modern world values knowledge and education. You are not going to do well if you have no skills and are competing with a servo motor.

Re:From what I can tell

[Solandri]

While I agree with the white/blue collar angle, there's more going on here than that. Ideally a unified economy is most efficient. Same standards, same regulations, same processes, policies, etc. promotes efficiency. A business doesn't have to jump through a dozen hoops to sell their products in multiple countries, they just have to jump through one.

Practically, a big unified economy is highly unlikely to always develop the best set of standards, regulations, processes, policies, etc. There are just too many sub-groups (national governments, states, etc.) demanding to be pleased. You throw them a bone just to get them to shut up, and it creates red tape that's really unnecessary from the viewpoint of everyone else, but now they have to comply. Multiply that by a couple dozen countries or states and that's a lot of added red tape.

So small is bad. But really big is bad too. You want a balance between the agility of striking out on your own path, and the efficiency of large size. At 500 million people, maybe the EU has just gotten too big. I see similar signs from the U.S. (300 million people), where increasing polarization suggests different groups of people (not necessarily divided along state lines) seem to have different ideas for the best way to proceed, but are getting more and more upset at each other for forcing everyone to go either one way or another.

These differences of opinion on how best to proceed don't necessarily have to be along political lines. White vs blue collar is more or less an apolitical division. A country or union with single standards for both types of workers may not always be ideal. Whereas a country which focuses on manufacturing can prioritize policies important to blue collar workers, while a country which focuses on (say) finance can prioritize policies important to white collar workers, which results in less friction forming between the two groups.

Re:From what I can tell

[phantomfive]

Show me a licensed plumbers, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, crane operators, much more without a job and I'll find them a job within a day.

Their salaries have been pulled down by immigrants who are willing to work cheaper. Carpenters don't make all that much in America tbh

Re:From what I can tell

[RichPowers]

"I see similar signs from the U.S. (300 million people), where increasing polarization suggests different groups of people (not necessarily divided along state lines) seem to have different ideas for the best way to proceed, but are getting more and more upset at each other for forcing everyone to go either one way or another."

Montesquieu believed that republics could only survive if they were small. I'm sure this was influenced by his study of the ancient Roman Republic and how it turned into an empire ruled by autocrats and generals. (See "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline" -- very readable and considerably shorter than Gibbon's more famous work on the subject.) The fact that tiny Switzerland is probably the most sensible republic in the West is due, in part, to its very smallness.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were familiar with Montesquieu; indeed, the entire point of the federal system was to (attempt to) harmonize the need for a stronger federal government to handle things like shared security and trade while still leaving considerable sovereignty to the states.

So to your point: if California wants to be the next socialist utopia with a massive welfare state and useless state-funded high-speed trains, have at it! Likewise, New Hampshire can go full libertarian. It's the whole "laboratories of democracy" concept – different ideas for different groups of people. Totally scalable regardless of population, if the federal government lets it happen, and lets states fail or succeed on their merits.

But Washington directs and influences too much of the economy, e.g., the military-industrial complex is a massive jobs and pork project for literally millions of people. The federal executive branch has so grossly overstepped its constitutional functions that it's horrifying and disgusting. Trump and Clinton would be far less dangerous to the republic if the office was considerably more modest and Americans didn't treat the President as some messianic figure who will deliver them jobs and other goodies! (Remember the days when presidential candidates ran "front porch" campaigns and submitted simple State of the Union letters to the congress instead of performing embarrassing and grandiose speeches?)

The problem in the Western World is the rolling disaster that's political and economic centralization. Brussels, Washington, the central banks, and other supporting institutions are all guilty. Among other ills, they create massive economic distortions (see the current college education bubble) and when everything inevitably explodes, they "save the day" – sort of like the fireman who burns down his own house and trumpets the great job he did later putting out the fire.

Lastly, dwell on this fact: the House of Representatives has had 435 members for almost a century, despite the massive growth in both population and size of the federal government. This means the ratio of citizens to representatives only grows more unfavorable, and at a time when it matters most! Concurrently, U.S. senators are no longer selected by state legislatures, leaving state governments without any way of directly influencing federal legislation. This is a total disaster for the federal republic and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Re:From what I can tell

[Calydor]

It is not only a matter of being too big, the EU spans too many countries with too varied economic backgrounds and stabilities.

I'm not only talking about Greece; the former east bloc countries like Poland are also a problem because they use the same currency but needs a lot LESS of it for the same gain. In an extremely simplified version, numbers completely made up:

In Poland, a loaf of bread costs 1 Euro. Hourly wage is 5 Euros.
In England, a loaf of bread costs 2 Euros. Hourly wage is 10 Euros.

So far, so good. Basic necessities cost the same percentage of your wage, not much difference. However ...

In Poland, a loaf of bread costs 1 Euro. Working in England for 8 Euros per hour lets you gain a lot more back home while wage dumping in a country that isn't your own. With enough people doing that problems start growing for the host country.

Re:From what I can tell

[Mashiki]

You can find them all over the place. Many have also lost upwards of $20k/year because their wages were pushed down by companies bringing in 3rd world workers to do the same job. It's happened here in Canada as well, a company laid off all of their welders in the patch and replaced them with TFW's from SE-Asia. The guys were making $70k/year the new guys? $39k in turn wages were depressed when those guys went out to find new work. Two guys I met in the patch 3 years ago are making $59k now(that was 2 years ago when they found new jobs), that was the only work they could find.

So far the only skilled workers that haven't been hit are pipe fitters, machinists and mechanics(gas/diesel/jet), but they're trying really hard to push the people who live here in north america and are diesel/jet mechanics out and get TFW's or other replacements in.

Re:From what I can tell

[getuid()]

Not going to change much for the average person.

EU is a bunch of national politicians patronizing their voters first, by introducing unpopular laws and measures they couldn't possibly introduce directly.

Then it's the same national politicians patronizing each other across borders -- Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, even Germany... everyone gets their share of being patronized against doing useful stuff, necessary for the middle and the lower class citizens.

Last but not least everyone is being patronized by Big Business, who's effectively running the EU.

If Brits succeed in exitting, then if anything, it will at least show the rest of the EU conuntries that doing things just "because EU" is not the only option. That hast at least a marginal hope of getting some useful change.

Don't get me wrong, the concept of a unified Europe is cool. But the EU is not a unified Europe, it's a patronizing institution run by business, for business. We can try this again in 20 years, properly done, startgin democratically first and economically later, not the other way round.

Re:From what I can tell

[encad]

For that reason most EU States adopted minimum wages.

In Germany there still is a quite large low wages sector and a lot of people with eastern europe descent are taking these jobs, but only few natives would consider taking these jobs (e.g. large butcherys).

The Impact is usually much much lower than anticipated and people working in england need to live in england, so they have to pay rent, taxes, etc.

A lot of this could have been completly circumvented if more workers were organised...

Re:From what I can tell

[ultranova]

So to your point: if California wants to be the next socialist utopia with a massive welfare state and useless state-funded high-speed trains, have at it! Likewise, New Hampshire can go full libertarian. It's the whole "laboratories of democracy" concept â" different ideas for different groups of people.

What happens when one of these collapses under the insanity of its economic idealism and the population takes refuge on the other?

The problem with the "laboratories of democracy" concept is that humans aren't lab rats and won't just quietly die in their cage if the experiment fails.

The problem in the Western World is the rolling disaster that's political and economic centralization.

First centralization ended feudalism. Then it ended the cycle of European wars that had been going on ever since Rome fell. Now the growing international economic institutions have made it all but impossible for the Great Powers to fight wars with each other, while political ones are busy closing the ozone hole and trying to deal with global warming. If this continues we'll have peace, prosperity and clean air! Oh the humanity!

Humanity has been building larger and more complex societies ever since the dawn of history. It's not a "rolling disaster", it's what lets me sit in front of my computer in a lazy Sunday morning, sipping coffee and writing this message, rather than trying to eat my maggots quietly so I'll hear when the neighbouring tribe comes to kill me for them. As far as I'm concerned, we need more, not less, centralization, since it enables life to be more than just a constant struggle for survival.

