The Brits said the same in 1776 about one of its colonies.
England isn't a global superpower, it doesn't have colonies, it doesn't have the population to compete with superpowers, its overseas territories are a money drain, and there's nothing of value being made in the UK that isn't being made in the US, China or the EU.
The recession will be hard. It was a stupid decision made by stupid people.
Hopefully things will normalize in 4 decades.
You can't really stop history, but people like you would rather be ignorant of it, it seems.
I'm tired of all the "England this, England that". Yes, there's an amazing history, but you can't repeat it. Look at the world today for God's sake.
And with people like May, with their imbecilic policies and ideas, leading it? Please...
Furthermore, I like the idea of a united Europe, and I'd hate if the UK would allocate resources to undermine that (if Russia can, the UK certainly can).
I like the idea of greater cooperation across Europe, but I'm not willing to unite under the EU, at least not in its current form. Unity is not universally good, it's important to know what you're uniting under.
With that in mind, what do you want to gain from a united Europe?
Addressing inherently regional/global issues like environmental ones at the appropriate level ?
Having the clout of a 300 million people market in trade negotiations with China/India/the US ?
Gigantic economies of scale through common legislative work and a single set of consumer/safety regulations for companies to follow across a huge addressable market ?
"greater (bilateral) cooperation" just won't give you that. Creating a higher entity is the only way that makes sense past a certain level of complexity.
The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")
The truth is that while no organisation is perfect (is Westminster perfect?), and with the assumption (a difficult one to make these days) that you are actually aware of how the EU works, there are a very few other forms than the current one the EU could have ended up in.
A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE. The EU is far from the only organisation with widespread European membership. Here are three of the most important non-EU organisations that affect policy in Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_an...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
It's worth remembering that the EU only really found it's current form in 1992. There were earlier agreements that formed the basis of the EU, but it changed considerably after the Maastricht Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
> "The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")"
Only for the lazy. I simply don't agree with how the EU is run. I'd much rather stay as a member of the Council of Europe than any group that dictates fiscal policy. You can see how well that's worked out for the Greeks, burdened with debts they can't pay for the benefit of European bankers (the bailouts were a bait and switch move, the Greeks got a small percentage of the total funds). The EU will become increasingly focused around the Eurozone, and policies that suit the Eurozone. We may lose some financial benefits from leaving the EU now, but it'd be far harder to leave as time went on, and more power was centralised in Brussels.
Council of Europe with Ukraine and Russia in it. Are you joking? Ask someone from Ukraine or the Baltics, how they feel about the safety of territorial integrity.
I would say, better be safe than sorry in this case.
"A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE."
Did I mention the Council of Europe in relation to war? No I did not.
One could also argue fear of Ukraine joining the EU made the Ukrainian war happen in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...
"Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that members of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia may impose what he called protective measures in the event of trade liberalization between Ukraine and the EU. The EU condemned Russia's threats, calling them unacceptable. Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov urged Russia "to accept the reality of Ukraine signing the EU agreement" and condemned any artificial barriers as pointless."
"After the economic part of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement was signed on 27 June 2014 (by the new President Petro Poroshenko) Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that making Ukraine choose between Russia and the EU would split the country in two."
Note that the military action taken by Russia started only a few months later, in November 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...
England/UK won't become the superpower they were before, just like Spain won't either. Yes, they'll be okay, they have survived through worse, but that's it.
Plenty of sources, but first ones to come were "Global Top 4 Aircraft Engine Manufacturers - Strategic Factor Analysis Summary (SFAS) Framework Analysis - 2015 Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation, Rolls-Royce, Safran".
Don't get me wrong, Uk is top notch there with Rolls Royce, and they're not a manufacturer aircraft maker would want to ignore being for price nor performance, but it's not something we would lose or need to rebuild if the UK were to suddenly fall into a vortex or something.
As for the article, speaking as someone from the UK, as far as I'm concerned the UK did a deal with the devil back in the 80s, focusing on the fake prosperity of the financial services industry (gambling on markets is ultimately a waste of effort) in place of growth in the productive economy (manufacturing industries were neglected for decades). If Brexit means the government is forced to diversify and not rely so heavily on financial services it could be a very good thing for the UK. There will certainly be challenges in changing the economy if we leave the European single market (I can't see hard Brexit happening anyway, there's very likely to be some form of compromise), but I'll not be crying over lost banker jobs, they can be someone else's problem now.
I think it's sad that people with a PhDs in physics/mathematics seem more likely to end up spending his/her time optimizing my car insurance premium than solving real problems.
It's all good and fun to say bankers jobs will be somebody else's problem, but you are offering to replace that money with what, exactly ?
The UK used to be the laughing stock and sick man of Europe in the late 70s, had IMF loans like Greece today. It really doesn't take that much more than a wound like Brexit to fall back again into misery over a couple of decades.
But that's the problem, over-reliance on a single industry.
The thing is, it wasn't seen as a weakness by politicians whilst the money was rolling in. However, many people outside London recognised it as a weakness as their industries were being neglected whilst the UK transitioned towards becoming a service economy.
I'm not suggesting their won't be a downturn from bankers leaving, but I am suggesting it's a necessary one to break the myth that the service economy approach is the only one worth pursuing. The UK will need to become more self-reliant to return to stability, and that will ultimately be a good thing.
ARM is owned by SoftBank, for what it's worth.