Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

Brexit was an economic policy decided on emotional terms: most Britons voted on the basis of I like Europe or I don't like foreigners, and economic forecasts about potential effects were just throwaway talking points to bolster those preconceived opinions. Unlike the US, we have no common vision of a destiny to manifest; unlike the Russians, we have no expansionist goals; unlike the French, our political system is an outcome of a thousand years of compromise, not blazes of revolutionary zeal. We are just an archipelago of people quietly bumbling our way from cradle to grave, buffeted by the winds of change, and taking the advantages they afford us while we can.

Brexit was a mistake, but there is no way back to the privileged position we once held in the EU, and so anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.

View on HN

> anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.

Talk about Brexit you mean? I think it's important to point out if it was a bad decision caused by deception, even more so if that was driven by illegal foreign influence. One can learn and perhaps something similar won't happen again, be it in UK or elsewhere. Brexit bombing already had a positive effect on other countries where this topic went from prime serious discussion to something only Russian parrots keep bringing up.

There's no way back to how it was but there are lots of things that could change on the hard vs soft brexit lines. Like going back to common standards on food and health would make trade easier, seriously inconvenience almost no one and probably not be that much of a hard sell?

The part that baffled me the most was how the decision to Brexit seem be driven mostly by immigration. But the UK was one of the few EU countries that wasn't part of Schengen. They had an actual border with the EU and could control their immigration!

Not only that but the French helped the UK keep migrants out of the island (migrants were a hot topic at the time), which meant that good relations with the French, and by extension the EU actually helped.

There were no limits on legal immigration from the EU. Of course the endless stream of East Europeans had mostly dried up by the time of the referendum and most immigrants (especially the type a lot of Reform/Brexit supporters don’t like) were coming from third countries which had nothing to do with the EU..

> Britons voted on the basis of I like Europe or I don't like foreigners.

The irony is the group that is "I don't like foreigners" still got them post Brexit, but they didn't come from Europe this time.

You shouldn't be making decisions such as Brexit on economic terms. It doesn't matter if it's a mistake just as it doesn't matter about thinking the country can go back. Brexit is a 100% permanent outcome from the referendum vote. Those changing their minds now as they thought it might not happen, or doing it for fun, are directly responsible for the outcome. BoJo delivered what the people demanded and now Britain's place as an island off the NW coast of the EU is cemented - warts and all.

> BoJo delivered what the people demanded

This is one thing I don't get about the Brexit framing (at the time and now).

It was just under 52-48.

With some key constituencies voting remain (Scotland and Northern Ireland).

In a normal country, that should be 'There does not seem to be an obvious national consensus', not 'Leave won a mandate!'

Not well known but this was actually the second Brexit referendum. The original decision to join the EU wasn't decided by a referendum at all, a Labour government just did it, despite the profound constitutional implications. So there was no argument for requiring a higher threshold to leave than the join. Arguably leaving would not have required a referendum at all, given that joining didn't.

But when people cried foul about this move in 1973, Labour agreed to hold a referendum on leaving it again, which was held in 1975 and won by Remain. Unfortunately, the way they won was by misleading the public. They claimed the European Economic Community (as it was known at the time) was purely about building a free trade zone, with no political unification goals. Official leaflets sent to households said no federal "United States of Europe" was intended. The Leave campaign pointed out that it wasn't true and the EEC wanted to take over political power in Europe.

The Leave campaign were honest. The EEC later rebranded to the EU, and took over many powers that had nothing to do with free trade. This is one reason why a common comment heard from older people back in 2016 was "I voted Remain in 1975 and I'm voting Leave now, for the same reasons".

> The Leave campaign were honest

Regardless of the legitimacy of your other arguments this is a silly thing to say.

Besides the lies and misinformation. Boris was driven purely by his political ambitions and saw Brexit as a great opportunity to take over the Conservative party. That’s it.

Also legally binding referendums are not a thing in the UK. They aren’t a requirement for anything and the parliament has the right to do whatever it wants. Of course it would be a political suicide to ignore the outcome when you agreed to hold one.

Of course tying it to turnout would have been a sensical idea (i.e. requiring that at least 50% of registered voters would vote for leave for it to be binding)

Those would matter except it was winner takes all and vote counts were for the whole of Britain, other factors didn't matter, including voter age, location, gender, etc. The only thing that mattered was getting majority of the vote for the whole country.

Given the political sensitivities of having Northern Ireland and Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, their individual outcomes deserved at least a little bit of consideration.

permanent? why? how so?

sure, I don't expect the UK to apply for membership tomorrow, but (unless either the EU or the UK disappears completely) both parties would gain from deeper integration

Because of all the timesuck that Brexit was interfered with the EU's ability to make progress. For the Brits to rejoin would require every nation's parliament to approve it. Not gonna happen ever.

But EU membership would be a net positive even without the privileged position.

I think you are right about people's motives, but there is more to it than economic policy. There are a lot of implications to "ever closer union".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com