Among other ills, they create massive economic distortions (see the current college education bubble)

Education is an ill now? Perhaps you're referring to the college debt crisis caused by college education in the US being handled by for-profit private institutions rather than the state?

Re:From what I can tell

[Mashiki]

There is no indication that salaries for welders have gone down:

Using data that's 4 years old prior to the oil crash no less. Time for you to go out and talk to people in the industry and you'll discover how wrong you are. Not forgetting that in the US average wages have declined the last 8 years by roughly $4k if I remember right. Canucks have a higher average wage then Americans do now, the last time that happened was in the 1970's.

And, yes, if you command $70k for welding (a really high end salary), you're overqualified for jobs that can be done by people making half as much. And a lot that high end speciality welding has just been taken over by other manufacturing methods.

No, $70k isn't high end, it's just past the median and under the norm for oil/NG/coal patch work, where you can see welders pulling in $150k/year.

Their jobs are becoming increasingly obsolete, with CNCs, electric vehicles, and new technologies. What's left is only the low-skill jobs, which, not surprisingly, will be handled by low cost, low skill labor.

No actually they aren't. Gas/diesel vehicles aren't going anywhere for at least another 50 years, there will be an increase in hybrid vehicles but outside of Europe? Battery vehicles for most people aren't going to be anything except for short range. Even here in Southern Ontario you can't get from one fast-charge station to another in some cases before you'd run out of juice. Anyway, mechanics shift with the times. As gas gets pushed out, you'll see them shift into the electronics end like many did in the 90's and become specialized in that. The guys who saw ahead that they were going to slap computers in every car and all that? Those mechanics are clearing $100-140k yearly these days. CNC's will go obsolete when millwrights do, likely never. Since you'll always need someone who can think beyond what a machine is programed to do and see the actual flaws of what's being made.

Re:From what I can tell

[ThePhilips]

But then there's the sharing of wealth with other nations, refugees, more power to the EU rather than politicians close at home...

So far UK had vetoed many of the EU political power expansion projects (often for a good reason; but not always).

Can't say about the much hated on the USA forums "sharing of wealth", but as refugee situation is concerned, the Brexit wouldn't change it.

UK takes refugees because it has signed of the Refugee Convention. In fact, after the Brexit, UK would probably have to take even more refugees, because right now EU has a deal with Turkey to take some of our refugees.

If EU was just a free trade union UK would had stayed.

Of course they would have stayed. Being a loophole to regulations is a very profitable business. That's why, for example, the hedge funds love it there in London. And that is why I'm glad that they are leaving.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

Everyone need to be for any expansion of the capability? Not just majority?

With sharing of wealth for instance Sweden is supposed to be the country which pay the most in vs what it get back / capita I think? I assume UK pay in more than what they get back directly, but of course they also have access to the market and the people and get to sell goods onto other EU nations and get their brightest people into their union.

The UN refugee convention doesn't view people from countries at war as refugees (by that alone), it would possibly view Yazidis and Armenians and such as refugees but not your average civilian Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan or so.

The EU however DO view them as refugees so it would make a difference in the definition.

Sweden had it's own lawn with even more people who were granted asylum but that part has been disabled like .. two days ago or so? Maybe it start in July or something.

Also with asylum applications the problem with it in general is that you can't just leave an asylum application at the British embassy in Afghanistan for instance, you most likely have to GET there to turn it in. So there is a difference because then they would possibly have border controls and as such people may not be allowed into the country and able to turn in an asylum application.

Currently Sweden have temporary border controls with Denmark (though in practice they aren't functional) and as a response Denmark have them against Germany (I don't know how efficient they are) and then there's the Turkish buffer zone.

As people without a valid identification isn't supposed to be let into the country a lot of asylum seekers wouldn't be able to get here (at-least not the ones who get rid of any identification to be able to make up their own identity on the spot, such as a child from a war torn country.)

Re:From what I can tell

[ThePhilips]

Everyone need to be for any expansion of the capability? Not just majority?

As far as I understand, this affects the "Eurolaw"(?) (Primärrecht in German: the basic founding laws of the EU).

In order to change any of them, all participating countries must vote "yes".

Changes to other laws require only majority, but can be vetoed by any member with veto right. UK has veto right.

With sharing of wealth for instance Sweden is supposed to be the country which pay the most in vs what it get back / capita I think? I assume UK pay in more than what they get back directly, but of course they also have access to the market and the people and get to sell goods onto other EU nations and get their brightest people into their union.

Infographic. SE pays 3.8B, and receives 1.7B. UK 11.3 vs 6.9. (Wow, I always thought that UK is not part of the CAP, because they were deriding the program so much in the past, and yet they are.)

Outside the CAP, the money largely go to support poorer countries and regions: building infrastructure, improvement in education, and so on. To make sure that with the time they could raise their living standards. It was very insightful to read that some regions in UK are poor enough to receive that support (but largely voted to leave).

Re:From what I can tell

[Ash-Fox]

So far UK had vetoed many of the EU political power expansion projects (often for a good reason; but not always).

Not really, only a few that required treaty changes and there were not many of those.

Re:From what I can tell

[ThePhilips]

Whether there were many or few, it depends on your perspective. Changing the union is a big deal, IMO.

Otherwise, I have read in the past about three such cases. One of the articles closed on the notion that many changes to the union are simply not brought up anymore, despite popular support, because position of the UK remains the same.

Re:From what I can tell

[RichPowers]

"What happens when one of these collapses under the insanity of its economic idealism and the population takes refuge on the other?"

A poorly-run state is a disaster for its citizens, sure, but they made their own bed. Better a state fail than the entire republic. What happens when the insanity happens at the *federal* level because we've consolidated too much power and money there? Where do we take refuge?

"in the US being handled by for-profit private institutions rather than the state?"

It's funny that people are upset about Donald Trump's fraudulent for-profit "college" while Bernie "Everyone Gets a Free Horse!" Sanders keeps talking about "free" college courtesy of Uncle Sam: Trump (and the hundreds of others like him) gorged themselves at yet another multi billion dollar federal trough. And that's what always happens when the federal government starts subsidy programs to cure some perceived ill: corruption, inflation, market distortions, etc. The federal government has no business in the college game -- leave it to the states and private institutions and some sanity will return to the market.

Re:From what I can tell

[Ash-Fox]

I have read in the past about three such cases

Which is the only ones I am aware of that required treaty changes. All the over power changes didn't require treaty changes and couldn't be vetoed.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

As far as I understand, this affects the "Eurolaw"(?) (PrimÃrrecht in German: the basic founding laws of the EU).
In order to change any of them, all participating countries must vote "yes".
Changes to other laws require only majority, but can be vetoed by any member with veto right. UK has veto right.

Thank you.

Then.. how come they want special deals now afterwards if it's things they have actually accepted before? =P
Then again one can of course always change oneÂs mind.

1.7/3.8 = 44.7% back to Sweden.
6.9/11.3 = 61% back to UK.

3.8/9.65 or so million people (2015? Quickly growing) = 0.39 / million.
11.3/65 = 0.17 / million.

So Sweden pay more than twice as much as UK / citizen, UK have at-least 1/3 better deal when it comes to what they get back, lots more "refugees" to Sweden, much higher taxes in Sweden, and so on ..

If any country should leave .. Then again Sweden has been about connecting with other societies and trade for 1000+ years at-least.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

Maybe they could had tried that to the UK:

"You'll have to pay twice as much now and what you get back from that will be cut by 1/4, FYI"

See how well that would had worked.

Sweden is always screwed, we always have to be "best."

Whatever it's fossil use, foreign aid, naive refugee schemes, surrendering our own rights, sucking cock in general (well, including in the literal way, as in accepting rape of Swedish citizens by rapefugees, murder of Swedish citizen by claimed to be "child" Africans and so on we just have to accept it.)

Cuckservative could simply be replaced by "Swede."

"Acting like a fucking Swede" should be the sentence to use , it would possibly help us in Sweden (Then again the traitors and socialists and anti-whites are proud of it so possibly not, and of course people like Sanders would be like "And that's a good thing!")

Rapefugees could be renamed "new-Swedes" or "soon-to-be-Swedes", AIDS "open-your-ass-like-a-Swede-disease" and so on.

