I’ve no skin in this Brexit game. However, two engineering friends I know from the UK have moved to and are now working in the United States. Their view of Brexit is grim for the UK. And, they said it was easier to move the US than to any country in the European Union.
If you are an engineer from the UK, how do you feel about Brexit? What do you think is going to happen? Is Brexit talk wearing you down?
If you aren’t from the UK, but following Brexit, what are your thoughts?
Oh goodie… politics…
I’ve been following the EU and Brexit for a while and have a couple of thoughts about it; they’re pretty radical.
The United Kingdom should never have joined the European Union in the first place. To join, it was necessary for the UK to give up its sovereignty. Knowing Brits, from ‘way back when’, I knew they were not prepared to do this. They should have forged some type of travel and trade agreements, in a manner that Switzerland has. There are problems with the Swiss arrangement, too.
In addition to loss of sovereignty, the immigration issue has come to the forefront. People in the UK have seen a loss of quality to life because of it. Housing has become unaffordable, jobs have become scarce and food has become more expensive. The new immigrants because they are coloured and different (and, I’m not a racist) are an easy and visible ‘target’. Being different, they are identifiable, and easy to point your finger at. This has caused a resentment at the grass roots level and led to the underwhelming results of the Brexit vote.
When the engineering manager of Lindsay went for a trip to Europe, he was surprised at how easy it was to cross ‘foreign’ borders. It was like travelling from state to state or province to province. Other than there being country separations, there was no ‘real crossing point’. This is part of the Schengen Agreement; they have transparent borders. The Swiss wanted this, and without joining the EU, were prepared to give up some of their sovereignty. I hope they don’t rue the day. They have always been a fierce independent nation (No one considers the Swiss to be fierce, but they are.)
In general, the free movement of workers has never been good for the day to day lives of the ‘masses’, but, has benefitted businesses and international concerns. The rulers of these ‘fiefdoms’ do not suffer from the day to day rigours of life and are financially isolated.
Britain will suffer in the short term, but, they in typical British fashion will ‘muddle’ their way through it and will survive. It seems to be a British thing. According to many economists, the world is on the brink of a major recession. I’m not sure how that will affect the Brits’ future.
Brexit will likely result in Northern Ireland reuniting with Ireland for ease of travel and business. It was partitioned by the Brits and the hard border is not appreciated by the people. Scotland, too, will likely leave. The last vote for independence failed by a small margin.
Immigrating to the EU countries has never been easier, and I suspect, a lot easier than immigrating to the US. Australia, according to my grandaughter, is extremely difficult and one of the more difficult countries to enter. For highly skilled labour (like engineers?) it may be easier. Ask any Mexican how easy it is to get into the US right now.
I think your president wants the UK to leave because it puts the EU at peril. With the huge American deficit, it puts the American financial ‘house of cards’ in peril. If Brexit is a success it can affect your monetary system. Your deficit only works because the American dollar reigns supreme. Any strong trading alliance is not in the best interests of the US and can cause failure to your ‘house of cards’.
The last thought is that with the masses resenting the influx of ‘foreigners’ it has given rise and support to the ‘ultra right’. This is a real problem in many of the current EU countries and this group is slowly gaining strength politically. They can be violent and cause incredible damage. They threaten the ‘status quo’. The world infrastructure has grown so complex that those with knowledgable (sp?) skills can put a real monkeywrench into things. This is true in the US, too.
The world is getting uglier.
Dik
I suspect the most far-reaching implication may have little to do with Europe, and will be the impact on the national perception of what constitutes “democracy”.
There is a vigorous, nasty debate being waged in parliament and across the UK media:
One side insists that democracy is about elected representatives having to put together a legislative and fiscal programme that works for the good of the nation across he entire scope of government, then periodically have to answer for their actions to the electorate.
The other side insists that, when the electorate has been polled on a particular issue, then the government is duty-bound to implement the decision of the majority and that this has clear priority over any other responsibility.
