I don't think the UK is going to get the same deal as Norway or Switzerland especially since the UK doesn't want to get involved in the free movement.
This is the dilemma, I don't think the EU does want the UK to suffer just out of spite, but they can't give them a generous deal considering EU stability.
By the way: Berlin and London Stock Exchange markets want to merge, the UK leaving the EU is more of a problem in that regard http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees... (though they said they want the deal to go along no matter the vote)
[1] Front national (FN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Party for Freedom) in Netherlands, nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, ... Election in Spain might also not turn out to result in a EU-friendly government... (seriously could go on...)
No wonder everybody hates it.
That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
> Germany threatened of no trade agreement.
Same here
> France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants
France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them.
Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club.
When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.
But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.
You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.
> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
> “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.
The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.
So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?
It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."
I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!
Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.
Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...
even the remain arguments seem to be, yeah sure it's not great but it's still better than nothing.
what a ringing endorsement.
The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US.
How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".
Interesting price difference. It seems after a little bit of research this has to do with reduced demand for air travel in the us. But if it were to be something the eu has done, which largely generally surrounds higher regulation and the suppression of competition. How has it done so?
If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
By the logic of your parent posters the UK wouldn't have left because of Greece, which has been used to set an example last year.
Calmly, but clearly.
This will be good for everybody: UK will be happy being free (a feeling which will trump any disadvantage they may be getting by leaving the EU), and the EU can proceed with greater political integration.
Plus, you know, either way roughly 50% of the population is going to be unhappy by the outcome of this referendum.
But my other point stands: I think this will definitely be good for the EU, if contagion can be avoided.
As a Brit I am in despair this morning.
I'm assuming you are in US. Imagine the feeling you will have the morning Trump wins the presidency. This is the same feeling. A gut punch. My Facebook feed is full of very upset friends. It's really depressing.
Fear, hate and ignorance won.
Or are you mostly just lamenting your contrymen's xenophobic and isolationist attitudes, without necessarily foreseeing a particular measurable change in your life?
It has had an immediate effect on me and my co-workers (been working since 4am). It is entirely possibel my job will move to continental Europe some time over the next few years (I may or may not go with it).
It is also entirely possible that it will cause a second Scottish referendum and possibly a Northern Irish one too. My current plan is to agitate for London to secede from the UK. Not sure that'll work though.
Pretty sad and angry today, but you turned out indeed to be quitters.
People like you will be the ones suffering the consequences the most, so I wish you all the best!
My guess is that they are hoping that the economic loss will be short lived and people will want to continue to trade with the 5th largest economy.
My objection isn't that somehow we'll turn into a banana republic. My guess is we'll drop 3-5% GDP. It's that building growth in a slow global economy is painful. We've spent the last 8 years going through that pain and we'll just have to do it again. It's like shooting yourself in the foot but without actually being on the front line.
Where I have a feeling my view diverge from yours is that the only good reason I see to be in the EU is economic. The single market has been a success and good for the UK. The rest, not so much. I think it's a mistake to leave the EU but not an unqualified one.
I am very interested in hearing about the concrete manifestations of policy changes on economic activity, public health, national security, the environment, etc. I honestly have no idea what the implications of a Brexit will be with regard to these things.
In politics, though, such discussion is often drowned out by people's quests to self-identify as whatever kind of person (eg. liberal) and make note of cultural differences between themselves and the opposition (how they're uneducated or xenophobic or not globally-minded, in this case).
The GP seems confident that a Brexit is an extremely bad thing. I have no a priori reason to suppose otherwise, but it would be a lot more useful if they would explain what negative consequences they foresee.
For one, and by definition, broken agreements and extra burden to paimfully craft new ones. Work duplication. Petty fighting for minute details with each potential partner.
Next, broken trust. We have spent years negotiating with the UK, accedimg to ever increasing demands, accepting expansion of the EU to the east at your behest (and then complaining about too many poles), etc. Luckily we did mot accept Turkey (which I actually supported, but in the current situation would have been a further destabilizing factor) at your (and USA's) behest.
And now you quit. You shatter all we have built together. Not nice. Resentiment is bound to take hold of lots of europeans against britons. I for one do not welcome you anymore. I hope all agreements with the UK are declared void, students are not accepted in university exchange programs, that you have to pass screening processes (like all mon-EU people have) to enter and set shop in any EU country, that you have to prove cultural and language integration whenever you decide to permanently move to another EU country, that you are only allowed to move if you have a work permit and a work offer, etc.
In short, the EU should put back all red tape that belongs to any non-EU member. And each piece of red tape will be romeved, or not, after long negotiations, which the EU will agressively stear to defend our interests.
Is this retaliation? At all! YOU have decided this. The club you are leaving is all that, and much more. You are leaving ALL that behind.