Re:From what I can tell

[AthanasiusKircher]

But Washington directs and influences too much of the economy, e.g., the military-industrial complex is a massive jobs and pork project for literally millions of people. The federal executive branch has so grossly overstepped its constitutional functions that it's horrifying and disgusting. Trump and Clinton would be far less dangerous to the republic if the office was considerably more modest and Americans didn't treat the President as some messianic figure who will deliver them jobs and other goodies!

Just wanted to note, since you mentioned the fall of the Roman Republic, that this sort of thing is precisely the flaw that arguably brought down the Roman Republic. The "root password" to any political system's governing structure is always appeasement of the masses. Montesquieu skips over the early elements of this story in Rome, but one of the harbingers of doom for the Roman Republic happened with the Gracchi brothers, who were some of the earliest Romans to seek radical populist reform. Concern about the rural poor and the plight of military veterans led to their attempts to circumvent many of the traditional Roman principles... including ignoring previous checks on power and re-election in their offices (Tribune of the Plebs). The Roman senators had the good sense to club Tiberius Gracchus to death.

The parallels to the Great Depression, Dust Bowl (affecting rural poor), marches of WWI veterans on Washington, and FDR's shocking election to 4 consecutive terms are just too numerous to go into a detailed comparison. After FDR's "New Deal" was repeatedly thrown out by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, finally the switch in time that saved nine overrode federalist principles in the Constitution that had functioned since 1789.

Now, of course the U.S. has gone on a different course than Rome did (with the upheavals under Sulla, Marius, etc.). But it's a little scary to me that the Roman Republic essentially lasted only 84 years after Tiberius Gracchus set it on the path toward ruin in 133 BC. Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC, and was effectively declared dictator for life (after a series of consecutively consulships), effectively moving the Republic into an imperialist empire.

I'll just note that FDR was elected in 1932 with populist rhetoric to overturn the old Constitutional constraints on government power. It's now 2016, 84 years later, and we have the threat of a Trump presidency, a guy who seems to view his position in the world as dictatorial to say the least.

I'm not some crazy numerologist -- just noting that the timeline between when the Constitutional breakdown started to occur and where we are now is a shocking coincidence. It's sad that the generation around the 1930s was when Latin study and Roman study of the classics really started to be expunged from school curricula. For the past several decades we've been starting out on a track toward dissolution of a Republic and toward an Empire -- something the Founders, who were very aware of Roman precedent when they designed the government, hoped to prevent. But few people know about such history anymore, so they don't see the danger.

For all you guys who like to make fun of liberal arts majors... here's why history is important to know something about: to avoid making the same mistakes others have in the past.

Re:From what I can tell

[cardpuncher]

It's a patronizing institution run by business, for business.

It rather depends where you stand. The French take the view that Britain has turned the EU into some sort of liberal economic threat to France's paternal statist view of the world. However, the British (and in particular the British right wing who have driven Brexit) regard it as an obstacle to free-wheeling market forces whose environmental and employment regulations need to be ripped up in the interests of greater profit.

And not all EU institutions have the same goals. The European Parliament is probably the only thing standing between the EU citizen and a disastrous business-friendly trade pact with the US that all of the EU's national governments - and the Commission - have had some interest in pursuing over the last few years.

From a British prospective, the next Prime Minister is going to ensure the British government is run by business, for business, to a greater extent than at any time since the Victorian era: that was the whole purpose of the Brexit project.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

As said there was three different laws.

UN:
Persecution due to:
* race
* nationality
* religion or politics
* sex
* sexual preference
* your group or class in society

EU:
* risk capital punishment (which stinks, asylum for terrorists.)
* risk of bodily harm, torture and inhumane or degrading punishment (ok, so all criminals from the Muslim world are welcome?)
* high risk as civilian being harmed in an armed conflict (people from war torn countries or with terrorism are welcome?)

Sweden
* Can't return due to war or serious tensions in _COUNTRY OF ORIGIN_ (so you came through Turkey, Hungary, Germany, Denmark and more? No problem.)
* Well-founded fear of serious assaults/harasments.
* Can't return due to environmental catastrophe (Guess who rule Swedish immigration laws?)

So as you see Sweden goes further than the EU and the relaxed attitude to identification, tolerance of lies, naivety to stories, no medical check up of age claims, capability to remain and get support in the country even if you aren't granted asylum and the high welfare payouts and support and likely low risk of being jailed or fear of consequences for anything are what make Sweden such a popular choice.

UK doesn't have that.

Outside of EU the UK doesn't have to bother about people fleeing capital punishment, torture, shaming or war either.

The first group are the one which kinda definitely deserve to get into safety, however that doesn't have to mean welfare handouts provided by others.

It suck that you post as AC since you may not get the reply.

As for Schengen I guess that may help UK to not have to deal with the welfare migrants then.

My solution would be to develop the poor and underdeveloped part of the world rather than moving a few people and ideas and behavior from that part of the world to the rich part of the world rending it poorer and more underdeveloped too while the poor and underdeveloped are stuck with and continue as normal.

Sweden have one of the largest foreign aid contributions in the world (well, regardless of what we do with it I guess) but part of it is used to pay for immigrants here and also to lobby for Sweden to be in the UN security council.

1 lone-coming "refugee" "child" cost ~1 000 000 SEK / year here.
1 year in Swedish school cost 95 000 SEK.
1 year in school in Afghanistan cost 400 SEK.

The Swedish short-term immigration budget (not the long term stuff like generic welfare, unemployment, housing, health, pension, school, blue light service, ..) is half of the GDP of Afghanistan.

One would just end up speculating about the long-term cost (over a life-time, Sweden suck at getting the immigrants into work because they get so much money for nothing and the lowest salaries are so high and there's well few jobs for unskilled labour) of the immigration to Sweden in 2015 but it's likely in the range of a half-decent used car / person.

The later could easily be fixed, just scrap the welfare and let the wage gap increase and let the immigrants offer cheap services in whatever category they can to the richer part of the population and it would become a gain. But that's nothing which is happening.

Any idiot who says the current situation is the most human have got to tell me why 1 immigrant student in Sweden is worth 1 000-2 000 back at home, why 1 saved life of a war refugee in Sweden is worth 1 000 due to lack of vaccines or health care, why one person moving up in living standard is worth an increase for so many others, while 1 saved from starvation is worth .. you get the point.

It's just 100% complete bullshit. It's inefficient as fuck and the only thing it's doing is 1) replacing the native population of Sweden and 2) meat/voters for political reform whatever voters for more welfare handouts or as a need to make things more efficient / privatize.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

can't run their zoning processes efficiently enough

What is that?

We the people of the Nordics are generally fortunate for having efficiency in such matters

Can't comment since I don't know what you are talking about.

although every time a municipality takes a Laissez-faire or market driven approach towards zoning, the real-estate and rental markets start to overheat and bubble, and people left without housing.

Are you talking about acting to prevent segregation?

Sweden is heavily segregated and no work is being done to solve the issue: Too many damn immigrants.
The "solution" is just to move them out and put them in all other spaces too so there is a lot of fucking immigrants everywhere but nothing will become better of that, it's just that all will be like it is in the worst places now.

Re:From what I can tell

[phantomfive]

What happens when one of these collapses under the insanity of its economic idealism and the population takes refuge on the other?

To some degree that's already happening in California, as lower classes flee the high cost of living and move elsewhere.

Re:From what I can tell

[Raenex]

Just because they're scared of brown people.

Let's translate that: They don't want a flood of uneducated, unskilled, "rapefugees" swarming into their country. Maybe if Europe had kept control of its borders free movement wouldn't have been a problem. But no, Merkel decided to open the flood gates.

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

Geneva convention wasn't the same as the UN one?

Oh well, just ditch whatever crap only it become what one want.

I think asylum-rights to our nation of welfare benefits and weak punishment and people who aren't forced to leave if not granted asylum or caught for a crime is shit.

If we really value "asylum-rights" or free movement in general that high then just destroy the national welfare system completely (and let everyone come with equal opportunity) and let them provide for themselves the best they can. Then they will try harder or not come at all.

I understand the freedom of movement more than I understand the right to be feed for by others. If we still want to provide some basics for everyone then do that as a global project rather than a national one because the Scandinavian people can't pay for it for everyone, the whole world could.

