How is Brexit proceeding? Everything OK?

[shortylickens]

Or is it a giant god damn mess?

How are you guys feeling right now about your future?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Or is it a giant god damn mess?

How are you guys feeling right now about your future?

Not a Brit but these might help.

May facing a revolt

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...arify-brexit-position-face-no-confidence-vote

and a mess of articles on it from The Guardian

https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_..._occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, I saw a cartoon of May putting a big gun in her mouth. It was labeled Brexit....

 

[spacejamz]

Well, I saw a cartoon of May putting a big gun in her mouth. It was labeled Brexit....

Not sure if you know this, but you can always find political satire mocking all sides of a political story, not just the ones you think are funny.

 

[UNCjigga]

Last I looked, the Chunnel is still intact. But they'll probably blow it up once everything's official.

 

[shortylickens]

OK, well, so, I wanted real opinions from actual Britons but I guess hyperbole from Americans is fine too.

 

[Victorian Gray]

OK, well, so, I wanted real opinions from actual Britons but I guess hyperbole from Americans is fine too.

Umm, I did give you some links from The Guardian that have a lot of info. It's a good starting place for you.

 

[pmv]

I think the fundamental issue is the EU won't allow the UK to take the 'good' bits while avoiding the parts it doesn't want. At the simplest we can't have tariff-free trade without freedom of movement. I'm not sure that was ever explicitly acknowledged before the vote.

Polls show both that a majority of people want a second referendum, but also that if we had one the country would be split down the middle exactly as it was in the first one - it could come out exactly the same or with a tiny percentage victory for remain.

I feel almost as split about it as the country does. I don't think it's surprising that a lot of people are wanting out, because being in doesn't seem to have done much of the country much good. A lot of people are having a hard time, especially outside London and aren't inclined to react well to being told how great the EU is for them. There's the usual ever-present anti-foreigner sentiment, but I don't think that is what has swung the vote at the margins, what did that is the economics. The EU has not been well run and has not made enough effort to take the general populace with it. The UK has also screwed itself over, due to the way it's internal politics interacted with the EU (e.g. successive governments making no effort to use the restrictions on free movement that EU rules already allow for, and opening the borders to the A8 years before the rest of the EU did).

We have a government obsessed with liberalising the economy - making our labour market both easier to get into but also lower-paid and more insecure [_way_ more insecure] - and over the channel are governments struggling with large-scale unemployment and a system that is good for those in work while locking others out of the system. It's not hard to work out how that would play out. It's not all about the awful xenophobia of the British, it's a consequence of different priorities and pressures on different societies, that have interacted in a destructive way. Then you have the Eurozone and the clashing interests of the Germans and the Southern Europeans.

Also Britain doesn't have the same memories of war and occupation, nor the various special reasons for wanting to be in the EU (fear of Russian domination, fear of their own history of fascism, fear of war, etc).
[And it's not insignificant that many Eastern countries are going ultra-authoritarian, the EU is rapidly ceasing to be the club of 'liberal democracies' that it was supposed to be]

But I just can't see that leaving is going to be an improvement, if only because of that tariff-free-trade issue. Plus those in charge of the leaving process appear to be a bunch of clowns and May's government is the weakest in living memory.

Sometimes I think we should just break up the UK, and let the bits that want to stay in the EU stay in while the rest leave, but that's the same sort of despairing thought I have when I look at the political divisions in the US and think of that 'Canusa vs Jesusland' idea. It's not a practical idea.

Probably the least bad outcome would be ending up in some sort of free-trade zone, having to accept almost all of the same rules that we do now, including free movement, but having no vote or say in what those rules are. Which won't satisfy anyone, but having no trade deal at all would be worse.

 

[UNCjigga]

According to a leaked government report, Brexit will damage the UK economy with no upside. Lovely.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-damage-uk-growth-says-leaked-cabinet-report

Ministers are already tripping over themselves trying to walk back the report..."just an initial assessment, nothing to see here!"

 

[justoh]

According to a leaked government report, Brexit will damage the UK economy with no upside. Lovely.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-damage-uk-growth-says-leaked-cabinet-report

Ministers are already tripping over themselves trying to walk back the report..."just an initial assessment, nothing to see here!"

The upside it no longer being a part of the EU. What's the upside of Canada and the US not being incorporated?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The upside it no longer being a part of the EU. What's the upside of Canada and the US not being incorporated?

We don't want them, they don't want us. The best neighbors know to stay on their own side of the fence.

 

[justoh]

We don't want them, they don't want us. The best neighbors know to stay on their own side of the fence.

But perhaps it would be economically beneficial for either party. Isn't that the only concern?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

But perhaps it would be economically beneficial for either party. Isn't that the only concern?

Sure. Marrying someone you hate just to share living expenses couldn't possibly go wrong.

 

[justoh]

Sure. Marrying someone you hate just to share living expenses couldn't possibly go wrong.

Well, yeah. But stick it out, because you've already taken the vows. Why would you break up when chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail will all be negatively affected.

 

[Jhhnn]

The upside it no longer being a part of the EU. What's the upside of Canada and the US not being incorporated?

The tangible advantages in no longer being part of the EU are what, exactly? Spell it out.

 

[justoh]

The tangible advantages in no longer being part of the EU are what, exactly? Spell it out.

What are the benefits of not sharing sovereignty with Canada? Are you positive both the US and CA wouldn't be economically better of with such a union?

 

[pmv]

What are the benefits of not sharing sovereignty with Canada? Are you positive both the US and CA wouldn't be economically better of with such a union?

