Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

For now it is going mostly as predicted by the 'remain' camp, the 'leave' camp have a bit of a problem maintaining their credibility. I know quite a few people that moved out of the UK when this happened, including a number of Britons. It will be quite a ways downhill, there is a good chance that when the dust settles the UK itself will no longer exist.

This will likely go into history as the biggest own goal there ever was, the UK had a pretty good deal compared to other countries in the EU and it wasn't enough. But no matter how strong your country is you can't compete with the negotiation power of a block of several hundred million people. Whether it will make the EU stronger or weaker in the long run is still up for grabs, there is plenty of force trying to fragment the EU, some of it financed from outside and so very hard to control.

There are no easy solutions for all this, and COVID has made it all a lot worse than what it probably would have been without.

View on HN

> For now it is going mostly as predicted by the 'remain' camp, the 'leave' camp have a bit of a problem maintaining their credibility.

Let me know some specifics. If you look at banking, the EU has failed to make any major dent in London as a financial centre. Bank headquarters have not moved. Bankers have not moved. London still rules the financial world.

Also interesting to see is the other side, what the EU has progressed to since then. The new German government is saying they want full federalisation. Exactly what the leave camp was saying. Things certainly seem to be going that way. Moves to establish EU army. Strong arming of Hungary and Poland, overstepping the legal mandates of the EU some argue. So what exactly in this case did leave get wrong?

That's irrelevant. What happens to the city is not going to keep the UK afloat in the long term.

The attempt to reposition the UK as a tax shelter is going to make a very small group of people extremely rich but for the average UK citizen it won't matter one bit.

Financial services is 6.9% of UK GDP, probably more now as covid has affected things like tourism.

Irrelevant?

Please back up your argument with more than just claiming that the state of financial services is irrelevant to the UK, and that it's about tax sheltering. I think you've been reading one side of a political argument for a long time.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Financial services are not enough to keep the UK running. The UK is a large net exporter, and all of its sectors are hurting.

The financial services arm of the UK is the major moving force behind Brexit in the first place, they did that knowing full well that the rest of the country would suffer. It won't take forever for people to realize this.

It is not a net exporter and has not been for some time.

Correct, should have dropped the 'net'.

Also, the financial services in the main were solid remain. One or two high profile hedge fund managers do not an industry make.

Plenty of money was spent to try to convince the more gullible segment of the UK populace that their future would be rosy if the UK could go it alone, and a lot of that came from the wealthiest segments of the country. The financial services industry was worried that Frankfurt or even Amsterdam or Paris might take the crown, which for the most part hasn't happened.

And with multi-nationals such as Shell moving to the UK the balance is shifting further away from where it should be, now the UK will act as a de-facto tax shelter in all but name because it can afford to offer these companies great terms, after all, they have nothing to lose.

In terms of money, again money was predominantly on the remainer side. But then any money going to support leave would be the dumb money right?

> But then any money going to support leave would be the dumb money right

Depends on where the money ultimately comes from. e.g. it would be smart for Russia to fund leave.

"more gullible"

No surprise they wanted to separate.

As for the tax game, that is something that has not happened. In my view, and in the view of a large section of the party in government, it will not. The government rhetoric to address regional inequality and to address long term issues with health and old age provision that have not been addressed. These are things that could have an affect on whether they get re-elected. That and government office parties during covid lockdown

> As for the tax game, that is something that has not happened.

It is happening as we speak.

Sure. Point me at the evidence. I am aware of a raise in the corporation tax levels.

The UK has no choice but to go the low tax/low regulation route, not only for finance but to attract any sort of business.

Why would a business decide to move the UK instead of the EU? They have to offer something that makes being outside of the single market worth it.

The UK is already much more business friendly than most EU countries (I haven't many companies rushing to move from the UK to France if they did not really, really have too, for instance) but not being in the EU/single market can be a serious drawback.