I miss no points. I'm Swede in Sweden. What we should do is what I / we want to do. The people of Syria or Afghanistan isn't our trouble - or well, shouldn't be.

The Swedish migration office can't do it, and the law is to generous, also I totally don't have to accept any ideas or rule or rules set up by my government but may be of a different opinion and also no even if I wanted to decide for myself (say with "fuck them") I will not be allowed to do that myself. That's a fact but whatever they should be let into the country is 100% politics as is their rights (and .. I don't even know the word in Swedish because it's an unused concept here anyway... responsibilities.)

It's not unwise. Both cost resources. It's just you who are a dishonest socialist dictator. There is no "different budgets." There's income (what of value the Swedish population produce (including exports)) and there's expenses (burden from those who produce (including imports.))
If you want to separate them then the immigrants budget is 100 times too large and the foreign aid maybe is four times too small or whatever. There, solved it for you.

The goal of moving wars and troubles to Sweden is a terrible goal. The goal of improving the world is a nice one.

Foreign aid stops refugees from ever becoming a thing in the first place. Taking in refugees accomplish close to nothing except moving people around.

The goal of foreign aid should of course be to help the rest of the world develop and improve. Society can develop a lot in 50 years (see South Korea) but letting 50 years of people movements (here I don't have any examples, no-one has done what Sweden does before I guess, say Libanon? USA is completely different because they have got work immigrants) happen doesn't solve much at all.

What you suggested as the most efficient thing is of course what at-least could be viewed as best for humanity (not really if it turned out the rich part of the world contributed so much that the benefit of keeping us alive / at this standard actually helped more, say by doing further developments in medicine.)
Efficiency is good. The only real problem with it is it's not what the tax payers / workers in the rich world want for their money.
I think it's a decent demand to put upon anyone who claim to be for the best of humanity / the people to have to answer to the claim you just did. If they aren't willing to then they clearly aren't for what is in the interest of the most people on the planet. Luxury refugees in Sweden definitely isn't the best way of helping people and I'm not even sure it is doing well in helping people from war (Assume 2% of the Syrians would had been killed in conflict, say 0.5% of all refugees who come to Sweden, now imagine the increased risk of a civil war here or war in Europe thanks to them coming here .. I want to fix the problem which is poverty, poorly educated people and too little freedom, those who bring the filth here just want to destroy Sweden, or well, destroy Sweden regardless of what the fuck they think they are doing.

I don't see why foreign aid is "abstract", the number of vaccine d

Re:From what I can tell

[aliquis]

Whether you help refugees or think your country should help them even if it's unpleasant to you or costs you money is a matter of your personal humanity. It's always easy to be a decent human being when there is no crisis and you can easily afford to deal with the consequences. The question is how you react when there is a cost to it, when things are not so easy and problems occur. That's when you see what people really think, what people are really good folks and decent human beings.

Sweden as society is stuck on stupid because they have proclaimed anything else racist and wrong and it's too late to change the stance now, also anyone who thought different has been pushed out and hushed.

(Likely admitting being wrong, saying no to refugees and doing the right thing is actually the one thing which is unpleasant and hard to do.)

If it was my money it couldn't had been simpler. I would had given my money to movements I supported and to causes I felt was worth helping with. I wouldn't had used them on luxury migration to Sweden, because that would be stupid, inefficient, unfair and I totally don't want them here either.

Re:From what I can tell

[RichPowers]

Great post. I never made the connection between the Gracchi brothers and the Progressives and New Dealers, but I think there's definitely something to it.

To your point about the similarities between the decline of the Roman and American republics: Sir John Glubb wrote a paper about how empires collapse ~250 years after their inception. Like you, he's not trying to lay out a numerology theory or "historical law," but uses these similarities to analyze *why* empires collapse. Glubb specifically cites the introduction of the welfare state, followed by liberal granting of citizenship to foreigners, as a common cause of decline. The EU should take note.

"...the Founders, who were very aware of Roman precedent when they designed the government, hoped to prevent."

It's pretty amazing how the Romans' best ideas were transplanted through time and space -- I mean there's a senate that meets atop a Capitol Hill thousands of miles from Rome on a continent they didn't know existed.

"here's why history is important to know something about: to avoid making the same mistakes others have in the past."

One of my favorite American historians, Thomas Bailey, said something like, "Every generation of apes begins where the previous generation began, because apes can hand down no record of their experience. Man leaves a record; but how much better is he than the apes if he does not study it and heed its warning?" Expunging the classics from public schools wasn't a conspiracy per se; I think it was arrogance by the bureaucrats who truly believed that the past is irrelevant.

Re:From what I can tell

[CaptainLard]

Concern about the rural poor and the plight of military veterans led to their attempts to circumvent many of the traditional Roman principles.. including ignoring previous checks on power

You mean like how bout half of all the Caesars were murdered by their own guards? Highly effective no doubt....

I don't have a point, just wanted to add that.

 

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

Not in the UK.

A Polish plumber will be every bit as skilled, experienced and competent as their British counterpart, but the Polish undercut UK rates when they came over here.

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

Using data that's 4 years old prior to the oil crash no less

So you're blaming immigration and not the oil crash for change in salaries, but demand that the oil crash impact is included when assessing change in salaries?

This doesn't feel like a terribly reliable use of statistics.

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

With the obvious irony that it isn't immigration from the EU that's caused some of the high profile challenges in Rotherham.

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

Let me translate for you.

In Poland a loaf of bread costs 4.45 zloty.
In the UK a loaf of bread costs 1.66 pounds.

There, does that help avoid your offtopic rant born from an inability to recognise the benefits of using a common comparison point to aid reader comprehension?

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

What fucking refugee crisis? You mean the economic migrant crisis, caused by Germany publicly shouting "Come and live here"?

Refugees stop being refugees the moment they reach a safe state. For most of them that's somewhere in Africa, at worse Greece or Turkey.

Not Germany, not Sweden, not the rest of the fucking EU.

Sorry to be so brutally honest, but you need to get a reality check.

Comically the British gave the EU mandarins a reality check on Thursday.

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

I disagree, that wasn't the purpose of Brexit at all.

It may be the outcome though, especially if there isn't a general election called.

Re:From what I can tell

[adhdengineer]

figures i have for uk contributions are from here

In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.
Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £5 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18 billion in contributions.

Re:From what I can tell

[ThePhilips]

They base their number on the EU budget from 2013 (budget as a document), while this here is apparently the actual post-factum number from the 2014.

Will not pretend to be a finance specialist, but AFAIK the budget is only a plan, a commitment, and is not always followed strictly, and thus differs from the actual numbers. Though I do not expect the numbers to differ it that much. But one has to compare the comparable years, and there is no by-country split of 2014/later budgets.

Re:From what I can tell

[Mashiki]

So you're blaming immigration and not the oil crash for change in salaries, but demand that the oil crash impact is included when assessing change in salaries?

This doesn't feel like a terribly reliable use of statistics.

That's because the depression of salaries happened prior to the oil market crash, when companies decided to start laying off the workers they had and hiring foreign workers to replace them while claiming they "couldn't find anyone to do the jobs" doesn't that sound familiar to Americans?

I know that's a very difficult thing to grasp, but those people with their jobs being replaced? That was happening 2 years before the market tanked. What? Need a story on it? Here's one of the dozens of articles on it. Oh look here's another. How about another? Wonder why the conservative government here suddenly cracked down on the TFW program but the current liberal government decided to open it back up?

Re:From what I can tell

[houghi]

EU is a bunch of national politicians patronizing their voters first, by introducing unpopular laws and measures they couldn't possibly introduce directly.

This is also the reason why people hate the EU and Brussels. Because their local politicians keep using it as an excuse that "well, we tried, but, you know, Brussels said so." That is obviously easier tan to say that you are actualy in favour of a decision that you know will be not well received withing your voting system.

It is as if they aresaying that we should stop hitting ourselves while they hold our arm and blame Brussels when they ae caught.

So no The EU is not the only option, but as of now it is a whole lot better than without it. Competing as separate enteties, none of them means anything.