Both sides accuse the other of “a betrayal of democracy”. Neither is listening much to what the other has to say. Whatever happens about Brexit, I think our system of government will never be quite the same again.
That’s the reason it’s continued as long as it has… it’s been a couple of years to currently ‘be nowhere’… I’m surprised the EU hasn’t told the Brits to “Sh*t or get off the pot.” I’m really surprised that France hasn’t been more vociferous.
Have to watch out because Boris is a lot like Donald, but, better educated and brighter. Both are dangerous.
Dik
Zeus… I’m not sure what the main issue is. The politicians seem to be running around in circles. As I see it:
-The UK has decided to leave.
-The UK (previous government) has come up with an acceptable agreement for leaving.
-The UK (current government) has decided to discard the agreed to terms.
-The UK government has to leave without an agreement.
If I were the EU, after spending a couple of years coming up with a ‘final’ separation, I would not look forward to opening a new agreement. Time’s up.
Dik
@dik, that set of statements is actually quite a good basis for exploring some of the issues.
The UK has decided to leave
I think this is true, but the reason it’s true is not the one which most commentators think it is (and the one which many dispute). There’s a lot of debate around the 2016 referendum, based on discussions about whether it was a legally binding vote (it wasn’t), whether the majority in favour was definitive (by comparison with all (both) previous UK-wide referenda, the majority was wafer-thin and with wide regional variations - though there is no credible suggestion that the count is significantly in error) and whether Leave voters realised they were voting for what is now on offer (the campaign certainly promised them something substantially more attractive, but the question on the ballot paper was much more straightforward than that).
Notwithstanding all of that, it is indisputably clear that the UK has decided to leave. The mechanism for that is that Parliament (which absolutely does have the power to make binding decisions) has made that decision, has passed legislation to make it so and has given the requisite notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome.
Why spend so much time laying out that distinction? Because although a lot of effort has gone into telling the public that their referendum decision is binding, irrevocable and sacred (and that asking whether they subsequently changed their minds would be a betrayal both of them and of democracy), the fact is that the genuinely binding decision was one made by Parliament and that, for now, Parliament also has the power to change it’s mind. The party in government now has a working parliamentary majority of just one, there is a lot of Brexit dissent within their own ranks, they depend on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (who have their own views on the subject) and the main opposition party has its own Brexit divisions. That all makes it very difficult to be sure what the UK will have decided to do by the time we get to October 31st. Worth noting at this point that the Rome Treaty isn’t awfully clear on whether a member has any right to revoke it’s invocation of Article 50 - could be worth booking a front seat for that fight now, while tickets are still cheap.
The UK (previous government) has come up with an acceptable agreement for leaving.
This statement is only partly true. The agreement was acceptable to the other members of the EU, and was acceptable to the UK Ministers who “agreed” it - but it wasn’t acceptable to Parliament and, under the UK system, Ministers aren’t empowered to bind the nation to treaties without the authority of Parliament. With the DUP (remember, the Government depends on them for their majority) implacably opposed to a key provision of the agreement and a ready supply of rebels on the government benches, that approval proved utterly out of reach.
The UK (current government) has decided to discard the agreed to terms
After Parliament had voted three times in a row to reject the withdrawal agreement (inflicting in one case the worst parliamentary defeat of a Government motion in modern history), the incoming Government had little choice.
The UK government has to leave without an agreement
Semantic point first. If there’s leaving to be done, it will be the UK that leaves, not just the UK Government. While the default position (given the current state of the law) is that the UK will leave without a deal, the precarious state of the UK Government and the interests of the rest of the EU leave open some other possibilities.
First is that Parliament will try to turn the whole thing off. Parliament has the right to do this. Many MPs would love to exercise that right, but the effort that has gone into persuading the public that this would be undemocratic, and the consequent toxic environment for politicians across the board that would now follow such a change of path may be sufficient to deter many of them. This approach would need the agreement of the other EU nations, but there’s little doubt that agreeing to it would be massively in their own interest.
