Hacker News Reader

Comment by callamdelaney | Hacker News Reader

In terms of economy why not? The USA is equal in GDP to the entire EU, and it seems much more efficient to deal with them, an actual country, than 27 odd countries whom all have their own agenda and are masquerading as one country.

Of course it's very fashionable on the internet to shit on brexit. "haha brits be dumb cus independent" - I can only imagine what sort of insecurity you're dealing with about your own country that you have to resort to this.

View on HN

GDP - the most gamed and politicized metric on earth. Battling it out at the top of gamed metrics with unemployment rate.

We'll see if this is still the economic "gold standard" to compare countries when China overturns the US in GDP.

He said equal which is fair. After all there are lots of (relatively) poor countries in eastern Europe hat are part of the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Yes, "In terms of economy" why not.

Just ignore every other benefit of the EU to make your case.

I'd suggest that there aren't any other benefits of the EU.

As a Brit living in it I would tend to disagree. By the way if you're a leaver I've been looking for someone to cover the additional costs you've voted to put on me, DM if interested.

Ah yes, the common myth that before the EU nobody could live in any other country which is now a constituent of the EU.

It isn't a myth, there's a marked difference between having the right to live somewhere and merely the possibility.

Before, it was my right to live in the Netherlands. Now, it is just a possibility.

Thanks to the Withdrawal Agreement, because I already live here, I was given the "right" to apply for a residency, which like 99% of applicants, I received. I can now enjoy that for 5 years, after which I will need sponsorship from a company.

This sponsorship is a key difference, which anyone who has moved to the US can attest to. When your continued existence in a country is contingent on workplace sponsorship the power dynamics between you and your employer are really quite different.

In addition, it's one thing for me in a skilled occupation to be able to leave the country. But I have a friend whose boyfriend may be coming here on an art scholarship. She isn't in a skilled occupation. Before, she would have had the right to come here too. Now, I'm pretty doubtful that she'll be able to join him.

At 24 and probably unlikely to ever leave the UK I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this. But it is the lived reality, previously of every British person leaving the EU and now every British person who leaves the UK.

Edit: But of course, I'm not the first person to explain this to you, and it's not the last time you'll bray to the cheap seats with this mischaracterisation.

It incurs real costs. Brits have no idea how expensive it is to immigrate legally to the UK, or other EU countries from outwith the EU.

GDP doesn't matter for export/import. You don't know anything about these things, so why comment?

I agree. I didn't vote for Brexit but it is hard to see how the pro-Brexit crowd haven't been vindicated with the vaccine roll out.

We wouldn't have been required to join the EU for the vaccine scheme if we were a member, and were offered to join when we weren't. So I don't see how it is relevant.

Why can't I upvote this?

Britain handled corona one of the worst in the world, the vaccine thing does seem like a genuine good news story but it’s bolting the door after the old people are all dead. Go back, look at the excess death rates, the extra preparation time the Uk squandered and the rhetoric at the time. Our ruling class have the blood of hundreds of thousands of dead on their hands and it’s astonishing that the entire British public is mollified by getting vaccinated a couple of months early, when the damage is already done.

My point wasn't that COVID was handled well, although I think there are more factors than government at play (It would be pretty hard to argue that the US govt has handled COVID better than the UK, so why is there death rate so much lower?).

My point was that it is plain to see that the vaccine roll out in the EU has been mired by competing interests and slow bureaucracy, which is exactly what the eurosceptics were claiming is wrong with the EU in 2016. Thus the vindication.

Much of the delay that the EU experienced can be attributed to the stricter scrutiny and liability conditions it applied to the vaccines, and the fact that the UK paid more per dose in order to jump to the front of the queue.

If anything, this vindicates the Remainers who claimed that the UK government would become more deregulated and more beholden to corrupt interests.

The EU was faced with an almost impossible set of constraints, either leaving the poorer countries to fend for themselves (and being portrayed as not caring about its ideals of unity and equality), or forcing the richer countries to vastly overpay for the doses of the poorer countries (and being portrayed as a wasteful drain on successful economies).

Of course, it is in the interests of rich countries to help people in poor countries get vaccinated so that they don't become breeding grounds for new variants, especially if those countries have important trade links and free movement with said rich countries, but unfortunately people can get quite selfish during a crisis and not see the bigger picture. This is why we can't have nice things.

The UK got a several-week headstart on the EU, announcing various partnerships, particularly with Oxford/AZ, before the EU even began their process. (Yes, I am aware that purchase orders were signed at different times, but the UK secured funding and supplies back in May last year, when the EU didn't begin its process until June)

Talking about "queue jumping" or "corruption" really seems to be rooted in bitterness or just anti-UK sentiment.

> corruption

Actually I thought I had written "corporate interests", but I guess that was a Freudian slip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com