Football analogy. You can have 11 outstanding players, but they are nothing if they are all individuals and you can play them one by one. Even an average team will win. And that would mean we hand ourselves over to either the US or the Russians and I am not sure wich is worse in the long term.

Re:From what I can tell

[Cederic]

Someone challenged your assertions on salary changes and you dismissed their data as being too old. Now you're telling me that their data isn't too old, so please address their original point instead.

Re: From what I can tell

[Cederic]

You miserable fool, people in the IT industry are far more painfully aware of how it's being transformed (and how that's damaging the long term future of their national economies) than anybody outside of the industry except for the people reaping the short term rewards for damaging it.

Re:From what I can tell

[athenaprime]

With even more obvious irony that the UK, after exporting its empire to the world, decides that when the world "returns export" that it doesn't want to play anymore...

Re:From what I can tell

[david_thornley]

Policy is part of reality. The reality is that we're getting a large number of people who feel really shafted by the current system, and they're going to be in favor of change, even destructive change, because the system isn't working for them anyway. Policies should be created based on reality, including uncomfortable aspects.

Re:From what I can tell

[wyHunter]

I don't make fun of people who get a liberal education - despite having a technical degree I've read history, literature, and other traditionally 'liberal arts' items. I make fun of people who get liberal arts degrees having learned absolutely zero about anything of consequence. History, literature, philosophy, are NOT in that category, though they are difficult to apply as a job related skill except to be well read and able to communicate.

Scotland and Ireland can't separate

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotland would be loaded with 130 billion pounds of debt.

Re:Scotland and Ireland can't separate

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotland would be loaded with 130 billion pounds of debt.

Which they could pay off comparatively quickly because they have most of the UK's oil. That's true despite falling oil prices.

Scotland's ledger will start looking much healthier than that of the rest of the UK once they leave, despite inheriting a proportion of the UK's shared debt. It's the rest of the UK whose national debt should be a source of concern, not Scotland's.

Re:Scotland and Ireland can't separate

[Anonymous Coward]

And since they hold most of Britain's remaining natural resources, they'll pay that off in a year or 2 while England is crippled by all the corporations and financial trading leaving for the EU.

Re:Scotland and Ireland can't separate

[Richard_at_work]

Its not falling oil prices that an independent Scotland has to worry about, its the 94% fall in tax revenue in 2015 from the oil and gas fields that Scotland would inherit - the money that the Independent Scotland campaign based its finances on no longer exists.

Re:How Trump is funding his presidential campaign

[iggymanz]

said the virgin old slashdotter living in his mom's basement, using his reproductive system to jack off

meanwhile the race will be carried on by normal men and women for millennia.

Oh so the companies / management / shareholders ar

[AbRASiON]

"Toby Coppel, the co-founder of venture capital firm Mosaic, said: "The next entrepreneur who's 22 years old, graduating from a technical university in Germany may, instead of moving to London to do their Fintech startup, decide to go to Berlin instead."

GOOD!
Go to bloody Berlin and allow some of the locals to have a job!?
Globalisation is fan-tastic for a small portion of very highly skilled people. If you're mid-skilled or lower, you are _boned_. Unemployment is up, wages are down.

Sure we can buy a $6 toaster from China and have a website built in India for $300 but your average person is NOT better off. Globalisation is screwing a heap of people.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[Anonymous Coward]

They voted to leave. They deserved to be part of England. Cornwall which receives economic development funds from EU wants the UK to make up for the shortfall of losing that EU subsidy. Keep in mind Cornwall voted to leave EU. Why did they vote against their own interests?!?! I'm only a idiot American but Wales is like the Southern states of US right? Poor and stupid.

Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[tanstaaf1]

If you haven't visited Washington D.C. recently you ought to. For our "Servants" in Washington, Money is clearly not an object -- they will drain every drop of blood from every private sector citizen in all 50 states, and derelict all other cities, to make sure they and their patrons are maintained in the style to which they have become accustomed. And then they will extract more. It hasn't taken the leaches in Brussels long at all to build their palaces and award themselves outrageous pay and perquisites. They have to keep up with the "Joneses" in D.C., after all. This UK vote was obviously not according to the Serpants' plan -- neither there nor here. I can hardly believe they didn't just print the money to "accidently" miscount the vote. I'm sure Obama/Clinton would have authorized a loan for that cause if asked. Look to Switzerland for a better idea of how it is possible to be part of the EU for purposes of trade yet still largely sovereign. This is a huge opportunity for the UK to pull itself out of the black hole which has been dragging down their economy for some time. Good for them. Too bad we can't do something equivalent over here.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK will "pull out from the black hole that has been dragging down their economy" by making sure the EU installs tariffs on UK exports, extra regulation on the move of goods and people to and from the UK. Border crossing will be subject to red tape instead of free flow. Investors will think twice before investing in a place that does not have direct access to the 450+ million consumers of the EU (good thing for Ireland BTW). That great plan was supported and promoted by the champions of free trade in the Tory party. Good luck with that.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[ultranova]

I can hardly believe they didn't just print the money to "accidently" miscount the vote.

So are you now going to adjust your beliefs due to predictions based on them contradicting observed events? Or are you going to continue believing whatever you will, evidence be damned?

I'm asking because it more and more seems that most problems plaguing our democracies nowadays can be traced to voters taking the second option too many times.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[Ash-Fox]

If the EU won't have free trade with the UK, at least the UK can now arrange free trade agreements with the rest of the world (which is still experiencing growth, unlike the EU), which wasn't possible inside the EU, so I don't think it's that bad. I can't imagine us having worse trade deals than Iceland and Iceland despite being a fairly small and insignificant country in the grand scheme of things manages to have some very nice deals. It's ridiculous to say that the UK wouldn't have more influence.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[tanstaaf1]

All we have to go on are beliefs and good evidence. While there historically has been such a thing as voter fraud here in the US as egregious as dead people voting (do I really need to research that for you?) there are also less obvious -- but also fraudulent -- techniques such as bending the rules (e.g., gerrymandering), disqualifying select votes, allowing non-citizens to vote, and .... using public funds to sway opinions. The EU is hardly immune to human nature. There was quite a bit of the latter, indisputably, in the UK election (do I really need to research that for you?). I'm merely surprised the establishment didn't get more outrageous in their efforts to influence things. Yes, they did ship in Obama to attempt to scare the electorate into remaining. And, yes, they did print the voter instructions showing how to vote "remain" -- but, notably, not leave. They must have misjudged the sentiment, is the most reasonable "belief". God knows the establishment and bankers have lost enough money and power over this imbroglio.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[LynnwoodRooster]

The GP is either ignorant or petulant (or both). The EU will arrange free trade with the UK, like they had pre-EU back in the EEC days. After all, the UK is a top-3 trading partner for most of the EU (7%+ for France, 7%+ for Germany, 9%+ for Spain and Netherlands, etc). Tariffs will backfire as those countries will see a pretty significant cut in their own exports as the UK retaliates. Each of those countries (save Germany) exports more per GDP than the UK does reciprocally. Implement higher tariffs, and the repercussions will be more severe on the EU than on the UK.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[Bing Tsher E]

the repercussions will be more severe on the EU than on the UK.

More severe on the member countries of the EU, which could lead to further pressure for said countries to also withdraw from the Union.

Re:Public Serpants in Brussels and D.C.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Precisely. This is the beginning of the end for the EU. By 2020 it will be a shell, back to the old EEC which worked quite well before some bureaucrats and bankers got the idea to create a "United States of Europe" and turn all sovereign nations into vassal provinces/States.

Asian reaction appears favorable

[Wizardess]

I suspect the Asian nations will be pleased with brexit simply because they get access to the British market and goods without the EU getting in the way. Maybe this will be the end of expensive DSLR cameras that are limited to 29'59" of recording because the EU arbitrarily defined 30 minutes or more as a video camera and slapped much higher tariffs on them.

Maybe the next couple years will be time to invest in Britain rather than try to escape. Look at both sides of the possible effects before you jump.

{^_^}

Control the borders

[backslashdot]

Why have a border? What is the purpose of a border? It is to keep people out because you think they are evil, will drink the milk out the bottle from your fridge, look ugly and smell bad too. Why should poor countries be stuck with keeping the bad people when they would do more damage? At least the richer countries can catch the criminals and jail them or something.

