Hacker News Reader

Comment by gravypod | Hacker News Reader

I know this might sound ignorant but can you not stay in the UK and just trade with the EU? I mean I buy stuff from European countries and I'm in the US. Why can't you?

View on HN

I'm the 2nd part of this. We're not making any rash decisions and staying is one option.

It's not just brexit: We have an end-to-end encryption product and we're really super unclear on what the new IP bill means. It looks invasive and we're not keen on waiting to find out.

The US has trade agreements with the EU. The UK does not because it is part of the EU and will have to negotiate them. It's probably going to be hard to negotiate with people who all want to make an example of how bad an idea it is to leave the EU.

The short of it is there is uncertainty and investments hates uncertainty.

A trade agreement is not required for trade, at least as far as I understand it. The absence of one just means you have more flexibility (subject to WTO restrictions) in applying tariffs, but with a weaker pound tariffs become less relevant.

Yes, but that's a far cry from the current single market. You can bet that Brussels is not going to let the UK have access to the single market without huge concessions. Concessions that undermine the whole reason for Brexit.

It looks like the WTO rules could be expensive:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto-idUSKCN0YG1...

An added kicker is that the UK currently has no trade negotiators because they haven't had to negotiate their own deals in a couple generations. They'll need to get up to speed very quickly with a very large number of negotiators. You don't usually have to negotiate all your agreements at once!

If the pound remains weak, then even with tariffs, UK exports to the EU could be cheaper than they were pre-Brexit, no concessions needed.

I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom.

> I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom.

To be fair, a 2-3% impact is huge in the scheme of things. Especially in the current slow-growth environment. As a comparison, in the US February 2008 to February 2010 there was a 5.1% GDP contraction and that event will be in history books for centuries.

the UK will have to renegotiate a trade agreement with the US, but part of the brexit argument is that the UK will be able to separately pursue a trade agreement with India, which has been held up for a decade or so in the EU. The EU is notoriously slow and has relatively few trade agreements (compared to other 'developed' entities) so, outside of the eurocentric perspective, i.e. looking toward the broader world like china, japan, india, africa, south america, being out of the EU is potentially a better choice for the UK.

One can imagine having favorable trade and immigration deals with India could be really great for IT in the UK.

Michael Dougan argues it will be very difficult for the UK to arrange trade agreements within a short time period, as they hardly have enough competent negotiators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y

the EU sets the bar very low for rate of executing trade agreements.

There's a greater than zero chance that EU residents will lose the right to legally reside in the UK.

The new PM has threatened it, and when she was called out her response was "What you want to let criminals stay in the country?!". So yeah…

Yeah, but she's just posing and is not credible in this respect. It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something. Germany and France are making it quite clear that access to the common market includes reasonably free movement of people, compliance with EU law, paying into the pot, and sorting out the situation of UK residents in the EU (also a problem) and EU residents in the UK. Methinks the chance that EU residents will lose the right to legally reside in the UK is close to nil - at the very least those that are there already.

What will more likely happen is that the UK will get a deal a bit like Norway or Switzerland where they basically apply EU laws and without having a say on what they are, and business as usual will resume in the name of keeping the City intact - with UK voters more disgruntled than ever.

> Germany and France are making it quite clear that access to the common market includes reasonably free movement of people, compliance with EU law, paying into the pot, and sorting out the situation of UK residents in the EU (also a problem) and EU residents in the UK.

That's all well and good, but all of those things are what people were voting to get rid of with a Brexit vote. It will be a tough sell.

Indeed, but that's what awaits them. Hell will freeze before the UK gets the EU perks without the costs, if only because the EU leaders are adamantly determined to set an example to flush any "let's leave the EU" incentives in other countries. For better or worse the UK will serve as an example that other nationalists will turn to and say "hell no we don't want this after all". The deal the UK will get will not be something to be looking forward to.

I for one am fully in support of putting them in the same position as Norway, and that's probably more than EU politicians will be happy to accept. That is: UK pays EU fees without the discounts they've negotiated for years on end, complies with EU laws, and gets free market access in exchange for freedom of movement. And without voting rights. There has been no shortage of walking on eggs since the UK has been around in the EU. And the voters were still unhappy, so if anything, good riddance. Then again EU leaders aren't very open to this idea insofar as I understood, because it's a great deal.

