Hacker News Reader

The brain drain depends on what policies are implemented. I have mixed feelings about BoJo but he's the front-runner for next PM and he's signalled he wants to remain open to immigration.

The UK has tons of smart Indian and Chinese students coming here to study. It's one of the top 3 locations for wealthy Russians to emigrate to (along with Germany and the US). The Qataris built a half billion dollar glass pyramid in London. I hear London has no real contender for a European tech hub (Berlin has much less available talent from what I gather). If a pro-international Brexit happens, we're in OK shape (big if, granted). I was planning to leave before Brexit, but I'm now more confident about the UK's direction and I'm planning to stay (yes I know this is a rare position heh).

You're talking about the past in the present tense. I had dinner with a Russian couple last night in Tallinn who had been planning on moving their business to the UK. As of this week, they've changed their kind, they're staying in Tallinn.

Sure, one data point, but you can't act as if nothing has changed. It has.

As a highly skilled IT person living in London with a European passport, I have to disagree with you.

First, there is this uncertainty of what is going to happen in the next 2-5 years. I can't build a future for my small family based on what may or may not happen regarding VISA or Emmigration laws. Will I be able to change my job easily? will the new employee request "UK only passport holders"? will I have restriction on changing jobs? Will I have the same freedom I had before?. Will I be covered by NHS or do I have to pay?.

Secondly, people who are not already in the UK are getting a bad vibe from what is happening. A lot of people are considering to emigrate to Canada or the US, because the UK "doesn't want foreigners". Racist incidents are on the rise, against Muslims, east Europeans and foreigners in general. It might be similar to other countries in Europe, but its the perception that count in this case.

Lastly, the divide that this referendum did between "Remainers" and "Brexiter" will have a social and political impact. Tories and Labour is in a meltdown at the moment. The next 5 years will be hard for the UK, and I hope things will stabilize soon. But this is not a place it used to be before the referendum. I'm thinking of leaving, probably in a few years. Hell, I'm even considering Dubai, because I'm uncertain of what will happen here.

I think this is a completely irrational level of doom-and-gloom. Just because the United Kingdom has voted to exit the EU, doesn't necessarily mean that it is about to become Nazi Germany.

There are certainly currents of nationalism affecting Europe right now, and it's important that we don't bury our heads in the sand or run away from the problems affecting people. There has to be a way to deratchet politics without slamming the door angrily and fleeing the country.

The questions I think about are: Is it possible to create a better economic arrangement for our people? Can we create a safety net for working class people that stops the growth of nationalism?

That's what you all told me when I said it'd be an out vote, and when I said trump would be the GOP candidate.

Just call me Cassandra.

Well, I didn't. I've spent the last year expecting Trump to become president, and the UK to leave Europe.

In my mind, it was only a matter of when. If it wasn't the Conservative party that had called the referendum, eventually UKIP would either have ended up in a coalition or seizing a majority.

In fact, I think it's better that the establishment should try to grapple with these politics now instead of letting them fester too long. At least now certain things have been dispelled, and the machinery behinds the politics is beginning to be exposed. For example, the idea that we could get £350 million of free money for the NHS just by leaving the EU; or the idea that progressive politics are trickling down into poor communities and helping them to understand that they're rightfully poor because they're not competitive in global markets, and shouldn't blame immigrant workers working alongside them (or whatever it is they're meant to tell themselves late at night).

> Is it possible to create a better economic arrangement for our people?

Bootstrap a basic income.

We don't need to wait for the state or the multinationals to have mercy on us. I don't think they will. We should take matters into our own hands.

My idea is that people should create non-profit associations for the purpose of assuring their basic necessities. These associations should buy land to farm, own factories, organize their own education and health systems. Being owned by their founders, such organizations's sole purpose will be the well being of their creators.

In order to work out, these co-ops need to become independent of external conditions. They need to have a full stack of services, just like a country in miniature: they need to have farms, factories, hospitals, schools and domestic homes.

