[thetmkay]

I voted today.

I work in London at a startup with international markets. I believe in the ideal of free movement. I think the EU is a bit of a mess conceptually and mechanically, but in general a step forward for Europe.

This is really the beginning of a very long, tedious and ultimately unsatisfying couple of years of dissatisfaction and instability as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.

[brbsix]

In a free market, I find the ideal of free movement very compelling. But how do you reconcile free movement with (quasi-)socialism?

[rayiner]

You don't. Freedom of movement is a way to undermine nations building safety nets for their own people.

[conistonwater]

It has been known for years that immigrants are net contributors to the British welfare system. (For example http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-ac..., and elsewhere too.) What's the point of repeating that old trope? It won't become any truer if more people say it.

[Houshalter]

That may be true in the present, but I think people are mainly concerned about the future. I strongly believe in a basic income, but implementing it in a country with open borders would be impossible. Same problem with the US, where no individual state can implement socialized health care, or they would be swarmed with sick people from every other state.

As for voters in the UK, I think they are concerned about future immigrants, not the current immigrant population.

[binarymax]

This is a false dichotomy I hear often.

There can still be social safety nets for citizens without the need to support free movers.

[SilasX]

That third option isn't as viable as you might think -- it leads to a dissatisfied, cohesive underclass that likes to agitate for big change, often returning to the "freebies for everyone" option.

[baddox]

So which is better? Providing a social safety net for "everyone" where "everyone" is defined as "only citizens of this country," or allowing a much larger "everyone" (people from many or all countries) to move to whichever place they deem to have the greatest opportunities?

[bordercases]

I currently favor models that go after "easy exit, hard entry". Freedom of movement without standards causes problems. We should be free to go where we please, but it's up to other nations to set the price.

Within a nation, tiered citizen privileges with some sane defaults should control the degree of social security. Keep human rights intact, keep a basic standard of living intact, but ensure that all work is productive and that the people receiving welfare have a plan to not be economic deadweight.

I'm just one miller on the content farm: if there's one thing that I'm going to take away from this, it's that my ratiocinations don't mean jack shit. I'm still curious as to what other people think.

[ajmurmann]

Unless you were to differentiate between citizens and residents.

[harryh]

Because that's a good idea. Permanent underclasses in developed countries aren't a bad enough problem already.

[ajmurmann]

It would deter immigrants who are coming for economic reasons and don't make it or are just coming for the benefits to begin with. There of course also should still be a pass to citizenship.

[harryh]

Because immigrants moving to a new country in search of opportunity and a better life is a bad thing and should definitely be deterred.

[studentrob]

> This is really the beginning of a very long, tedious and ultimately unsatisfying couple of years of dissatisfaction and instability as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.

There is at least one positive point regardless of how you voted.

The referendum gets people talking about the issue and makes them more aware of the pros and cons. Over time they will find out if that was a good or bad move for the success of the UK.

[pyb]

A couple of years ? People in the know predict more like a decade.

[sandworm101]

>>> ... as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.

HA! Negotiate. If Britain want to shoot itself in the foot and unsettle the world economy, it can do so on its own. The EU need not concede on anything. Why should they, given that Britain won't be a voting member in a couple years. If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.

[noarchy]

> If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.

Depending on how things turn out in France in the near future, they may be busy fighting "Frexit" sentiments in their own country. Le Pen has already brought up the possibility (granted, I don't expect her to be in power, but the idea is out there).

[addicted]

Which is exactly why I think the EU will try to make Britain a lesson and not make any concessions. It would be in the EU's interests to really damage Britain even if it means they get hurt themselves, because if Britain is allowed to leave without much pain, there may not be an EU left.

[sandworm101]

Unless seeing how badly it goes for the brits convinces them to stay. Over the next two years everyone who can will be moving money, property and family out of Britain and into somewhere more stable. This could be a real boom for France and Spain.

[Turing_Machine]

France and Spain are "more stable"? How do you figure that? The UK has maintained the same basic form of government for centuries, and has been free of civil war since 1651. Spain was ruled by actual Fascists until 1975. France is on its fifth attempt at a republic (with intervening periods of monarchy, empire, reign of terror, and Nazi collaborationist regimes).

[tonyedgecombe]

To be fair the Nazi thing was imposed.

[lettergram]

How bad do you think this is going to be? The majority of trade for the UK is with commonwealth countries and the U.S. both of which are unrelated to the EU.

[T-A]

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatisti...

Non-EU Exports for April 2016 were £13.0 billion. EU Exports for April 2016 were £12.0 billion.

Non-EU Imports for April 2016 were £21.9 billion. EU Imports for April 2016 were £19.1 billion.