Another scenario would be to give them the same deal as Canada: apply EU laws just like Norway, and pay into the EU, without any vote. Oh wait! Yeah, voters will not be happy. But hey, they're the ones accepting that their politicians lie to them.

Yet another scenario is that the UK does not leave the EU. It might happen, after all. Will that be democratic? No. But it will be "constitutional", if one can use that word for a country that has none. Yet it certainly might be the lesser of all evils.

Truth is we don't know, and "tough sell" is not part of the equation. The UK is not in much of a position to negotiate. Especially with the quack they put at the top of their Foreign Office - who somehow managed to insult just about every foreign nation out there before even getting his new job. Credit to the new PM in this respect: she's making the chap own it.

currently the most likely scenario is that UK will prolong the uncertainty as long as it benefits them, ideally until the market stabilises.

> It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something.

The words you picked show in a despairingly ironic way that she's not afraid to push the button https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-...

This is the most right-wing government we've had for a long time.

Dunno about the most right-wing bit, but this much I can suggest: if you're a nuclear power and openly boast that you'd hesitate to use it if needed your nuclear deterrance policy goes down the drain. And that basically is what she said insofar as I could tell.

Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to? Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room? (I'm genuinely asking; this is not merely rethorical... Though admittedly, I can't imagine Thatcher accepting this type of being ignored as a doormat if it's reserved for women.)

In the commons MPs talk to the Speaker, not to each other. It's a bit weird.

> Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to?

The person they are speaking to is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The questions are to be answered by a third person, the Prime Minister.

You will note that May also follows the same rules, referring to the people to whom she is (apparently) responding in the third person. (Because, in theory, she is actually, again, responding to the Speaker as to what she would say to the questioner.)

> Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room?

Absolutely. Indeed, were they not to do so, they would be called out for violating the rules of the House.

Incidentally, this isn't actually a funky debate thing that is specific to the UK; if you watch the US Congress you will note that members also refer to each other (except the presiding officer) in the third person even when making what appear to be direct requests like "Will the gentleman yield for a question?" This is because members are generally prohibited from directly addressing each other, they formally address the presiding officer.

How wonderfully British. Thank you for clarifying this. (And come to think of it, maybe "members are generally prohibited from directly addressing each other" ought to get implemented in some other countries if that keeps debates - reasonably - polite and without fist fights.)

It's like when you're at a party and suddenly some coked-up lunatic smashes a glass. You tend not to stick around to see their next trick.

Any sane person with the means to do so will be lining up their exit strategy.

I don't really see that as a reasonable problem. There are many nations that are not in the EU that have citizens in the EU/UK. I know for a fact that some South African people move to the UK despite from my understanding most South African countries are not in the EU.

The same goes for many of my US friends who have moved to the UK in the past.

People move, and it isn't really hard to get into the UK from a non-EU country. Just by applying the same practices to the EU that are applied to the US will solve any problems.

The UK work visa, from the US perspective that I have, is extremely easy to get. In the US, getting a work visa is at some times an extremely daunting task even with H1B (since in my opinion you are basically 'owned' by the company).

The UK seems much more lax. You get a visa for ~1000 pounds, you stay for the 3 years, you apply to extend your visa, then you can apply for citizenship [0]. I don't see much wrong with that.

[0] - https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-entrepreneur

Yeah, it was great. Now, the mood is such that everyone just stoicly carries on, and nobody knows for sure what will happen, but it probably won't be as good as it was.

Most people are not tier-1 entrepreneurs. That's the equivalent of 'alien of extraordinary ability' in the US. For the rest of us, the hoops are total pain in the ass. Even with 50k pounds set aside for me waiting to be paid out, and a PhD in chemistry, they wouldn't let me in (I took a job in the US instead). Moreover, the immigrations system is outsourced to a single web entity that takes a commission for every application, so there is a significant incentive for the web company to obfuscate the process and double- or triple- dip into their take from a single applicant.

I saw the response that they wouldn't be a guarantee that foreign citizens currently living in the UK could stay there.

Though I was happy that the reason was that EU countries would have to guarantee the same for British citizens living in other EU countries. It actually seemed fairly sensible when that reason was given.

Using humans and their lives as bargaining chips doesn't seem terribly sensible to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com