Gotta look out for "your own" .. but is that even moral? Does God value the human life of a person in one country over another? You can allow the deaths of thousands to save a few of your own? How is that moral?

Why would you lock yourself out of interacting with foreigners? That will only breed mutual hatred and an arms race. Keeping people out is not sustainable. Eventually the other countries will want in. And there will be a big war. . Eventually there will be a war, that is guaranteed. At some point you are going to want something from another country and they will refuse to give it to you. Or vice versa. They will want something of yours, you will refuse to give it .. and they will try to take it. Then you will war.

The only sustainable future for humanity is for everyone to get along with each other. This is only possible through interaction, through everyone understanding the concepts of free speech, freedom of religion, right to a fair trial before punishment, right not to be tortured etc.

Its true a lot of third worlders don't understand these concepts, and you are afraid they will bring it to your country. But how does isolating these countries help? How will they learn these ideas if not through interaction? If you are cool with them never learning the values of freedom, eventually they will war. They will be ruled by dictators who build big weapons and will eventually try to take your stuff by force .. it may take 50 years or 100 .. but they will .. and with the nukes of today if even a few get through it's devastating.

Ever noticed that all the places that have ancient border walls are now tourist attractions that you can visit from both sides and still be in the sea country. It's not like the Great Wall of China or Emperor Hadrian's wall demarcates a border to this day .. What we have are failed empires.

Re:Control the borders

[misexistentialist]

Come on, the societies without walls simply vanished without a trace.

Re:Control the borders

[Type44Q]

Why have a border?

Simple: nationalism is easily the most useful tool TPTB have got.

Re:Control the borders

[LynnwoodRooster]

Why have a door lock on your house? Why should the indigent be kept out of your home because they smell bad or look ugly? Gotta look out for "your own" after all...

Re:Control the borders

[backslashdot]

How can you be sure the army will work? Do you realize only a few nukes are enough to cause irreparable damage to the planet? How would you prevent a doomsday Cobalt-60 nuke from set off outside your country? Nowadays there are nuke designs that can be set off outside the target country and will cause enough atmospheric irradiation that it is all over for everyone. Even if countries seal themselves in domes someone will figure out how to break it.

Re:Control the borders

[Raenex]

Gotta look out for "your own" .. but is that even moral?

Self-preservation is moral.

Does God value the human life of a person in one country over another?

Who? Some imaginary being invented my ancient myth-makers? Well, if you believe the myth-makers, he does ("chosen people"), damn these people, genocide those people, etc.

You can allow the deaths of thousands to save a few of your own? How is that moral?

Self-preservation is moral.

Its true a lot of third worlders don't understand these concepts, and you are afraid they will bring it to your country. But how does isolating these countries help?

It helps by not making their problems our problems.

How will they learn these ideas if not through interaction?

Then go over their and "educate" them. Go on now, do your moral duty. You can do that without volunteering to wreck your own country.

Re:Control the borders

[argStyopa]

What you seem to disregard is the fact that some places are nice.
Some places are shitty.

How do you think they got that way? Random chance?

I think there's a valid point to say "We live in a pretty nice place. If you're coming here to be one of us, and follow our cultural mores, then sure, c'mon in. If you're coming here to bring the culture, mores, and choices that left your homeland a craphole, then no, we don't want you here."

Re:Control the borders

[backslashdot]

Self preservation is not necessarily moral in all instances. I bet there are situations that even you would do actions that are against "self preservation". For example, would you claim self preservation is more important than people you care about getting hurt?

So yeah, you assigned greater value to something and then get upset when others devalue you for their own purpose. If other people's lives mean nothing to you, why do you get upset if they have a similar philosophy?

The only reason you don't try to get stuff from other countries is because you don't need it. I mean, the history of basically every culture involves uh "exploring" and colonizing other lands. The Chinese did it, the Africans did it, even Europe did it to some extent.

My point is, if you had a need for something someone else had, for example fuel, chocolate, gold, building materials or something .. I guarantee you'd be out to get it .. if not for self preservation then for desire not to live in inconvenience. If it means having to make up a religion to "justify" it, that can be done too.

Re:Control the borders

[backslashdot]

They can rid of that jerk Kim Jong Un for starters. They can do that. South Korea could easily mount such an operation if they planned it out properly.

Re:Control the borders

[backslashdot]

The problem is that the people in the shitty place will eventually come get stuff from you by force. Building doomsday nukes doesn't require a prosperous economy. The only way to prevent WWIII is if everyone has a high standard of living (a life with no fear of starvation or lack of liberty/shelter) combined with libertarian philosophy. How can they get that if there is no interaction? Look, trading with the Japanese and Chinese has made the Japanese and Chinese population improve. I mean, in the mid 1940s if you were told someone carried out a suicide attack you would think it was a Jap. Today the Japs are much more peaceful by any measure -- I mean, they have much less violent crime than most, if not all, European countries.

Re:Control the borders

[Ash-Fox]

Why would you lock yourself out of interacting with foreigners?

Exactly, that's why the UK has to leave the EU. I mean, if Iceland can arrange free trade, free travel with many countries and they can do it quickly and effectively without even being a very notable country... But we can't because we're part of the EU, it's clear where we need to be. We can still negotiate free trade and free travel with the EU, much like some other countries have managed to without being EU members.

Re:Control the borders

[Raenex]

I don't really see this as a good argument for opening Western borders and ruining countries via mass immigration. Regardless of what you perceive as moral, you're just going to wreck Western countries. Go over there and "fix" their countries if that appeals to you. Of course you would never do that, as it's easier to have unicorn and rainbow ideals that don't involve you personally ever doing anything beyond typing on your keyboard.

Re:Control the borders

[Cederic]

Trading is good, and a slow but useful way to improve standards of living. Mass migration doesn't solve the problem at source, and causes problems at destination.

Migration through force requires excess force. Nukes aren't a terribly useful medium in this context as they destroy rather than help capture, and the countries with the high standards of living also tend to be those with the conventional means to defend themselves.

Re:Control the borders

[Ash-Fox]

Sure, but the UK is not in a good bargaining position.

The UK is in a better bargaining position because it is able to arrange it's own free trade deals with the rest of the world which it was not able to before. The UK can trade with anyone now with less restrictions, the EU won't trade, that won't stop the UK.

Re:Control the borders

[argStyopa]

I'm not sure using the Japanese - the only victims of nuclear attack in history, and only that because the alternative was an annihilatory invasion - is the best argument if you're trying to persuade people that "doomsday nukage" isn't the way to pacify a people.

Because it sure worked well in that case:
Start with a bellicose, nationalistic, brutal & merciless culture bent on imperial military conquest of all the (in their view) subhuman neighboring peoples.
Add two nukes.
Result: one of the most peaceful, advanced, economically prosperous countries in the world today.
Still pretty racist, though, I'd have to admit.

The primary issue for the tech sector will be...

[tlambert]

The primary issue for the tech sector will be that the UK can no longer be used to take advantage of "the final assembly tariff loophole".

This is where you do all but the final assembly elsewhere, and then ship the parts to some EU country for final assembly, making it therefore "Manufactured in the EU". This exempts the product from a number of tariffs, and additional VAT.

This is the European equivalent of "the NAFTA loophole", where you ship the parts to a Maquiladora to avoid a U.S. tariff,and then assemble them as "a product of Mexico". The "assembly" sometimes means taking a pallet of boxes, and a pallet of items, cutting the shrink wrap, putting the China-printed "Made in Mexico" sticker on the item, putting the items in the boxes, putting the "completed items" on three pallets instead of two, and trucking them to the U.S.. Et Voila! No Tariff!

AFAIK, Apple moved their operations like this out of Ireland and into an EU country that's former Eastern Block (read: cheap factory labor) several years ago. I have no idea how many companies are using the UK to gateway like this these days, but my guess is: "not many"; meaning it's the primary issue, but as things go, it's mostly meaningless.

To Stop History Repeating Itself

[Roger W Moore]

And why would the EU with 450+ M people give such good deals to the UK ?

