Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfengel | Hacker News Reader

They haven't really given Brexit a chance yet. Sure, they've discovered that the party that led them out of the EU is dysfunctional, incompetent, and deceitful. And sure, they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has.

But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short.

I think the EU would have the UK back, but I suspect one of their biggest worries is that public opinion would shift back yet again. Voters are unhappy and want things to go back, but they haven't necessarily learned anything about why they made the wrong choice -- if they did.

I can't see them seriously considering the question for another five years, minimum. And when they do, it's going to come with assurances that it won't be fighting that fight again.

View on HN

My understanding was the goal behind Brexit - once you stripped away all the political marketing - was to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe, as a means of competing with places like Dubai. It was never about providing any material benefit to the average Briton.

I suppose it's not the dumbest idea. But the conservative party indulged too many eurosceptic cranks, turning it into an "us vs them" sort of deal, alienating would-be European partners who would become clients of such a tax/regulatory haven. Such clients either stick with the EU as a show of solidarity or just park their holdings outside of Europe as to not "take sides" in the messy Brexit ordeal.

To make matters worse, the conservative party ultimately lacked the fiscal discipline necessary to make the necessary tax cuts without ballooning debt. They needed the political will to make deep, painful cuts to government services, but instead chose to run against austerity. You can't have it both ways!

IMO they should abandon this boondoggle of a political project, rejoin the EU, and give up their extreme tax and regularity plans and go back to providing good public services to citizens.

> to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe

I think you mean "to preserve".

In the wake of the GFC the EU adopted much stricter financial transparency laws.

> But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short.

Funny how imaginary benefits that they promised must take at at least a decade or more to manifest themselves. When the downsides everyone could see before the entire brouhaha started and warned about are already here.

Brexit was an incredibly stupid decision that was made real in an even more stupid way.

That said, the UK is globally important country and has Europe’s only truly global city in London. Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does.

the UK can indeed go it alone on the global stage and they well may. Their historical connections to the USA and the commonwealth realms are something no other European country has. They will likely struggle for a while but i would not be surprised if they managed to succeed in the longer term. the magnitude of their success would have been better inside the EU but alas…

> Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does.

Post-WW2 near bankrupt London got where it is today by being the global dirty money laundering capital of the world[1]. Not something to be proud of, although the economic opportunities in London are second to none vs the continental EU, including the tech sector.

Brexit heavily benefited the financial industry there as now they'll have more room to launder away form EU regulators. The ones who got screwed were the small and medium businesses who made honest money by selling their products in the EU and the youth cheated away from free study and travel opportunities. They're now shafted.

At this pace, the UK economy will turn into a Hunger Games dystopia with the financial elites in the London making insane money along with the service industry catering to the Wolf-of-Wallstreet sharks who work there and to the Saudi royals, Russian and CCP oligarchs who vacation and park their wealth there, while every other business in the rest of the country will be struggling, further eroding whatever is left of the middle class and the already underfunded social services.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE

> the UK is globally important country

> Their historical connections to the USA

You are parroting brexiteers' talking points who think that it's still the end of the 19th century.

Reality is, while UK has (had?) a large enough economy to put it in the 6th place globally, it's simply dwarfed by EU, US, and China. As for Commonwealth... The Commonwealth has the EU, the US and China as the actual important global players. BTW, India's GDP has surpassed the UK's.

And you could see it during Brexit. The UK had to renegotiate trade deals with all the countries, and Commonwealth countries with which the UK has "historical ties" couldn't care less about these ties and the UK's looming deadlines. Speaking of India, there's still no trade deal with India. Meanwhile EU is India's third largest trade partner, after US and China. UK is... number 18. Truly global and important.

And this continues across the board. Companies had no issues relocating from London to EU countries to continue friction-free operation in one of the world's largest markets. London might not be the great big city for long, when momentum carrying it forward subsides.

Yeah, I agree with five years at a minimum. The whole ordeal was such a horrible divisive thing… even as someone completely opposed to Brexit, I don’t think we are ready to reopen that can of worms yet. In 5+ years we’ll have much more conclusive evidence of whether it was/was not a successful move economically which might make it a bit more palatable, as you’d be able to compare before and after with cold hard numbers.

Also, timing was very bad, since Brexit happened just before the pandemic.

The decision to do hard Brexit as the pandemic happened (in Dec 2020) was entirely deliberate to try to hide the effects.

