Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkkollaw | Hacker News Reader

Bad.

If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That only will cost so much money (and pain) that it would justify staying in the EU.

Then, of course there are companies that have left and that will leave, highly-skilled workflow for London that will be harder to get, etc.

They have to negotiate with the EU so that they're not completely cut out of commerce, with nothing to offer in exchange and therefore no negotiating power.

It's old people in the country that have decided this, based on their ignorance on the matter and lies spread before the vote. Funny enough, it's them who mainly benefit from European aid.

Pretty sad, really (I'm Italian, just talking based on what I've read and a handful of friends who live in London).

View on HN

Your first argument boils down to "it's difficult to leave so why bother". That's an objectively terrible reason to stay, no matter your political affiliation or feelings about the EU.

As far as the "old people did this to us" meme. The 75% of young people who purportedly are so strongly against brexit probably should have bothered to vote if they wanted that outcome.

Additionally, there are other factors than just age that correspond to voting outcome. E.g. degree education, having a passport, income level.

And if we afford those people a bit of empathy rather than casting them all as gullible fools or bad people, we might consider that they actually stand to benefit far less (or have plausible reasons to feel this way) from the EU than someone (such as the average HN reader) who has the privilege to e.g. be choosy about employment opportunities, be able to afford educating themselves, be able to afford to travel at will.

In any case there are many reasons to feel ambivalent about the EU. I do, and I've taken every opportunity that membership has afforded me. I still don't like how (or by whom) it is run or how expansive its powers have become over time.

Thank you for writing your comment, and for this part in general. I voted 'Remain' but I couldn't agree more with what you wrote -- the backlash against those who voted 'Leave' has been appalling. With just a little bit more compassion, willingness to listen, and understanding, the division between both sides could possibly be healed. We seem further than ever from that, and the likelihood diminishes every day.

Rationally, I agree with you. But if I went with my guts, from the little I know it was old people selling/ruining young people's life.

I'd be pretty pissed off, too.

"it's difficult to leave so why bother"

- It's difficult to beat with a whisk than an electrical blender so why bother.

- It's difficult to play field sports with half a team so why bother.

- It's difficult to cut off your nose to spite your face so why bother.

At this time, this is how this argument sounds to me. The EU is an emergent phenomena. The natural course for a collection of neighbour states that wish to have peace and free trade.

The UK still wants to have peace and free trade for sure, but has decided to construct an entirely different artifice through which to pursue these goals, quite apart from the states with whom she wants to continue to have peace and free trade!

> Your first argument boils down to "it's difficult to leave so why bother".

How

> we might consider that they actually stand to benefit far less (or have plausible reasons to feel this way) from the EU than someone (such as the average HN reader)

Not really. I've seen documentaries where they showed how good Europe was (and still is) to the countryside in many countries where the State didn't allocate any resources and all of a sudden they had money to build libraries in small villages. Those villagers just didn't know where that money came from, but that doesn't change the fact. My girlfriend's sister lives in the Polish country and Europe is giving the area money to take care of the national park around her house that was previously left abandoned and in such bad conditions that you couldn't even walk around with the vegetation left to itself.

> I do, and I've taken every opportunity that membership has afforded me. I still don't like how (or by whom) it is run or how expansive its powers have become over time.

Actually, the EU seems to be pretty efficient, considered the huge amount of stuff they do. Of course, there's always room to complain, but I don't see any better alternative out there. If you're from the UK though, you'll get to see if your government is a better option I guess?

While I appreciate Brexit hasn't happened yet there's little to no evidence yet of any exodus of highly skilled workforces. London remains an incredibly attractive destination for inflows of both investment, workers and tourists. Will some companies leave, no doubt, however the high profile mass departure of European HQs and banks has yet to bear out.

To the OP, and going back to the article, a major issue is that of services, our major export. The EU does not have a single market in services, and has shown little interest in progressing it. It isn't so much Deutsche Bank as the mittelstand that demonstrates that the EU as a whole favours particular economic systems. Italy is a prime example of a sclerotic services sector that their own government has failed to reform, despite the EU being willing and able to influence the appointment of Mario Monti it isn't willing to impose a free market in service in the same way it has for goods - and stand up to blatant protectionism.

This is purely anecdotal, of course, but our company which is a large software developer in the UK, is facing a lot of difficulty hiring from EU(candidates drop out citing Brexit half way through the process too) and we already had several EU employees leaving specifically because they don't want to live in UK anymore due to perceived hostility of Britain towards them. We also work with a local Russel group university and I know for a fact that after the referendum, number of applicants for PhD positions in CS from EU countries has dropped down from an average of 160 applications/year, to....3 applications last year. Everything that is happening is monumentally bad, but I think UK won't see some of the bad effects for years which of course makes everyone think it's absolutely fine.

> there's little to no evidence yet of any exodus of highly skilled workforces

Like I mentioned, I'm speaking from what I read and a few friends living there. My friends all left because of uncertainty (all of them are programmers).

> Mario Monti it isn't willing to impose a free market in service in the same way it has for goods - and stand up to blatant protectionism

It's not protectionism, it's corruption and/or mafia. The government is ruled by companies (much like that of the US), and the mafia. Only when you realize this the initiatives they take (or don't take) start to make sense.