The EU also knows this and that's a reason the negotiations on single market access have been tense as too good an access without being bound to EU control would mean letting the wolf in.

Agreed they have no choice. But this race to the bottom has only losers, in the end companies should just pay their taxes and the UK facilitating this is not going to make any friends. The channel islands was bad enough.

> If you look at banking, the EU has failed to make any major dent in London as a financial centre

The EU is in no rush, but it's clear that EU banking is going to move to EU centres in the long run of a decade or so. They have said as much (1) This is no act of charity to London bankers, it's in the EU's best interest to move, but move gradually to sites in the EU.

1) https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/global-financial-industry-u...

Interesting perspective that it's perhaps British common law that is attractive to businesses https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/25/return-commo...

British common law and business friendly environments are utterly irrelevant to Euro clearing, and where the EU lets it happen.

London is no longer in the EU and that's all there is to it. Moving this business to EU locations is only a matter of time and orderly transition.

The Amsterdam stock market is now larger than the London one, for the first time in living memory.

> Strong arming of Hungary and Poland, ...

They are not being strong armed, they are being treated with way to lot consideration, given that they are ignoring the treaties they signed.

Especially Orban in Hungary is basically a robber Baron, and if the EU doesn't move against his BS strongly, they will lose support in the other countries.

Fyi, the eu has bent over backwards not to force anyone to move. Esma and bafin have basically handed licenses to anyone arriving at Frankfurt airport and required minimal staffing locally.

How long they keep doing that is another matter. They're already moving euro clearing out of London. The sensible, European, approach is just that: don't force people to move en mass on some crappy time line. Make people move 5% a year for 20 years.

Smooth and manageable.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/eu-ruling-euro-clea...

I have no clue how you got strong-arming of Hungary and Poland, two countries that signed treaties they refuse to honor. If they want to be in the EU they don't get to pick and choose which laws and regulations apply to them

Banking doesnt get you anywhere with a frustrated workforce

> there is a good chance that when the dust settles the UK itself will no longer exist

I've heard this proposed as a possibility, but is this generally accepted as an actual, probable outcome? By both sides?

From my perspective (American with no ties to the UK who thought Brexit sounded like a terrible idea), it sounded like it might have been a scare tactic from remainers.

Well, that all depends on what the SNP does, they hold the cards at the moment. If they go for a referendum then all bets are quite literally off.

> From my perspective (American with no ties to the UK who thought Brexit sounded like a terrible idea), it sounded like it might have been a scare tactic from remainers.

Not really. The Scots held a referendum on staying in the UK prior to Brexit and the general feeling seems to be that if the UK had been clear on wanting to exit the EU that Scotland may well have seceded the union prior to that.

So now the question is whether or not the SNP will hold a new referendum given that the situation has materially changed, and the outcome of that referendum (which, if the vote leans to 'leave' will be heavily contested) will cause a large amount of headache.

Even just threatening with a referendum could have major impact on the future of the UK.

SNP even just threatening. Haha - you really need to pay more attention to the SNP. You think they been coy on the subject? Perhaps keeping their powder dry?

We'll see. For now no referendum or the intention to hold one has been announced, though that could change rapidly.

I think you misunderstood me. The SNP has been going on about a referendum almost continually. Whatever might change by “just threatening” a referendum has changed and lost its impact by repetition.

Ok, but it starts to get serious once a date has been set. Until then it is just posturing, and the UK has already announced their intention to block such a referendum from happening.

They are unlikely to move from this position.

London blocking Scotland from doing a democratic act would not go over well there. It would harden nationalistic sentiment.

What happens if Scotland insists on going ahead anyway? It would be messy. London's leverage is limited there.

Precisely, and I don't think the UK would like to really be seen flexing its muscle to stop a democratically reached decision, that would open up an entirely different can of worms.

They'll either have to give extreme economic incentives or let Scotland go if that is what Scotland decides it wants.

There are not two entities called "London" and "Scotland" playing a referendum and will game.