Or perhaps its just because Borris had just been elected with a majority to do so and the promise to get it done.

Not exciting at that point would arguably have been far more cynical.

Would Boris have won that election if the UK Parliament had not spent quite so long dragging its feet in refusing to support any form of Brexit?

"Brexit: No majority for any options after MPs' votes"[0]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333

I think a large part of people voting for Boris[1] was people getting not wanting to vote for Corbyn.

I know several people that disliked Johnson but were scared by the prospect of Corbyn being allowed into power.

A curse on both their houses if ask me.

1. We done vote for political leaders in the UK, we vote for our local MP and they choose a party leader to become PM.

1) MPs declined to support any Brexit proposal at all, because the house was majority Remainers who thought if they refused to act for long enough Brexit might never actually happen? Even the softest of soft Brexit was too much for them to stomach.

plus somewhat in parallel

2) the Labour party managed to select Corbyn to lead them

Q: is anyone actually surprised how the 2019 election turned out?

Seems the UK political elite had several chances, and one after another, blew them all.

So the voters sighed, swore, and the UK got Boris's Brexit.

The deeper question is why was the alternative to Boris and the obvious “more of the same please sir” slow spiral of letting the government rot away or selling it that he and the Tory party stand for… why was the alternative to all that considered to be more “scary”? Might it have something to do with an entire class of politically connected “reporters” who make a living being the voice of the already powerful since the UK media environment doesn’t encourage a robust “truth to power” type of confrontational reporting? From the too easy to abuse libel laws, to a system of patronage and gatekeeping that in no small part is leaking out of the way the minor nobility get through life without the large landed estates the major nobles inherit. If your a good friendly journalist you get an interview, say the right things and you get more, say the things they want about other people and they start to like you, you become their “good friend” and you have begun down the path of “media capture” it’s one of Britain’s greatest sicknesses…

The reporting and media class is either captured by the conservative and anything else slowly towards the conservatives views in a desperate effort to try and curry their favour, or sinks into the mud and joins the ranks of the tabloid trash no one takes seriously but buys anyway since it’s basically entertainment not really news reporting.

At worst Corbyn was a Bernie sanders, he would have shaken things up, rebuilding the social fabric that makes up various safety nets, refunded important social efforts like hospitals, infrastructure, that sort of thing, he might even have built more social housing and raised taxes on rich people that could afford it. That’s not Stalin, that’s not even Marx, it’s just someone who thinks government can genuinely help people by being a strong foundation that everyone gets to benefit from… as far as I can tell, he was scary because he was a “threat” to house prices continued unsustainable rise in value, and the bloated bank balances of rich people and companies who might have had to pay more taxes.

But as someone who’s only learned this perspective from remote sources (I live in Australia and follow various UK things with different perspectives) I’d love to add your own perspective on the whole failed social movement that was Jeremy Corbyn.

> The deeper question is why was the alternative to Boris and the obvious “more of the same please sir” slow spiral of letting the government rot away or selling it that he and the Tory party stand for… why was the alternative to all that considered to be more “scary”?

I don't know the answer to that but it's a very good question.

There is definitely a strong connection in the UK between right-wing, Oxford educated journalists and Tory politicians. Johnson himself was/is an Oxford educated journalist; he'd been fired for lying by various papers prior to becoming an MP.

Since you ask about Corbyn, I don't see him as similar to Bernie Sanders. He much further to the left but more than that he's unelectable as the author of his own FUD.

It's definitely not his stance on taxing the rich or house prices people worry about.

He's seen as "dangerous" by the great unwashed because he regularly talks about disbanding NATO and appeasing Putin[1]. If you take the view that Putin does what he does because he's an absolute ruler and a megalomaniac then that's a dangerous position.

In general he comes across as someone economical with the truth. E.g. He filmed himself sitting on the floor of a train saying he couldn't get a seat because the train was full[2]... except the train operator release CCTV footage that showed the train was empty at the time of filming. He was trying to make a point by using a lie, that makes him look untrustworthy.

Then there's his alleged association with various terrorist groups. I don't think he's involved with terrorism or even supports those causes but... he keeps turning up in dodgy places, and that makes him look untrustworthy too.