Will this happen? Is this in the EU's interest? You bet. Maybe not strictly in our economic interest, but defenitely in a political sense.
We have been dealt an existential threat, and we need to show the remaining 27 members how cold it is outside.
The reactions of EU polititians have been cristal clear: we are cutting ties with the UK, fast and furious.
Boris can pretend to continue to be european, but we will not necessarily welcome it.
This vote tore all that up.
I do wish people in the Remain camp would stop with this. Just because people voted to Leave, doesn't mean they were uneducated. I was on the fence about whether to stay or go for a long time, it was only after I put in research that I decided to vote to Leave. Despite what you see in the mainstream media, it's not just a bunch of racists voting to Leave. In fact, I really wish I could've voted to stay, but I didn't want to compromise my principals to do so.
If you want an educated voice that was in favour of leaving, watch this clip of Tony Benn...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg
Jeremy Corbyn also had serious misgivings about the EU too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc
From what I've seen, neither of them were/are susceptible to jingoism. Do you see why they wanted to leave?
Sorry, but sour-grape bullshit.
There was pro-leave bullshit, but there was also pro-remain bullshit. Characterising anyone who disagrees with your position as ignorant, or less educated is the height of arrogance.
If you have so many pro-EU friends, it sounds as if you live in a bubble. You need to get out more. It is very depressing.
Sorry, but the figures show that those who voted remain were not only older, but also less educated.
(https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/yougov-referendum-model...)
And most of the evidence for the 'right choice' is clearly in the remain camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 (A bit uncouth, but the evidence he presents is pretty clear)
I was rather undecided, leaning towards remain, until I started examining the posts by my friends. I examined most of the quotes and figures they mentioned in each article. As a result, I think my 'leave' friends are insane, because I found all of the 'leave' articles were utterly disingenuous about their quotes. They repeatedly misquoted newspapers known for extremely poor (third rate) coverage, and some of the information was downright fabrication. On the other hand, the articles posted by my friends who supported the 'remain' camp frequently listed what I consider to be 'first rate' sources (The Office of National Statistics, etc.), and the quality of the information was much higher and truthful. I found only one or two misquotes, and no fabrications.
Obviously, that's purely anecdotal, but it seems to mirror the experiences that a lot of 'remain' voters have had.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
You have decided to leave beleaving that being independent will improve your chances of facing global problems: globalization, immigratiin, inequality, tidal movements in the labor market due to technology disruption ... It is not a given that global problems can be better confronted by withdrawing from international organizations. Time will tell.
But even if you happen to ne succesful in that front, the political damage, for the UK and the EU is huge. The EU is much more than a market, and the UK is about to realize about it.
I heard there are a lot of tech companies that already bought land in Ireland as a hedge against the Brexit, and that's where a lot of the tech jobs are going to be going. (Albeit that's only one industry, and I doubt that the financial industry would go in the same direction.)
Let's not forget that there are many engineers who don't live in the Bay Area, NYC or London, for whom Dublin may be quite attractive. And while it may not be on the level of those three regions, it has a lot going for it in its' own right.
Now Ireland has both: human capital and tax reasons.
Not saying there aren't plenty IT jobs, but you can't look at size/investment alone without looking at what kind of roles are actually there.
I'd also note that while companies get plenty tax breaks, actual income-tax is pretty high. Accommodation is pretty pricey near the centre too, though not as bad as London.
Dublin in particular is incredibly dynamic right now. And it's a lot better than where most London tech companies are e.g. Canary Wharf, Stockley Park etc.
If the EU really wants to go that way, it will only make more people wonder whether they want to be part of a transnational bully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
Greenland and Algeria left the EEC (EU precursor)
If you refuse, are you the bully?
But whatever the response of the EU, it will decided by power politics that appear very distant from the control of the voter.
It's not about the technology, it's about the people and the money, which is all in London.
In any case, expect a lot of the money to pile into other currencies and not get spent as people try to ride this out.
I think a more interesting metric will be the price of land in London and the change in the rate of flows in/out of the property market in the coming weeks. Less liquid, less prone to volatility, more indicative of long-term economic trends for the city.
Because the anti-immigrant nature of the Leave campaign e.g. from UKIP suddenly makes the UK look a lot less inviting. If the Visa situation doesn't get a whole lot worse.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f00c4a58-384a-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...
The FT is reckoning on a split across the Eurozone:
"But, as a small city with a population of less than 700,000 people, Frankfurt is seen as provincial and unpopular with staff. Dublin is English-speaking and attractive on tax grounds, but it is a relative backwater. The most likely outcome is that foreign banks with large operations in London will shift staff to a spread of eurozone locations where they already have operations — including Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris, Warsaw and Lisbon. That would fragment the financial services industry in Europe, potentially weakening the continent’s ability to compete internationally."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d576b0-386a-11e6-a780-b48ed7b612...