When the robot age will finally come, people will find it very hard to find a job. In the past, people could trade their skills and effort for money, but now, they have nothing to trade for. So the only solution is to rely on themselves, not on the new economy which doesn't need them except as consumers, or on the government which is too large and too corrupted to be trusted. We should boostrap our own basic income.

Much as I like the general idea: What you're describing has been tried before, hasn't it?

Sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, a successful example being the kibbutz movement and the most obvious failure being large-scale communism. Even feudalism can in some way be considered as a manner of providing basic income.

The problem is: How do you accommodate everyone's personal gifts, passions and proclivities?

Not everyone's a farmer or a physician, so not everyone's of practical use for your proposed commune. This is likely to create envy and resentment.

Except that doesn't seem to be what he is proposing - you don't have a coop to assign labor, you have a coop to control wealth to provide livelihood. The membership does whatever it wants, the coop will, if necessary, pay people to farm its land or manufacture its textiles, but the cornerstone of UBI is that as automation advances the amount of human labor required for any of those constituent parts of livelihood will continue to approach zero, and when it does, you now have an apparatus of the means of production that provides for all your members needs.

If you think Soviet Russia happened because of nationalism and a desire for glorious past, you should check your sources. It's the opposite of true. Early Soviet Russia embraced modern art, abolition of family, "denounce the old world" and all that jazz.

Early Soviet Russia is a complicated concept to talk about, as country was still in complete disarray after the civil war. Your description is true for intellectuals in biggest cities for a short while; soon after, the forces of repression and totalitarism took over the country, and unlike said intellectuals, they had true public support.

   for a return to the glorious past

It's misleading to argue that the Soviet Union was hankering after a "glorious past", the opposite is the case.

I'd even argue that this is misleading in the case of Nazi Germany, although less so as, the National Socialists often spoke of the alleged decadence of the presence which they contrasted unfavourably with a mythical past.

Both the Soviets and the National Socialists were extremely technophile.

Not entirely true re: Soviets. While many wanted a glorious technocratic future, many were won over by tales of how it would be just as great as under Peter. People remember despots fondly, generally, and Russians very definitely believe in the gilded age of Russia, and that it was glorious for all. They forget about the serfdom bit.

Re Germany, Aryanism.

And now russians see Stalin age as the golden one, although they don't forget about Gulag and political repressions: instead, they wholeheartedly approve them, just as they did when it happened.

Correct. This is rather why the glorious past is such a dangerous fallacy - they see the artefacts and remnants of regimes that specialises in propaganda, and mistake it for reality. The same happens within minds as it does in the external world - rose-tinted glasses - and so the cycle repeats.

I honestly don't know if we're up to escaping it. We are beautifully fallible and flawed - without, we would not have art and love and all that is good, so we must take the bad with, lest we lose what it is to be human.

Talking about the IRA and Scottish nationalism in the same breath is pretty extreme. I don't think we've had anything remotely similar to the IRA in Scotland since the times of Bonnie Prince Charlie (1700s)

No, but are all Scots going to sit still while they are dragged down a path the large majority do not want? Seccessionist violence blooms surprisingly quickly - see the breakup of yugoslavia.

There's no indication that secessionist violence is at all warranted. There was a whole referendum on independence 2 years ago...does anybody think that that if Scotland had voted "Leave", the referendum would have been ignored and secession thwarted? Let Scotland hold another referendum before talking about the possibility of separatist violence.

They've already said they're not giving Scotland another referendum.

Who are "they"? The two major parties in Westminster are too busy imploding right now, so I'm genuinely curious what you're referring to.

Are things seriously that bad right now that you've actually left everything behind and left?

Yes. It was when someone called me a "race traitor" on Saturday as I walked down the street with my non-British fiance that I decided it was time to GTFO. Don't feel safe.

>We will see the IRA resurge

I doubt it. They completely lack the community support they had in the past for any sustained anti-government action. Sinn Féin are only posturing on the border poll idea and they know they would lose by a wide margin anyway.

I agree about the brain drain if brexit continues, but would there seriously be a brain drain if brexit is halted?