Second is that time could be found to negotiate a mutually and genuinely acceptable deal. Realistically (and especially given the current pace of engagement), there isn’t time to negotiate effectively between now and the end of October - and the new UK Prime Minister has staked his reputation on there being no further delays, so the UK side has already made this a very difficult option. Then there’s the question of how open the rest of the EU would be to resuming negotiations.
If I were the EU, after spending a couple of years coming up with a ‘final’ separation, I would not look forward to opening a new agreement. Time’s up.
The EU negotiators are seasoned dealmakers. No doubt they’re royally frustrated by the way the current agreement has faltered, but they should be relied upon to keep the best interests of the EU in their sights.
There are three significant areas that the EU team will have in mind.
One is the queue of other members who are watching Brexit developments with a view to setting off along the same path themselves. Although this provides an extra incentive for the EU not to roll over in favour of the UK, rolling over (in the sense of giving up more than would be fair and reasonable) would not be in the EU interest anyway. Strangely, this “integrity of the Union” argument could end up having a bigger impact on the UK than it does on the EU, with the status of both Scotland and Northern Ireland coming back under the microscope.
Keeping the UK in the Union would be better for the EU economy than letting them go under the terms of any foreseeable deal - and both of those would be better than a no-deal departure. From the UK perspective, there are economic disadvantages to a no-deal departure - the only arguments are about whether those disadvantages would be severe and enduring.
The factor that is likely to be most difficult - and which destroyed any chance of the current deal getting through the UK Parliament - is the treatment of the Irish border. The Republic of Ireland stands to lose massively in the event of a no-deal Brexit - at least economically, and potentially also in security terms. At the moment, the kind of changes to the deal being demanded by the UK Brexiteers (egged on by the DUP, for whom this is an existential issue) would be equally catastrophic for the Republic. For the EU idly to abandon the Republic to either of those two fates would be a true betrayal (possibly the first time in any of these debates that the word has been used in any sense that the compilers of the dictionary would recognise) and would stand to destroy trust throughout the EU. The trouble of course is that finding a deal that leaves the Republic united with the rest of the EU without imposition of special rules, leaves the Irish land border open, keeps Northern Ireland united with the rest of the UK without special rules, yet still doesn’t bind the UK to EU trade rules is brain-meltingly difficult. With last week having seen the fiftieth anniversary of the start of Op BANNER, the UK faces a similar dilemma.
There’s lots of choices available to both parties - none of them without the likelihood of pain. I think it’s too hard to tell what will happen over the next few weeks, but public trust in the ability of British politicians to “make stuff work” has already been dented and will take a long time to recover.
Added thoughts… I was going to add and did it anyway… Jesus… in Mexican “Eh, Zeus” (Mexican-Canadian homour).
The UK will leave, with or without an agreement in place. Their current PM want to leave without an agreement. He thinks he’s a better negotiator than Trump. First folly (neither off them are worth the powder to…).
The current government is trying to put in place a requirement that Parliament cannot be circumvented. We’ll see how that flies. It’s looking like they, for constitutional reasons, have to be involved, but snake oil can do wonders.
[Many MPs would love to exercise that right, but the effort that has gone into persuading the public that this would be undemocratic…] I’m amazed that the Westminster functions.
[…and the consequent toxic environment for politicians…] like politicians everywhere… they don’t care and after a week it will be business as usual.
[This approach would need the agreement of the other EU nations] The last few years have produced nothing; what makes you think this will happen in the next few years? I suspect the EU is getting tired of trying to negotiate. One would think that the negotiators would have the blessing of parliament… else just a waste of time.
I think the popular vote and democratic action is ‘fluff’. I suspect strongly that the government, for sovereignty reasons wanted to leave and the vote was just icing on the cake. The reasons for the resentment of the EU was listed in my first reply.