Like the laying of a wreath for the Black September terror group behind the Munich massacre[3]. He says he wasn't involved but just so happened to be photographed in Tunisia. In the same cemetery. At the same time, a few feet away, behind a microphone... and holding a wreath.

And who paid for the trip? We don't know because he didn't declare it. The reporting of that was clearly politically motivated but even with the benefit of the doubt that looks dodgy as hell.

Then there's the people close to Corbyn. Like Diane "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" Abbott[4]. For the sake of argument, you might agree with everything she says but surely you can see why others think she is against their best interests.

Or his brother, Piers Corbyn, the professional conspiracy theorist[5]. It's guilt by association but it doesn't make him look like a safe pair of hands.

Or his backing of Russia after the Salisbury Poisoning attack, or the allegations of antisemitism under his leadership, or... the list goes on and on.

You might think it's all circumstantial or whipped up by right-wing journalists, and let's face it there's a lot of that. Still, there's just too many gaffs to make him electable with the general public. Even when running against someone as blatantly awful as Johnson.

For the record I voted Labour in the last general election but I hated doing it with Corbyn as their leader. I held my nose because I dislike Johnson even more.

Sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for but it's an honest opinion at least. (Sorry for the length of this reply too).

1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/jeremy-corb...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traingate

3 https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-cor...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Political_controv...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn#Promotion_of_cons...

Actually this this is exactly the sort of answer I’m trying to provoke when I ask people to elaborate on something political. It was level headed and clear, and you provided references I can add to my own notes. Thank you!

You also added a few extra stories I didn’t hear before. I knew that his brother was a professional crank and the pro-Russia NATO stuff did get played pretty widely so I saw some of that in Australia, and while it looks particularly bad in hindsight now Russia started a war and ended any pretence of the legitimacy with regard to Russia-Ukraine relations since 2014 (there was at least for a while, consideration that the Crimea annexation was conducted legitimately given the cultural demographics involved, but we have all learned a lot about this since 2014), he wasn’t the only politician making that sort of statement.

The train stuff and the wreath in Tunisia were new to me though and I hadn’t heard anywhere near as much about Dianne Abbot as that wiki link provides. It’s definitely a more complete picture of someone that you could rightly have reservations about trusting. It’s hard for me to say he could have been worse than any other politician, they all say and do things to appease and entice voters and then actually do different things and provide elaborate reasonings why that was actually what people wanted all along, or completely change their minds about things once they are in power and discover that the full picture of how things are that they were not privy to while campaigning as an outsider or even while in opposition. And as someone who lives in Australia where voting is compulsory and we get this sort of dampening effect “for free”, kudos for still voting against a bad politician when many others in the UK and USA would simply not have bothered.

And thanks again for the excellent reply!

Ideally you'd be able to blame everything bad on the pandemic and claim everything good as the Brexit dividend

> they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has.

Is Covid not a recent crisis?

The UK response to Covid, specifically to sourcing vaccines and vaccinating the vulnerable and elderly population, appeared to be significantly more nimble and efficient than that of the EU. Judging by the investigation launched into the EU's vaccine procurement[0] more transparent, too. The UK also dropped restrictions in early 2022 after high vaccination rates and the arrival of Omicron appeared to break the link between infections and hospitalisations.

[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-...

A lot of people seem to still believe that the UK has the worst Covid death toll in Europe, even though that isn't remotely true, because ever since Brexit the only comparisons with the rest of Europe that most of the British media make are the ones which make the UK look worse. (I think it may have briefly been true near the start of the pandemic, but all the numbers coming out of Italy were such hot garbage that means extremely little.)

Economically, the UK's GDP has not yet reached its 2019 level. The major EU countries have long since surpassed theirs.

I'm not sure it's wise to believe the headline claims about UK GDP (or lack of it), particularly if those stories mention Brexit. There's more to it, and there's an awful lot of Brexit-related bias in play.

"For 2021 as a whole, UK GDP growth was 7.5%. This was the highest in the G7. The UK had the largest decline in GDP among the G7 in 2020 (-11.0%) and its relatively strong performance in 2021 was to some degree a recovery from weakness in 2020.

Please note that headline GDP growth figures across countries are not 100% comparable. For example, the UK takes a different approach to others in calculating output in the education and health sectors. This has resulted in the UK’s GDP growth figures being lower in 2020, and higher in 2021 (as this effect unwound), compared with other G7 economies than they otherwise would have been."

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com