I'm fairly certain the UK would be better off if most of the leave voters left the UK completely. The demographics seem to trend towards older pensioners and those on some type of government assistance.

EU funding for research in UK is now precarious. I can't see why EU would fund research in UK if UK isn't properly in EU.

I see Brexit as EU being able to say "properly in, or out, but no more half measures".

That's what EU leaders are saying. “Marriage or divorce, but nothing in between,” said Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel. “Those who want free access to the European domestic market will have to accept the basic European freedoms and the other rules and duties which are linked to it” - Merkel. The UK will not be allowed to pick just the features they want from the EU.

Yeah, and nothing that they say on that topic matters. As long as the UK still lives up to its treaty obligations, they can't make them leave. And the EU so far has refused to negotiate anything before the UK starts the leave process in order to keep the best negotiating position it can. There's going to be alot of foot dragging whatever the outcome.

You realise all the "EU funding" is just them giving us back our own money, right? We're a net contributor. We could replace all the EU funding/subsidies with payments from Westminster and still have cash left over.

That's a bit of a faulty sum that excludes externalities though. If we end up outside the single market and the economic cost is substantial, then any reduction in EU contributions will be outweighed.

UK is a net beneficiary for research funding.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/uk-scientists-rely-on...

> RG: What do you think Brexit’s impact on research and science in the UK will be?

> Wilsdon: On top of six years of flat funding from our own government, we now have to contemplate a significant reduction in research funding from Europe. It’s important to remember that the UK is a net beneficiary in this area: between 2007 and 2013 the UK received an estimated €3.4 billion more than it paid into the EU in terms of funding for research and innovation. So losing those funds will further destabilize our research system, and for some subjects, particularly in the social sciences, the proportion of EU funding is 20, 30 or even 40% of the total.

If brexit is halted the leave camp will not take it lying down - and those with brains and money and means aren't going to stick around to see if it all pans out OK. Young brits, particularly Londoners, are very mobile, and generally willing to emigrate.

Additionally, even if they call the whole thing off, the already present uncertainty has dented the next decade or more for the UK economically, diminishing the prospects of the young and/or bright.

I feel for many of the leave voters, as they voted for an illusion they either lacked the faculties or tools to see past. Many are hateful, but many were duped - but nobody likes to admit that they were duped, so they'll either duck and hide, or become hateful in response to the unambiguous hate coming from the very betrayed feeling remainers.

It's an awful bind, and it's one that's played out before, very poorly.

There's lots of smart leave voters though. Leavers defy pigeon holing, my best effort counts 4 distinct leaver types and there's probably more.

It's a disservice to lump them all in the pitiful camp.

Ah, but smart does not mean worldly or wise - I chose my wording poorly for the sake of brevity. I know plenty of very intelligent people who are utter idiots!

The leave voters are predominantly without a college education.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/bre...

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for providing evidence. I tried to upvote you to counter that.

Because HN is generally pro-brexit and right wing, and they do not want facts that conflict with their world view.

And if Brexit does go through, it will also have consequences. The ratio of "leave for Canada" if Brexit fails to the "stay out of Britain" if Brexit goes through is kind of impossible to measure, however.

What we do know is that the vote was pretty close either way and that most of the MPs don't want Brexit. Which means that there are strong incentives to delay as long as possible. Whether this means next year, or until there's an actual deal that can be voted on by Referendum or Parliament, or until the next election brings in a new set of politicians is an open question as well.

Actually those on government assistance were shown to vote mostly to stay, so that they could hold on to their government assistance. The EU helps the welfare of many poor people.

We will probably need a source for that - all the data I've seen suggests that 'leave' support was inversely correlated with income http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...

I see it mentioned quite often that the people who tended to vote leave were older and wouldn't have to "live with the consequences for very long" but it's never mentioned that they were the ones who voted to join the EU (what was then called the European Communities) in the first place.

They voted to join 67% to 33% in 1975. They are all 60+ years old now, and polls showed 60+ voters voting to leave by over 60%.