[…they should be relied upon to keep the best interests of the EU in their sights.] Agreed and the UK will continue on the EU’s terms. This is distasteful for the Brits already.
[One is the queue of other members who are watching Brexit developments] Concur strongly, likely being their biggest concern with particular consideration of the Extreme Right.
[Strangely, this “integrity of the Union” argument could end up having a bigger impact on the UK than it does on the EU, with the status of both Scotland and Northern Ireland coming back under the microscope.] Concur again… with no deal, I suspect this will speed Northern Ireland to join Ireland. The Scots narrowly voted against leaving the UK. If another referendum is held, in or out, they will likely vote to secede. I was surprised the vote was as high as it was.
[Keeping the UK in the Union would be better for the EU economy than letting them go under] Marginally… both the UK and the EU would quickly come to terms with this… the EU solving the problem much faster.
[The factor that is likely to be most difficult - and which destroyed any chance of the current deal getting through the UK Parliament - is the treatment of the Irish border.] Getting back to British sovereignty again, no one is going to dictate our borders. Both sides of Ireland would suffer… the people of the north are really upset at the prospect of a fixed border again.
[There’s lots of choices available to both parties - none of them without the likelihood of pain. I think it’s too hard to tell what will happen over the next few weeks] I wouldn’t bet on it, either. A non-confidence vote… but, nothing to present to the EU; the last agreement seemed fine except to Westminster. Exit with no agreement is still possible but decision not determined by the UK. The UK begging for another extension… based on past experience, not likely.
With first planning to leave, to ask to be re-admitted, would make the UK ‘second class citizens’ and their position would be more untenable. Asking to remain is likely out of the question. Nothing would have changed for the UK, except to make things worse.
A real concern is the possible world recession predicted by those in the know. Brexit coming on top of this could make things much worse for the UK.
Dik
Parliament still has a sense of it’s own importance and, from time to time, inflicts defeats on governments that it thinks are trying to overstep the mark. Although the political parties usually tell their MPs how to vote, the incidence of those instructions getting defied is much higher than in, say, the US Congress. From where I sit, whether that Parliamentary independence is something to be cherished or suppressed looks likely to be among the most significant and bitter debates that will emerge after the Brexit story reaches its denouement.
Agreed… but, I don’t think there is much independence. ‘Window dressing’ at best.
Dik
Nobody has an clue how this is going to pan out.
One thing I am fairly sure about is that there will be some serious money made by some people as part of brexit. The party of government is traditionally the party of the wealthy so there will be tories and tory voters who will benefit financially from brexit.
There are plenty of double and triple standards being applied across the board. For instance, at the last Scottish Indy Ref the main parties of Westminster put a lot effort into demonstrating that it would be better for all involved to stay together and united. However, the same politicians used the opposite argument to promote brexit.
I suspect Brexit will cause N.Ireland to reunite with Ireland and the Scots to leave the UK. The last vote to exit missed passing by a small margin. This will further aggravate the UK’s problems.
Westminster does not pay attention to these two ‘colonies’, anyway.
Dik
dik,
Many of us are VERY interested. But not being from the UK, are only reading. This is a very interesting discussion and you engineers bring a good perspective to it. Thank you.
Worth saying that the coverage in the European press looks at it in many different ways.Tagesspiegel on the subject.
You should see what I have to offer on Climate Change… 
Dik
I review several different newspapers each day and try to keep a balanced coverage. The BBC just doesn’t 'cut it when it comes to Brexit. Der Spiegel has some extremely good articles… one of my favourite.
Dik
From the BBC:
The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK’s exit date.
In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election.
Jeremy Corbyn said the bill should be passed before an election was held.
Dik
More interesting stuff from der Spiegel:
Dik
And even splitting up his family.
BoJo would rather ‘be dead in a ditch’… almost self-inflicted. A new and scarier breed of politician.
Dik