If the SNP government, for example, goes ahead with a referendum that is not sanctioned, there is a strong risk that people who don't think it is justified, or are unionists, will not take part, which would be a bad result. So leverage on that side is limited also.

I take your point that it's not that simple, please excuse my not-entirely sober summary.

It is true that "Scottish Nationalism" via means such as a referendum, is the primary policy of the SNP - the "Scottish National party"; it's in the name. They are always in favour of it, it's just the tactics and timing that changes.

it's true that the SNP is the most popular party in Scotland, holds the most seats and has the most influence. But does not have a free hand to call and win a referendum in Scotland at will. If that was true, it would have happened already.

It's true that the 2014 Scotland independence referendum was billed as "once in a generation" event.

And yet, 2014 looks increasingly like a time from a different generation: before Brexit, when the campaign to keep Scotland in the Union was also pitched as the way to keep Scotland in the EU. The irony is palpable.

The SNP say that "Scots are being dragged out of the EU against their will". And this is somewhat true.

I do not think that it will be easy to avoid another Scottish independence referendum indefinitely. The SNP will wait until the time is right for them, and then press the point.

I tend to agree with that! The main thing I wish to convey is that this is not a slamdunk for either side. But there are issues of timing and pressures to make the wrong decision whether you support the union or independence. And a small flavour of that is what i was trying to convey.

SNP has announced an intention to hold a referendum in the next year or two several years running. Check out this years party conference for example.

Scottish nationalism is key to the platform of the SNP, the "Scottish National party"; it's right there in the name. And it's popular in Scotland.

They are always in favour of it, it's just the tactics and timing that changes. They will move for another independence referendum when they think the time is right to hold and win it

Other replies mention Scotland and the SNP, and lest we forget, Scotland is more pro-EU than England, and the last Scottish independence referendum was won on a promise of "stay in the UK and stay in the EU" - yes, really, the threat that an independent Scotland would not be an EU member on day one. (1)

But it's not just about Scotland. Do not forget the question of Northern Ireland, which is now increasingly aligned with the Republic of Ireland. When UK and ROI were both in the EU it was less of a hard choice, but that has changed.

Brexit, while also honouring the integrity of the UK and also the Good Friday agreement is basically about squaring the circle - something has to give. Right now NI is aligned with the Republic of Ireland, not with England, and the Brexiters are not happy about it because NI gets a better Brexit deal by having less Brexit, which doesn't make them look good. But they need to face up to the fact that due to brexit, there has to be a border somewhere between Dublin and London and every position has serious drawbacks. (2)

if NI gets to like the current dispensation well then they might feel like re-joining the republic.

Two fault-lines, not one. It means that the UK needs not one but two wins on throws of the dice in order to remain intact. And a break at one fault-line would trigger restlessness at the other. So the odds of the UK remaining intact go down.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_ref...

2) https://ukandeu.ac.uk/irish-border-four-acts/

Exactly. The degree to which the Scottish and the Northern Irish situation challenge the integrity of the UK has not been seen since the Good Friday Agreement. Risking the stability of the UK to such a degree was highly irresponsible.

not to mention the secondary effects of areas like cornwall and possibly the north of england wanting independance

I forgot to mention, the way that a) having a Brexit, b) honouring the Good Friday agreement and c) territorial integrity of the UK (no border between NI and GB) all at once is called the "Brexit Trilemma"

As in, pick any 2, we can't have all 3 at once as that's logically inconsistent - these are not compatible things.

The decision to add "brexit" to the mix was _not_ a responsible act by rational actors.

See https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/136713747706093978...

or google "Brexit Trilemma". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexit+trilemma

Brexit was really all about EU migration. The economic & democratic argument was really just a pretext. I believe everyone knew this perhaps with few exceptions. Britons felt that citizens from poor EU countries shouldn't have equal rights.

> Britons felt that citizens from poor EU countries shouldn't have equal rights.

