[elgabogringo]

He really lost me with the first two paragraphs... Oh, and the title. The Brexit? Really? He's using the Brexit to launch into a soliloquy on the meaning of life?

It's not clear to me that the Brexit had to do with wealth as much as it had to do with sovereignty. It's also not clear that the Brexit will have a negative long run impact on Britain's wealth.

I know this sounds crazy to all the super smart international people out there, but A) the EU's growth sucks and B) it's likely to get worse before it gets better - oh, and C) when it gets worse the Euro could very well go away, making the Brexit crowd look like geniuses.

Look, if you look for fulfillment in money or possessions you are going to be disappointed. This has been a tenet of Western philosophy for millennia. Using this philosophy as a platform to trash the Brexit is disingenuous and beneath somebody as uber super smart as Hawking.

[FreedomToCreate]

Hawkings is pointing out how the EU allowed for collaboration and money to flow from multiple sources, while now Britain will lose access to many of those. He also draws attention to how a mindset of "Britains wealth is being taken by foreigners", even though it isn't, was a driving force for many to vote for Brexit. The need for sorveignty arose from people belief that the wealth of Britain, be it economic and cultural, was being taken by foreigners.

From this perspective, Hawkings makes a good point to consider for anyone who is trying to better understand Brexit and its repercussions.

Also not related to the article, but the EU has kept Europe out of war for the longest period of time and was one reason for the unification.

[jandrese]

It seems to me that the Brexit is going to hurt mostly because the EU is going to want to make it hurt to discourage more members from leaving.

That said, GB was never on the Euro so their transition is a lot less traumatic than it would be for most EU members.

The Euro has always had some dubious aspects, like tying everybody to the same currency but letting them set their monetary policy on a per-country basis. Problems like the Greek crisis are almost inevitable in a setup like this.

[hx87]

You seem to be confusing the Eurozone with the EU. The latter has its problems but is a basically sound institution, whereas the former was and remains a terrible idea without a fiscal union.

[gonvaled]

Sure, great experience traveling to Poland lately, being used to move in the Eurozone.

And I give up on balancing my books with my detailed expenses (cash, credit cards, ...) there. I just have a big “Poland expenses, 1250 €“ entry.

[mamon]

So you are suggesting that Poland should give up its financial stability (like being pretty much only EU country which did not suffer recession during 2008 financial crisis) and join Eurozone just to help you avoid small inconvenience with reimbursing business trip in foreign currency?

[gonvaled]

The Eurozone is suffering. All economic areas have up and downs. Being in a shared monerary union, you sacrifize some advantages for others: we compromise - I know, strange word.

We are building a stable, long term monetary union. We are learning, we are improving and we will have a strong currency going forward.

Next time another economy area is in distress, as it will unavoidably happen, remember about our crisis, and how we together saw it through.

Nowadays it is fashionable to attack the Euro. When the crisis is mastered, all know-it-alls will praise it. We do not need to care for the ones or the others. We do our thing.

And yes, the most practical consequence for induvidual citizens is that I do not care about currencies, at all. Except when I travel to Poland.

[AnimalMuppet]

That sounds rather over-optimistic. A currency union is inherently unstable if not matched to a fiscal union. If you're not going to move to a fiscal union (and after Greece, I'm pretty sure there is not the political will to do so), then the Euro union cannot be stable.

Can it survive even if it's unstable? Perhaps. Will it be worth it? That's not for me to say. But you cannot "master the crisis" with the Euro zone without a fiscal union.

[hx87]

Thanks to the magic of currency markets, I don't have to care about currencies either when I travel in Europe, even though I am American. Whenever I buy something, I use my credit card, and the charges are automatically converted to USD based on whatever the USD/EUR/GBP/etc rates are on that day.

The Eurozone can be a great idea, if some sort of fiscal union comes into being; otherwise the Euro will always be undervalued in the North and overvalued in the South, causing imbalances in investment and consumption.

[gonvaled]

So are the carrots you buy ecpensive? In april? Two years ago? Basically, you go to the supermarke, get your carrots and say: whatever, lets just get over with it.

Sure, you can get use to a new currency - it took us the best part of a decade to stop thinking in our old national currencies in the eurozone, and some people, and for some things, old currencies are still used mentally and in conversation.

The good thing in the Eurozone is: I dont need to. A currency must, above all, get out of my way.

[rgbrgb]

I agree he maybe didn't connect them crisply, but I think the general idea is that even though staying in the EU has a higher net value for the British economy, that value is not being distributed to the working class who voted to leave. Instead it is collected at the top by a wealthy elite of land and business owners. It's a problem of team incentives (net UK economy) being misaligned with individual incentives (individual worker quality of life).

[tonyedgecombe]

Some parts of the EU have had problems (the so called PIIGS) but the rest has been quite strong, overall the EU has started growing again.

The only way we would be isolated from a collapse in the Euro is if we didn't trade with Europe, I don't think that would makes us better off.