Don't forget Mexico. Which, I think, has roughly comparable GDP per capita to Roumania and Bulgaria (though, OK, a much larger population).

 

[UNCjigga]

What are the benefits of not sharing sovereignty with Canada? Are you positive both the US and CA wouldn't be economically better of with such a union?

We are in a union. It's called NAFTA. Except...our current President wants out of that one too.

Do you think UK being part of EU means they are not a sovereign state? Even though they got to keep the pound sterling?

 

[pmv]

We are in a union. It's called NAFTA. Except...our current President wants out of that one too.

Do you think UK being part of EU means they are not a sovereign state? Even though they got to keep the pound sterling?

But does NAFTA allow unrestricted free-movement between Mexico and the US and say that Canadian and Mexican citizens have to be treated exactly the same as US citizens with regard to employment and all social programmes? Is there a NAFTA parliament?

Come on, NAFTA is not really comparable with the EU, in any sense.

 

[justoh]

It's irresponsible for the govt to be playing these games after people decided to leave. The Swiss voted ~50.5% against EEA membership, and then later withdrew their application to the EU because it's better to err on the side of independence if it's going to be a coin flip. The UK joined the EU for realz, and then flipped a coin, but it was always within their right. They voted to leave. The economics were only relevant until the votes were counted, because that's how voting works. Special shoutout to Moonbeam. I know that grimey dawg feels me.

 

[Jaskalas]

...

From that assessment it would appear the evolution of Capitalism to devalue labor and simply leave people behind is a general, global, trend. UK is unhappy because their system isn't working out for them. That unrest has resulted in a vote against the EU, sort of like it resulted in a vote for Trump in the US. Volatility increases as a system nears or risks collapse. Western society is failing to see the forest from the trees, and needs to rapidly adopt new policy to protect its population from an economy that wants to dispose of them.

While we rag on Asia and Africa for their poverty, we have been blind to the regression in our own midst. We can beat our chests and proclaim ourselves the greatest, but if our people aren't feeling it they're bound to act out. Who can blame them? We need answers to help them.

 

[pmv]

It's irresponsible for the govt to be playing these games after people decided to leave. The Swiss voted ~50.5% against EEA membership, and then later withdrew their application to the EU because it's better to err on the side of independence if it's going to be a coin flip. The UK joined the EU for realz, and then flipped a coin, but it was always within their right. They voted to leave. The economics were only relevant until the votes were counted, because that's how voting works. Special shoutout to Moonbeam. I know that grimey dawg feels me.

It could be said (actually, I _would_ say) that the threshold for leaving should have been set higher than exactly 50%, on the grounds that leaving involves a _huge_ upheaval that would be almost impossible to later reverse. Whereas a 'remain' vote would not stop the UK having another vote and leaving at a later date. It's not symmetrical because staying is harder to undo than leaving.
But if there's a second vote that goes narrowly the other way, that's going to leave the country horrifically divided and angry, so I'm not sure there's any choice now.

 

[justoh]

It could be said (actually, I _would_ say) that the threshold for leaving should have been set higher than exactly 50%, on the grounds that leaving involves a _huge_ upheaval that would be almost impossible to later reverse. Whereas a 'remain' vote would not stop the UK having another vote and leaving at a later date. It's not symmetrical because staying is harder to undo than leaving.
But if there's a second vote that goes narrowly the other way, that's going to leave the country horrifically divided and angry, so I'm not sure there's any choice now.

There's no choice now because the choice was then. 50% is enough uncertainty, or the threshold for staying should have been set higher than 50%, on the grounds that staying is harder to undo than leaving. It's not symmetrical.

 

[realibrad]

From that assessment it would appear the evolution of Capitalism to devalue labor and simply leave people behind is a general, global, trend. UK is unhappy because their system isn't working out for them. That unrest has resulted in a vote against the EU, sort of like it resulted in a vote for Trump in the US. Volatility increases as a system nears or risks collapse. Western society is failing to see the forest from the trees, and needs to rapidly adopt new policy to protect its population from an economy that wants to dispose of them.

While we rag on Asia and Africa for their poverty, we have been blind to the regression in our own midst. We can beat our chests and proclaim ourselves the greatest, but if our people aren't feeling it they're bound to act out. Who can blame them? We need answers to help them.

Capitalism does not inherently devalue labor. Resource allocation does that.

That said, Capitalism does not want to dispose of people, so much as it wants to use more efficient forms of labor. Why have a factory filled with people when robots can do it faster, cheaper, safer? If you asked people 50 years ago if they wanted the lifestyle that those in lower middle live at, vs their standard in the middle, they would likely take today as we have far more now. The average home size went from about 1,500sqft back in 1970 to well over 2,600sqft today. Top to bottom almost everything of today is better because of Capitalism.

The benefit of Capitalism is the reduction of the cost of living. Its up to people to improve their happiness.

 

[pmv]

The average home size went from about 1,500sqft back in 1970 to well over 2,600sqft today.

That's the weakest possible example you could have come up with! For starters it's only true in the US, a country with _vast_ amounts of land available. Secondly it has very little to do with capitalism - land is the one thing capitalism really isn't very good at producing. I suspect even a socialist US would have allowed homes to get larger, as over time more land is going to get built on.
It's weird because there are no shortage of better stats you could have used to make that point, that one is the least convincing.

The average home in the UK has in fact shrunk considerably over the last 20 years, in part due to population growth, in part due to very uneven land ownership patterns.