Let's see how that line holds up a while from now. The UK had substantial benefits from being in the EU, without those the wealth disparity could become significant in a very short time.

Fyi, that's not really true. Areas with actual immigrants were the least likely to vote out. Areas with basically no immigration on the other hand voted out.

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low...

All the "reasons" people claimed were red herrings.

I don't know. In my experience the people hating foreigners are those that live as far away from immigrants as possible. If you live in the big city and see that Europeans, Chinese and Arabs eat, shit and look exactly like you, you'll tend to moderate any tribalistic views.

The vast majority of EU haters has never crossed the Channel nor met any European in their whole life. That's how racism work.

There’s also the “misery loves company” aspect that I think drives a lot of city dwellers.

Furthermore it’s not just the non-immigrants who can vote in cities. The immigrants will tend to vote for the more liberal policies. So of course high-immigration areas will have more pro-immigration voting.

Finally there’s the factor that, if your city is already inundated with immigrants, then it’s not like they’re going to be going anywhere even if anti immigration policies are put in place, so even if people were against them, they may just be resigned to the fact that they’re there to stay. There’s nothing to protect against, they’re already there.

Those living outside of big cities see all the crime and problems that go along with living in a city and want nothing to do with it. You can call this behavior any name you want, but I think it just comes down to wanting to live a nice peaceful life with your family and not having to deal with all that city BS.

In the States, areas with few immigrants are much more anti immigrantion than those with lots. I suspect it's the same in Britain.

I see this in Texas: most of the Texans I know (not recent imports) are "meh" about immigration; and, illegal immigration? Eyeroll! My relatives in the Midwest where there's hardly any immigrants? - they're the ones complaining of an immigration apocalypse.

Scapegoats are only easy when you don't have to look them in the eyes. I worked with enough ... poorly documented ... guys in the 1990s. They all made good with the Feds: made enough to lawyer up, strike a deal, pay some fines, sometimes go back 'home' for a few years, then go Green Card & become citizens.

Anecdotal but... I've heard so many pensioners complain about Polish people taking their jobs. But they're pensioners and haven't worked in years. Meanwhile people I know in construction where a lot of migrants actually work don't care.

I think this whole thing was fueled by a sort of boredom mixed with fear of changes that have already happened. In all my discussions with brexiteers they claim it's about X but when you ask or point out the lack of logic suddenly it's about Y. Then Z. It's like how you can't really explain why your favourite colour is your favourite colour. Only with massive consequences for other people.

I think the truth is people did it for no actual reason and then attached reasons to make it sound less crazy after the fact.

The alternative would be to admit that they were wrong. But that's not going to happen.

I had a wierd conversation that backs this up, talking to a 70 to 80yo guy, he seemed extremely fit and mental young, but as we got talking about the brexit vote he suddenly got angry/ passionate!! about how the polish are coming in and talking all the jobs, he went on and on for what seemed like ages (about 2 to 3 minutes)

I asked him in a calm but intrigued way to explain more, has he lost his job or has is family been affected? He suddenly changed his demeanor from angry to very calm and passive then said there's been no immigrants to his village and he's retired, but that they might come though - I thought wtf

I asked him does he read the daily express? he shrugged like, whats that got to do with anything and he said yes, the conversation moved on

That's actually not a contradiction but a well-known phenomenon. In any given country, the area with the least immigration is often times the most vocally xenophobic.

As a European living in UK that's the saddest thing, that feeling of 52% of the British people saying "we don't like you coming here for our jobs" but then you have people that have voted for Brexit to, and I quote, "keep the pakis out", so I bet the Brexit vote was less about not liking foreigners but just putting all your anger at the system into the Brexit vote, resulting in shooting yourself in the foot big time.

It's the same kind of frustration that drove the Maga movement in the United States, a wish to go back to days past and some convenient scapegoats. But denying reality usually doesn't work, the past won't come back and shooting yourself in the foot simply hurts.