Hopefully the EU will remember Europe's history and not try to really turn the thumbscrews on the UK no matter how well deserved. The last time a European country screwed up and really annoyed the continent was Germany. The punitive measures Europe imposed after the First World War collapsed the economy and directly lead to the rise of the Nazi party.

We already have right wing nut jobs in the UK using posters worryingly similar to Nazi propaganda. So by all means give us an economic slap for this utterly insane decision (we can hope it might bring the leavers to their senses) but please resist the urge to give us the full economic punch the UK richly deserves since that could lead to something far worse.

Re:To Stop History Repeating Itself

[DeBaas]

The EU shouldn't take any punitive measures. Those will only give the leavers an excuse for why things are going badly. "we were right, but we're being boycotted by the nasty EU".

Although in the end it doesn't matter much since we've seen how little facts matter anyway. It'll be the EU's fault anyway...

Re:To Stop History Repeating Itself

[just another AC]

Wondered how long before conversation got Godwin'd

Are you seriously comparing the hostile takeover of surrounding countries and genocide to be equivalent to the UK public temper tantrums?

Re:To Stop History Repeating Itself

[Roger W Moore]

No I am comparing the long term effects of punitive economic measures on a large European country. It has nothing to do with the UK's temper tantrums but rather what the rest of the EU will do as a result. If the UK triggers article 50 there is a real danger that it could end up with no trade deal before the fixed, 2 year time limit that article imposes is up...and this could happen even if the EU is being somewhat cooperative given the massive complexity involved.

This would catapult the UK out of the common market and have a huge, negative, long term impact on the economy and you can bet the Westminster politicians are not going to own that problem but lay it squarely at the feet of the EU. That could well set up very similar economic conditions to Germany in the 1920's where the economy is tanking and the politicians blame a foreign power.

Clearly we are still nowhere near that situation yet but unless we are careful there is a clear, and now somewhat likely, path to get there even though it may take 10 years to arrive at it.

Can and very likely will separate

[Roger W Moore]

Scotland would be loaded with 130 billion pounds of debt.

...and by the time this epic cluster fuck is resolved that won't be worth anything like as much as it is today will it? Besides if they got independence and offered Scottish citizenship in exchange for giving up British citizen I expect there would be a significant fraction of the 16 million predominantly well educated Brits who would happily take them up on the offer to regain EU citizenship and that would provide a massive boost to their economy.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[serviscope_minor]

I'd been on the fence about Scotland. I like visiting during the 3 days of summer because I have a thing for midge bites. Kidding aside, I'm not sure about living there: the winters are awfully long and dark and that doesn't go well with seasonal affective disorder, so all things being equal, I've never considered moving to Scotland. That probably was the main reason.

But such a decision is made on many factors and the others just got a lot stronger.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Sesostris III]

We have been thinking of moving up there for some time (we have quite a few Scottish friends). This may accelerate the process.

And being a Java Developer, there may be a number of opportunities opening up, with possible independence in addition to tech companies moving up there!

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

If Scotland leaves the UK it may well have to take on the Euro. If that happens, it can pretty much walk away from most of its financial crisis related debt because it actually all belongs to the UK government and just happens to have been given to Scottish banks to prop them up. There is no legal obligation for them to accept any of it, and seeing as they never elected any of the governments that caused it an opposed most of the polices that lead to it, I doubt they will be feeling much moral obligation either.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Cederic]

Debt is still debt, whatever currency you adopt as your national medium of exchange.

seeing as they never elected any of the governments that caused it

Given the steep rise in national spending that's caused the debt (and much of the debt) occurred under Labour governments that got into power only because of the Scottish votes, you're very much wrong.

They did elect those governments, they do have a share of the debt and if they choose independence, they get to restart living life alone from a very negative economic beginning.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

The debt is Sterling debt belonging to the BoE, guaranteed by the UK government. Scotland has to service it because it is partly funded by the UK government, which simply sends it less money.

If Soctland leaves the Pound and adopts the Euro, there is no legal mechanism to force them to accept a proportion of the debt. If they don't have the Pound any more, you can't really expect them to guarantee debts taken on by its central bank. It's not their bank any more, and there is no contract or rule that says they have liability, and you can't legally make someone retroactively liable for a debt they didn't agree to. Otherwise debt would be heritable, for example.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Cederic]

No, the debt belongs to the UK Government.
http://www.economicshelp.org/b...

As Scotland is part of the UK, part of the debt belongs to Scotland.

Fucking Scottish independents, they want all the income and none of the costs. Their lack of economic sense is one reason they lost the first referendum, I guess it would be too much to expect them to have embraced reality.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

You link doesn't even mention Scotland.

This was all looked at during the last referendum. The UK government threatened not to allow Scotland to keep the Pound, and it was pointed out to them that Scotland wouldn't have to keep its share of the debt either in that case.

Just think through logically what the implications of your claim would be. The UK government could take out a â9,000,000,000,000 loan the day before independence. Scotland leaves with it's "share" of that debt, but the UK government keeps all the money and pays off its share the day after, keeping the difference and leaving Scotland completely screwed.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Cederic]

You're talking about one of the ludicrous claims the Scottish 'yes' campaign made, that had no basis in reality.

My link didn't mention Scotland because it's pretty fucking obvious that Scotland is part of the UK.

Your link is completely missing. As always you're arguing on the flawed logic you're making up, rather than bringing facts and reason into the equation.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

You don't seem to understand what the UK actually is. I mean... Do you think every citizen is part of the UK, and thus on the hook for a share of UK government debt? Or every local council or other subdivision of government?

I obviously can't prove a negative. It's up to you to show some legal basis for Scotland being liable for a proportion of UK government debt if they become an independent country and abandon the Pound. Cite the specific law or some published legal advice given to one of the governments, for example.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Cederic]

Well, fuck it. Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland gets to keep Edinburgh.

Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland gets to keep the islands nearby.

Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland has any assets whatsoever?

Scotland wants assets from the UK? It gets liabilities to go with them. I don't need a law for that.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

Well, fuck it. Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland gets to keep Edinburgh.

Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland gets to keep the islands nearby.

Cite the law that proclaims an independent Scotland has any assets whatsoever?

That's easy, see international law governing countries. Scotland is a country, everything within its internationally agreed territory and territorial waters belongs to it.

Scotland wants assets from the UK? It gets liabilities to go with them. I don't need a law for that.

Um, no, it wants independence and control over its own assets. What assets do you think Scotland wants from the UK?

If you mean shared ownership of the Pound, they would negotiate for some level of control and influence in exchange for accepting some level of liability. Obviously if they have the Euro instead, there is no need to do that.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how the law works in this area.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Cederic]

Strange, I don't see Scotland here:
http://www.un.org/en/member-st...

Or here:
http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls...

The UK has internationally recognised lands and assets. If Scotland wants to leave the union, they can ask nicely for some of them. They can have them - but they can have the debt associated with them too.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how the law works in this area.

No, I merely have the ability to rip apart your pathetic arguments that continue to come out of your imagination. No more. Reply if you want but I wont even read it.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[AmiMoJo]

Notice how you liked to a list of "independent countries", which I explicit said Scotland was not. At least fucking read the post before replying to it.

Scotland is, legally speaking, a "country" in the UK system. Unlike say Northern Ireland, which is a province, and the various islands.

Re:Can and very likely will separate

[Roger W Moore]

The UK government threatened not to allow Scotland to keep the Pound, and it was pointed out to them that Scotland wouldn't have to keep its share of the debt either in that case.

That is simply not true. There is no law which says how much of the debt would be transferred to Scotland that would have to be determined by the exit negotiation but technically the UK could say this is your share either take it or you are not leaving which, if they are being grossly unfair, would cause significant political problems.

Interestingly though a German colleague at work suggested there was a way to fix this mess more easily. If England and Wales declare independence from the UK then they will leave the EU too and Scotland would be independent and inherit the UK's EU membership with the rebates etc. Even better those of us who can't easily move to Scotland (and aren't even in the UK) could refuse to apply for English/Welsh nationality would automatically remain as Scottish/UK EU citizens. It's never going to happen but I can dream...

Re:The primary issue for the tech sector will be..

[hyades1]

Didn't you know? You aren't allowed to talk about that kind of stuff. It doesn't exactly square with the "We're all gonna die in agony" crap we're getting from the mainstream media.