[sandworm101]

Props for using actual numbers, something that was very lacking in this process.

[lettergram]

My bad, it was much closer than I thought. I do recall that the majority prior to joining the EU was with commonwealth nations.

Regardless, it's not like materials to trade disappears... my guess would be the UK negotiates with the EU to basically keep trade the same. If not the UK will be increase exports elsewhere.

[sandworm101]

It will be as bad as France, Germany, Poland and everyone else wants it to be. Decisions as to how to tax/regulate and/or block trade with Britain are now out of Britain's hands.

Those commonwealth countries (Canada) also trade with the EU. Whether they will choose to favour britain or not is also open. We'll get back to you on that one.

[lettergram]

Pretty sure trade agreements with the commonwealth remain unchanged. Basically, you don't choose to trade, if an agreement is in place the companies choose to do trade. With a weaker pound it would be cheaper to buy goods from the UK.

[themihai]

How much beef does UK sell to the US? I heard this retoric question every time US trade was argued

[BrainInAJar]

> This could be a real boom for France and Spain.

Switzerland's the real winner in this one

[faebi]

Probably not, the Swiss franc is already strong and its getting stronger. It hurts switzerlands exports quite hard. It would be better for switzerland if all those crysises would stop so the frank would get wealk and we could export more.

[ghaff]

>If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.

Why? Out of pique? Out of being disrespected? Out of a general tit for tat?

I don't agree with the UK voters today (from my safe spot of not being a UK voter) but it seems pretty silly for the EU or countries within the EU to treat this vote--assuming it goes ahead--as a petulant child would, damn the consequences. They should and probably will make a rational response based on their own interests whether or not they're "annoyed" or whatever the word is with the UK.

[sandworm101]

>> .. a rational response based on their own interests.

The EU was specifically meant to prevent countries taking actions in their own interest, to stop them from putting their own interests above those of other countries. Now that is done and France can act in France's interests, which probably aren't exactly the same as Britain's. They are now free to make the rational decision to, for example, place tariffs on British goods so as to protect French manufacturers.

[dguaraglia]

So, what you are saying, is that France will put its own interests before the interests of the other EU countries that might benefit from trade with the UK?

Great for European unity, I see.

[kaoD]

As a non-French member of the EU, I will fully support France in their decision (and hope my nation takes a similar route).

The UK never believed in the EU and only wanted the good side of it. It's better for everyone that they'll be gone. There was no European Union if a selfish state didn't want to be united in the bad things too.

If the EU as a whole decides for a new trade agreement with the UK, that's fine (See? Unity), but I think they won't since the EU has strong motivation to slap back the UK.

[UK-AL]

And then we place tarrifs on all French goods.

French know this will happen, so they don't do that.

[kaoD]

The UK needs the EU market more than the EU market needs the UK. The EU has strong incentives to place tariffs.

Wait until Berlin replaces London as an economic hub.

Economic war will ensue and we'll all lose.

[UK-AL]

"strong incentives" What incentives? I only see negatives from this.

[toomuchtodo]

> Why? Out of pique? Out of being disrespected? Out of a general tit for tat?

When negotiating, you never let a position of power go to waste.

[superswordfish]

That's right, you should abuse the hell out of whatever small edge you've got, so that negotiations promptly end.

[toomuchtodo]

Negotiations only end when someone walks away. The party with less power can't walk away.

[superswordfish]

That... isn't how any of this works. The reason you're negotiating in the first place is because each side is holding chips. If the weaker side had to give in to the stronger's every demand, it would not be called negotiation.

[addicted]

Exactly. The EU just needs to sit on their hands for 2 years, and that will mean an automatic tariff of 9% on 44% of British exports.

Although with the plummeting pound British stuff might still manage to be as cheap. Only now 4.5% of British exports will be going into European hands instead of British.

[thetmkay]

What about German and French imports?

[addicted]

Will also plummet. Imports will be more expensive as the pound drops (already dropped more than any other day in its history against the $).

This is a lose-lose. Everyone suffers. Trade with the UK will go down, and both the EU and the UK will be poorer.

Difference is that the EU has 10 times the population of the UK. And the EU has political disincentives to keep this breakup civil.

[toyg]

The French are already saying the current agreement on border checks will be renegotiated, so they can free up Calais. The Channel will become the next Mediterranean, with flimsy boats killing people by the hundreds every month. This will call for increased naval patrols, which means increased military spending and so on and so forth...

[fixxer]

Ha! You might find a lot of support for that on the Island.

[lj3]

> If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.

The "migrants" are already working on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651956/Hundreds-mig...