But it sucks for all those people that worked so hard to lift the UK out of the mess they were in in the 80's, going down is usually a lot faster than going up.

> But denying reality usually doesn't work, the past won't come back and shooting yourself in the foot simply hurts.

When you look at it in that context you may be correct, but I think that’s also strawmanning to a degree. It was common to hear people attack the movement as being just a bunch of people who wanted things “exactly like the 50s” but that’s not really true.

Furthermore when you look at the data, under Trump illegal immigration was at an all time low, and Americans’ personal satisfaction with their lives were at an all time high [0], among other metrics that showed that despite constant negative media portrayals, the “MAGA policies” were actually working and making Americans lives better.

[0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satis...

Illegal immigration had been falling since 2007.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-abo...

OK, yet they went lower-yet under Trump, including by other metrics (border apprehensions), and now under the opposite non-MAGA policies, they are at their highest levels in decades.

Democrats used to take a harder stance on immigration until Trump came around, in fact Schumer et. al. had videos passionately stumping for more money for border walls and fencing in the 00's.

> the “MAGA policies” were actually working and making Americans lives better

This is not a position that has a lot - if any - of support.

The MAGA policies (tradewars, build the wall and so on) as far as I can see materially degraded the lives of Americans. It was for the most part bluff and bluster and if anything it caused the outflow of people that had illegally immigrated to the United States to halt because those that were in the process of doing so perceived that even if it didn't improve things in the United States it would almost certainly make things worse in the countries that those immigrants were originally from.

The way to stop immigration is to raise the standard of life in the countries that people come from, not to build walls and to enact all kinds of idiotic measures to make it harder for other countries to import their goods. That just works towards the opposite. But Maga and logic never went hand in hand anyway.

No it really was about immigration. A lot of people, and that includes British Black and Asian people,ironically, didnt like the feeling that they were being swamped by people who spoke a different langauge, that were crowding their schools and health service. I knew a lot of people at all different levels of British society that voted to leave because of this, form all races and economic classes. I voted to leave because I found the EU undemocratic, inflexible and overegulated, I also didnt like the strong strain of xenophobia and racism present in continental European politics that could infect the UK through EU legislation. But I also knew that was the reason Leave won the vote in the UK.

> like the feeling that they were being swamped by people who spoke a different langauge, that were crowding their schools and health service

That's the most ignorant of excuses. Do these people think we come to UK to get benefits and because we're weak and sick? People immigrate when they're young and healthy and of working age. They don't crowd the health service and are net positive taxpayers and contributors to the economy.

But of course the average "immigrants are stealing our jobs" voter isn't capable of deep concepts like this. Sorry, but as a son of immigrants and an immigrant myself I have no patience for ignorance and small-mindedness.

Now we've left the EU, BoJo offered temporary visas to drive lorries during the fuel crisis this summer and there's no one to pick the potatoes and parsnips out of the British fields. Where the queue of Brits to replace the Eastern European immigrant farmers that have gotten the boot thanks to Brexit?

We all know why no one's doing those jobs, its because they were low paid. Shouldnt farmers have been paying more or was low paid labour from Eastern Europe a good thing?

> A lot of people, and that includes British Black and Asian people,ironically, didnt like the feeling that they were being swamped by people who spoke a different langauge, that were crowding their schools and health service

The English school system is an undefinable classist mess, where you either spend a fortune in housing or in school fees or you surrender to your child being practically illiterate. The NHS is a burning barrel of crap, compared to its continental homologues. They are sources of complaints among expats and of morbid curiosity for those living in the continent (I went to the GP with a broken arm, and all they gave me was paracetamol, do you know an Italian doctor in the UK? - random Italian on the NHS). Nobody moves to the UK for its public services and nobody swamps anything.

Anybody suggesting that Germans or Frenchmen or Spaniards are flooding the UK (read London zone 1 to 3, for the rest is closer to Ukraine than to Germany) is either ignorant or racist or a combination of the two.