> there's little to no evidence yet of any exodus of highly skilled workforces

The NHS has plenty of evidence that EU workers (doctors, nurses, allied health professionals -- all skilled staff, all hard to replace from UK recruits) are leaving, and that's despite the clear assurances given by SoS Health that EU NHS staff are guaranteed to be allowed to stay.

EDIT: the guarantee of being allowed to stay was provided rather late, so many people left before it was given, but they're still leaving.

Indeed, here are two articles for those that are downvoting.

Brexit: One in five EU doctors make plans to leave NHS because of withdrawal - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-nhs-doctors-...

European nurses and midwives leaving UK in droves since Brexit vote - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/02/european-nur...

Here's a UK government report: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ...

And here's a link to the NHS Digital Workforce statistics:

http://content.digital.nhs.uk/workforce

One example file is here: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/media/23993/Leavers-by-age-and...

And more Fears of Brexit drain as more EU27 ambulance staff quit the NHS

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/13/nhs-ambulanc...

Most of what you wrote is mis-information, for example it is written in the Repeal Bill [1] that all existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit.

Trade wise, there will be bumps, but it is mutually beneficial to both us and the EU to keep trading as much as possible the same as it is now. The only benefactors from making trading more difficult are the EU politicians who want to 'make an example of the UK' (Michel Barnier words).

Also these 'old people' were there when the UK voted to join the EU in 1975. So if they want out, then maybe they are seeing something you are not.

[1] https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwi...

That's hugely misleading. It's one of those things that sounds reasonable if you're not a lawyer, but a lawyer will have questions:

1) Will cases be decided according to the same principles as currently? (No, the bill specifically strikes out specific principles, including the animal rights one.) 2) What will the status of existing EU case law be? (Unclear.) 3) What will the status of post-exit EU case law be? (Unclear.)

In other words, it'll be similar, but different enough that it's going to cause problems.

It won't be kept up to date for sure. Plus the law will definitely change all arbitration clauses from ECJ to British version.

    If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of
    laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal
    with the caos that that will cause.

I've never understood this argument. Surely all you have to do is write a law that says: in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation. That's the essence of the great repeal bill, is it not?

    They have to negotiate with the EU so that they're not
    completely cut out of commerce, with nothing to offer in 
    exchange and therefore no negotiating power.

Uhm, there is the little matter of the ~£60 billion shortfall that the EU has to find from somewhere.

    It's old people in the country that have decided this,
    based on their ignorance on the matter...

What makes you so sure that old people are more ignorant than young people? I think you'll find that it usually works the other way round.

    I'm Italian, just talking based on what I've read and a
    handful of friends who live in London

Take what you hear from London with a massive pinch of salt. The EU has done very well for Londoners, thank you very much, and they aren't very happy about the fact that the rest of the population of the UK have just made their comfortable futures a lot less certain.

Consequently, the rhetoric aimed at the other side comes with more than a little hyperbole.

   I've never understood this argument. Surely all you have to do is write a law that says: in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation. That's the essence of the great repeal bill, is it not?

My understanding of one of the big issues with defaulting to EU law is that disputes under EU law are settled by the ECJ and EU regulatory bodies (which are governed by ECJ rulings). This is not suitable for post-Brexit Britain's red lines. Accommodating this requires revisiting and rewriting the law to use British equivalents and I suspect this is a more time consuming process than a simple find-replace job.

This is also why Theresa May plans to use the 'Henry VIII clauses'[1] which allows the Government to amend laws (in this case, the Great Repeal Bill) without further scrutiny from parliament. This is potentially problematic as those amendments can include pretty much anything.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-vi...

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

> there is the little matter of the ~£60 billion shortfall that the EU has to find from somewhere.

What is this figure? https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million... claims a UK net contribution to the EU of UKP 8.6 billion in 2016.

You could argue that that would be a yearly shortfall over a number of years, is that what then comes out to 60 billion? Or are you talking about something else? Also there is the matter of the exit bill, which should offset part of that amount.

Law is not a functional programming language, in which we insert facts, turn a handle and get an answer. The law is essentially what you can successfully argue, bolstered by existing law and case history and all the rest of it.

"in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation" would by no means be any kind of clarity, and I would anticipate such a thing would give years and even decades of discussion and argument in the various legal forums and courts to interpret that in all the various permutations and possibilities.

More than chaos I'm worried that it's going to be used as an excuse to ram through a lot of unpopular and horrible reforms 'under the radar'. Maybe NHS sell offs or a tax hike on "people who work" similar to recent Trump one.

You could practically see the Tories salivating when they mulled over the great repeal bill.

There are some positives - bringing the pound down is good for manufacturing output and employment. This is especially good for some of the more neglected areas of the UK. Of course, that will only give Londoners more reason to despise them - it's probably going to be worst for the London economy.

>It's old people in the country that have decided this

Actually that's not really true:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/10/brexit-cry-financial...

Just going to point out here that Brexit appears to be the ultimate in identitarian politics and that identitarian politics is all about divide and conquer and leave it at that.

> If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That only would justify stay in the EU.

No, we'll keep most of those laws, because in order to trade with the EU we'd have to comply with them anyway. We just lose any ability to control them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com