Re:Oh so the companies / management / shareholders

[serviscope_minor]

Globalisation is screwing a heap of people.

Well, you've really screwed the pooch then.

Globalization as it's usually framed is essentially free movement of goods and money, without the free movement of labour. This is great for companies as they can always move things to the cheapest area and since the labour can't follow, they get to squeeze people regionally.

Being in the EU we had free movement of people.

Being outside we'll wind up with a bunch of agreements, i.e. free movement of goods and money (beneficial to companies) without the attendant benefit to people of free movement of labour. Leaving the EU is actually a boost to the worst parts of globalization.

Re:How Trump is funding his presidential campaign

[gtall]

You are giving Bam-Bam too much credit. He was always a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy with a blunderbuss and always amazed he's hit anything. He wouldn't have the foresight to predict what would happen with a Brexit. He mostly just saw it as a vehicle for self-promotion of his world view that the elites are always against him because he's successful in his own mind.

It is good to see him latch on to Brexit with both hands. If it turns out badly as I suspect it will, he'll have to find a way to back out of his support. That shouldn't won't be hard since he doesn't really hold any of his positions with intellectual analysis. However, it would make his chances to do to the U.S. what he's done to his investors a bit less favorable.

Les rosbifs ont foutu le camp

[Hognoxious]

They already have a special deal - it's called the Common Agricultural Policy.

They're the next major nation to have an election coming up. No doubt Mme. Le Pen will produce some choice nuggets of wisdom. I'm going to stock up on popcorn right now.

Re:Les rosbifs ont foutu le camp

[iris-n]

One can hardly call it a special deal if it applies to the whole EU.

The French election is next year. There will be plenty of time until then to show what foolishness Brexit was. Le Pen has no chance. She would have stood a chance had Brexit not happened.

Re:Les rosbifs ont foutu le camp

[Hognoxious]

One can hardly call it a special deal if it applies to the whole EU.

It might not say it in big red letters, but the way it works is very favourable to France. If you think that's an accident, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Re:Les rosbifs ont foutu le camp

[iris-n]

You're just being facetious. Of course it is there because France wanted it. As the EU's benevolence towards the tax havens is there just because of the British. And the obsession with low inflation and deficits is there because of the Germans.

Re:Don't Panic, Britain is not going to exit

[Coisiche]

There is not politician who could take Cameron's spot and would be willing to invoke Article 50.

Well he is certainly leaving a poison chalice for his successor. The Tories won't want to be seen as ignoring the referendum result and will probably find an expendable fall guy who will have a brief Premiership during which they invoke Article 50 then be ousted and replaced by someone that can reassure the electorate that they will "sort out the mess that [expendable fall guy] has created". Boris might fit that role since he has inexplicable public appeal.

If they don't invoke Article 50 then UKIP, enlarged with more Conservative defectors, will run on a "we will invoke Article 50" ticket at the next Westminster election. But since that would then not be the straight in/out vote of the referendum it's by no means certain that they would win a Westminster majority.

Re:Don't Panic, Britain is not going to exit

[SuricouRaven]

Boris has a natural charisma. Everyone in the country loves him. Most of the people can't actually state a single policy of his other than the bicycles, but they love him anyway.

The UK was never part of the Euro...

[LynnwoodRooster]

That's WHY it's retained its position as the financial capital of Europe. It's "outside" the major monetary policies of the EU and thus cannot be "spoiled" but any of the EU members. That doesn't change...

Re: Red Tapes

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's OK. They are in the UK and so their team using maths to solve the red tapes problem will be a non-issue..

Chicken-Shit Techies Piss Off To Belgium

[frankenheinz]

[Proposed more accurate and concise headline.]

Move to Scotland or Ireland

[GrantRobertson]

The tech companies should all promise to move to Scotland or Ireland if they succeed from Great Britain and rejoin the European Union.

Re:Move to Scotland or Ireland

[wyHunter]

It would be hard for Scotland to secede from Great Britain. From the United Kingdom, yes, which is a political entity but last I noted, GB was the island on which they lived. And Northern Ireland is in ... Ireland, not Great Britain.

They'd better rent

[BECoole]

If they move, they had better only rent a location on the Continent - because the breakup of the EU isn't going to stop with Britain.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[bestweasel]

It is slightly unfair but mostly true. A lot of the people who voted leave are out-and-out racists. Leave was particularly popular in areas which saw their industries destroyed in the 1980s when Thatcher and the free market tore up the social contract in which the aim of the economy was to provide jobs, homes and pensions for the UK's citizens.

Since then, successive governments have more or less abandoned these areas which are now into their third generation of unemployment and reading the Sun.

This piece about Ebbw Vale in Wales, one of the poorest places in the UK, shows the level of idiocy.

tl;dr
Standing outside an area where the EU has subsidised factories, roads, jobs, training.
Why did you vote to leave the EU?
Immigration.
Are there many immigrants round here?
No.

The question kept coming to mind

[ThatsNotPudding]

I watched the BBC coverage overnight on Friday online in the US. The same question kept coming up in my mind. Is this a repeat of 1914 or 1938?

Nigel Farage was absolutely chuffed about the results. So was Vladimir Putin.

Re:The primary issue for the tech sector will be..

[Ash-Fox]

The primary issue for the tech sector will be that the UK can no longer be used to take advantage of "the final assembly tariff loophole"

Due to how VAT works, that's not been a loop hole in the EU for import taxes.

Re:The primary issue for the tech sector will be..

[tlambert]

Due to how VAT works, that's not been a loop hole in the EU for import taxes.

I think you missed the part where the device is (finger quote)made in Europe(finger quote), and therefore not imported.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[Cederic]

Lets face it, Nicola Sturgeon just loves losing referendums doesn't she.

I suspect this is the primary reason she's reluctant to push full steam for another one..

Re: Congrats to Britain

[Cederic]

A lot of the people who voted leave are out-and-out racists. Leave was particularly popular in areas which saw their industries destroyed in the 1980s when Thatcher and the free market tore up the social contract in which the aim of the economy was to provide jobs, homes and pensions for the UK's citizens.

You even contradict yourself. Do you have any evidence of broad scale racism, because I haven't seen it.

I have heard a lot of people discussing why they voted 'leave'. None of them have used racism as a reason. None.

Re:The primary issue for the tech sector will be..

[hyades1]

You're 100% wrong about that. The media pushing for the Brits to leave were the loony-tunes right wing tabloids and their ilk. The mainstream are still trying to portray this as a triumph of racism and xenophobia. However, one of the few polling agencies to get it right accurately identified what was happening: "Stay" campaigners and mainstream media did exactly what I said, and the result was that a lot of people who were undecided reacted negatively.

Please try to keep up.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[bestweasel]

Where's the contradiction?

My evidence has been gained from living in England for several decades. Ask someone if they're a racist and they'll probably deny it, perhaps indignantly, but listen to them talking amongst people they know and you might hear a different story. Most people who hold such views have learnt to hide their racism because it's not publicly acceptable any more but it's still there.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[Cederic]

Not all of them..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...

I still haven't however seen evidence that racism was a factor for most Leave voters.

Re:Oh so the companies / management / shareholders

[david_thornley]

Not quite free movement of goods. Individual consumers are restricted in buying things in other countries where they're cheaper and importing them. It's only businesses that get free movement of goods.

Re: Congrats to Britain

[bestweasel]

Yes, some of them have been emboldened to come out of the woodwork by the result, which doesn't detract from my argument. I didn't say most Leave voters are racist nor do I believe it but a significant fraction are. It's hard to come to any other conclusion when someone says they're voting Leave because of immigration when their life is hardly affected by immigrants. I'd guess 15-20% of the population believe that the country would be better off without any foreigners; far fewer would say so but a Leave vote was the perfect means to express such views.

It's more understandable for those whose livelihoods have been undercut by immigrants willing to work for less but they are mistaken if they think their lot will get better as a result of Leave. Their anger is directed towards the wrong target (whether that's the EU or foreigners) and those in charge of Leave don't give a toss about their lives anyway.

Business Down

[savingontyres]

After brexit my business goes down with european countries.