It wasnt Germans, French or Spanish though was it, it was Romanians, Polish and Bulgarians.

To be honest, I’m kind of fed up with the normalisation of hate against Europeans and, in particular, Eastern Europeans. As if the Britons were some kind of a master race with a God-given prerogative re: ranking nationalities or races.

If you have a theory re: why Poles are inferior to Brits, you don’t have to share it with me.

I dont have any particular axe to grind against foreigners, and there is no normalisation of hate against any particular group in the UK. They have some of the strictest anti discrimination laws in Europe. Im sure if you were say gay or black and living in say Poland or Romania you'd have a much harder time and be discriminated far more against than if you lived in the UK, so the idea that the British alone think they're better than others is wrong isnt it. The racism, homophobia, anti-semitism and islamophobia in Eastern Europe is far worse that the UK, so what does that say about them?

>> The racism, homophobia, anti-semitism and islamophobia in Eastern Europe is far worse that the UK, so what does that say about them?

I think it says that socially(i.e discrimination wise)EE is still a developing region while the UK is degrading. UK was seen as a model for many european countries. I don't think it'a the case anymore and I don't think the anti-immigration story is over in the UK. That being said I can't wait for the UK to lecture Eastern European countries on immigration...imagine that hypocrisy

You wrote:

> It wasnt Germans, French or Spanish though was it, it was Romanians, Polish and Bulgarians.

as if this weren’t the result of normalisation of hate against Eastern Europeans. Not that I care much, I’m not Eastern European, but I’d try not to contradict myself in the space of one and a half sentence.

> so what does that say about them?

That there isn’t any “them”. Your neighbour is your neighbour and doesn’t bear the sins of his fellow countrymen.

> there is a good chance that when the dust settles the UK itself will no longer exist.

That is a very strong statement for a country which is still very influential

Influential and structurally resilient are not the same thing.

There are plenty of stress fractures running through the UK, both on the Southern and the Northern side of it. If England and Wales (and maybe Northern Ireland) want to continue to call themselves the UK I don't think anybody would object. But make no mistake, this could easily cause significant damage well beyond the intended damage caused by Brexit alone.

UK is not one country, is a union of 4 countries.

I suspect by the above what the OP means is that in the next round of elections, Scotland is probably going to split out from the UK and rejoin the EU, and then the shit will really hit the fan.

The UK government will do what they can to stop it, but the SNP holds the cards as far as I can see. They will be able to extract major concessions or they can hold a referendum which the UK will undoubtedly contest.

The UK can prevent a legal referendum, as that is where the constitutional power lies. An SNP referendum can have no legal sanction, but then supporters of the current arrangements are in no need to actually partake. That is ine complication.

Then there is the problem that the SNP has been in power for a long time and it’s record is rather mediocre, with some long running issues coming to fester.

Finally, because the decsion on what actually to do is not as straightforward as you seem to think, there is a small and rather unpopular party set up with the intention of chivvying the SNP leadership into an unsanctioned referendum. I think at this point, most of the received opinion is that this would be a bad idea.

Time will tell. I think at some point that referendum ('illegal' or not) will be held, and then what happens with respect to the outcome is going to be an interesting lesson in power politics.

An illegal referendum is likely to suffer from turnout problems and not likely to give the holders the fillip they wish for. Risky, as I said.

After pushing through Brexit and involuntarily causing Scotland to drop out of the EU that won't go down well, I guarantee it.

Calling it illegal is already pushing it, and will likely result in more votes to secede rather than less. A couple of hundred years of Scottish history are testimony to that being a country that you don't want to push around too much or it will surely backfire.

Unless you want to suggest that UK would go to war or try to economically strong-arm Scotland into staying in the Union but I don't think even Johnson and his merry band of robbers is going to go that far and without enforcement the term 'illegal' holds no power.

I don’t know how we got here…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com