Why were they in favor of EU membership then but against it now? If they voted to leave because of stupidity and xenophobia, as I keep hearing here on HN and on Facebook, why did they ever vote to join in the first place?

It's interesting how the people with the most historical context, the most experience with the system, and indeed the people who brought it about are seen as somehow not worthy of having an opinion on it and that their vote should count less or not at all.

A good question, and your numbers might be mostly correct, but there are some false assumptions leading to them (based on the information presented). Just because 40 years ago there was a 67% vote to join, that doesn't mean 67% of the people that voted to join are still alive (that assumes the voting results were fairly uniform across age demographics. It could be that young voters voted predominantly one way and older voters another back in 1975 (as it is reported they did now). That could greatly raise or lower the percentage of people still alive that voted to join.

Because they've had 25 years of anti-EU propaganda blasted at them, mostly by Boris Johnson.

By his own admission, when he was a journalist in Brussels in the 90's, he fabricated stories from whole cloth - he compared it to chucking stones at the neighbour's greenhouse for fun. He was fired for this repeatedly, and therefore entered politics.

Where did you get such detailed demographics for this secret ballot?

Because all I have found is inferences and supposition.

E.g. The New statesman meta analysis

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...

What's actually going to happen is that we leave the EU, but move to the EEA keeping trade and free movement.

So, worst conditions than now

No [0].

There are quite a few ways in which that might be considered better, or at least a step in the right direction.

[0] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac...

Can you give us the source for that chart because it is very curious what they say.

Look at Norway and Switzerland

Norway and Switzerland are brilliant examples of success outside of the EU.

Switzerland has some of the highest quality of life you can get.

They also have higher per capita gdp

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+norwa...

Switzerland is part of EFTA which is one step above the EEA [0] as-is my understanding. It would apparently take longer to negotiate this, however there is some political will for the UK to join [1] so it's not something that's impossible given a bit of time and exploration of each countries incentives.

Longer-term it might be better if the UK diversifies more, and begins to trade less with Europe, and more with booming Asian economies or countries which share its language.

Obviously in the short-term there will be a lot of noise: FUD and posturing.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmBqSu-WgAEFHSa.jpg:large

[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/european-economic-area_switzerla...

Now look the treaties and duties both of them have.

Both of them are part of Shengen Area, UK no. And one important thing for the leave campaign

It's the Adam Smith Institute's research on the EEA Option:

http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution

This chart is wrong in at least one line (probably many more): Norway pays about the same per capita as the UK does/did (source: interview of the german treasury secretary, Schauble).

So while the Norwegian model is a valid option - it does not save the UK a single Euro.

Alright, I asked ASI to correct the numbers if they are wrong.

I did also read the Telegraph's article about Michael Burrage's book on this [0] which said something similar, however I trust their ability to report less than the ASI:

  > Our free access is not free access at all. Arguing for the single
  > market on the grounds that you can avoid a 3 per cent tariff
  > by actually paying 7 per cent fee is mis-selling on a scale
  > that dwarfs the PPI scandal.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/not-only-can-brit...

Maybe. No one knows.

My mostly uninformed gut reaction is that such an outcome is unlikely. The EU would probably /need/ to be too punitive to anyone attempting to leave to allow that; otherwise it risks everyone opting for that deal.

The outcome that I hope for is that Article 50 is not invoked, and that instead everyone in the UK Government is replaced in a general election of no-confidence.

What would be simply amazing is if some scheme for making multi-nationals pay taxes and environmental impacts properly was enforced in the first world markets.

"The EU would probably /need/ to be too punitive to anyone attempting to leave" - Considering merkel just ruled out being punitive in negotiations I doubt it.

She has cars to sell.

It doesn't matter.

This is not basic utilitarianism, there is game theory involved. You have to be willing to take a loss on some deals to achieve the equilibrium you want.

The alternative is many many many people in Germany and france losing their jobs.

It's just not politically allowable, not to.

she has cars to sell in the UK but the rest of Europe not so much.