[redsummer]

London will fall just like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland have collapsed because they are not in the EU. The UK will become like Somalia.

No wait, actually those 3 countries are in the top 5 countries to live in the world. Why do people wish for apocalypses?

[timeSl]

All 3 of those countries are still in the single European market though, with freedom of movement. Given UK appears to be heading towards a hard brexit and doesn't seem to want freedom of movement I think comparing them directly is a bit disingenuous​.

[digi_owl]

And plenty of Norwegians would love to see the nation exit that market, because they are, much like most that voted for brexit, tired of seeing industry jobs being "offshored" and remaining wages being undercut by temporary workers from the former eastern block.

At the hight of the oil boom a local shipyard was 1/3 Poles, brought in by the busload. Some of them didn't have the first clue about English, never mind Norwegian.

For all the "champagne left's" kumbaya about EU being about European peace and solidarity, most of the working class see it as a way for the economic "elite" to defang unions and force down wages.

[0x445442]

Bingo, it's the EU version of the US playbook going back to the late 70's... Take advantage of labor arbitrage by moving production to the cheaper Eastern European labor markets. But the workers in Britain, Norway etc. don't have the freedom to take advantage of the lower costs of living in those cheap labor markets.

It seems to me there's an inflection point in these national economies when the citizens' wages can no longer pay for goods and services produced locally.

I'm all for free trade between countries but I think nations need to really discourage imports of goods and services that can be provided internally solely for maximizing profits.

[ed_balls]

and how would you implement that?

[0x445442]

Yeah, it's a tough problem but perhaps restrictions can be placed on multi-national corporations. Using Apple as an example; trade agreements would be setup such that Apple, being a US company, could sell iPhones abroad but they wouldn't be allowed to design or manufacture iPhones abroad.

They would be allowed to import the components for the iPhone from foreign manufactures but the design and assembly would be restricted to the U.S. They wouldn't be allowed to setup shell corporations abroad to handle component manufacturing or distribution. Distribution would need to be handled solely by companies within the importing nation.

Basically free and open trade but with clear national boundaries... Put restrictions on the rent seeking.

[ajbetteridge]

Well the UK creates laws so that banks can't lose out, why can't we do it for the rest of the country instead of just the fat lazy bank owners?

[TheOtherHobbes]

And of course Brexit will stop that in its tracks.

Most of the working class right doesn't understand that Brexit will not be allowed to have any direct effect at all on immigration, because the EU is not the direct cause of wage gouging.

If corporations can't get cheap labour from Europe they'll get it from other countries - just as they did before the UK joined the EU.

And their toadies in government will continue to be noisily in favour of protecting the working man from the influx of nasty foreigners in public, while working hard to keep the cheap labour coming in private - just as they've been doing for at least a century and a half.

[ConfuciusSay02]

The corporations will at least have to go through an ostensibly democratic parliament system to get their agenda passed instead of a fully authoritarian EU Council that is not subject to any kind of democratic control.

[mangecoeur]

I find this argument mind-boggling when the people who have done the most to undermine workers rights are exactly the same people who support Brexit.

In the UK, one shocking source of work insecurity is the zero-hours contract (basically, you have no guaranteed income but have to be available whenever your employer feels like it). The EU has nothing to do with that, in fact most EU countries have banned the practise [1] but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.

These same people are now claiming that leaving the EU, which offers important protections to workers rights through the treaties and the European Court of Human Rights, will magically solve problems they created and sustain themselves.

[1] https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/

[coldtea]

>I find this argument mind-boggling when the people who have done the most to undermine workers rights are exactly the same people who support Brexit.

The people against Brexit were all major political parties that ruled for 50+ years, all mainstream press, all businesses, the financial sector.

The deep establishment, in other words, that is, precisely those who have done the most to undermine workers rights.

>but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.

Yes, but the British government was all for bremain. So who are those people you were referring to?

[redsummer]

It's true the UK gov is not being helpful. But the UK gov supported remain. All major parties did. In the language of the vulgar tabloids, the British worker has been spit-roasted by both the EU and the UK government. One of those is withdrawing. The UK only has stop the UK gov fucking workers in the mouth now.

[redsummer]

This is the crux of the matter. Giant companies hijack the hands-around-the-world narrative of the left for their own monetary purposes. In the US, the narrative is that there will be 'crops rotting in the fields' if cheap labour is not imported. Ironically, this is a very similar argument to pro-slavery campaigners who said the US would collapse without slavery.

[raverbashing]

Do you think no other countries bring foreign workers for cheap because the locals won't accept the job at the wages paid?

Canada does it, the US does it. No EU needed for that.

The alternative is to have production stalled or unaffordable because you don't have enough people to do the grunt work.

The industry jobs are more likely to be offshored without free movement of people, because import taxes are cheaper than manufacturing in high-wage countries. That's why free movement of goods and people go together.

[ed_balls]

The thing is that the whole debate is skewed. As a politician I want to capture the political capital, but I can't do it without providing solutions. I think the job automation is the major contributor to this, but no one is eager to talk about it. What can you say that would get you elected? Stop using technology? What kind of enforceable laws can you provide? In the current politics this problem is insolvable. Some industry jobs are definitely offshored, but no one wants to talk about the fact that, say, steel mills have become 100x more efficient per employee in the 70 years.

> tired of seeing industry jobs being "offshored"

This is really a complex one to solve. What are the solutions? If you impose the tariffs the poorest one will suffer the most - they spend the highest percentage of the income on "stuff". Less competition, higher prices. Trading will slow which will have further implications for the growth. Historically, countries that were trying to isolate themselves failed (19th century China, Brazil 50 years ago)

[BjoernKW]

Norway probably doesn't need the single market and freedom of movement to thrive. However, as countries go Norway (Switzerland as well, for that matter) is quite unique. The UK on the other hand with its largely service-based economy is dependent on international trade and workforce movement.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The UK's leaders seem to want hard Brexit, supported by an ever-decreasing number of political Flat Earthers, and some online bots.

The sentient element of the population is agitating hard to stop Brexit and/or making plans to leave.

[coldtea]

>All 3 of those countries are still in the single European market though, with freedom of movement. Given UK appears to be heading towards a hard brexit and doesn't seem to want freedom of movement I think comparing them directly is a bit disingenuous​.

None of these countries is in the "European Market" in the way EU member states are.

And Britain will be as much a part of the free market as those countries are, if not more.

[rsynnott]

Those countries are essentially part of the EU; they're in the EEA or EFTA, have access to the common market, have to obey most of the rules, and don't get to vote. They chose this situation as politically preferable to the EU from a public opinion point of view; it has few practical advantages.

That'd be what was referred to as a 'soft Brexit'. However, the UK, with its immigration fixation, is now basically committed to a hard Brexit. They won't be in the EEA and they won't have access to the common market. Totally different situation to the countries you named.

[redsummer]

It's a miracle that other top 10 countries like Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia managed to get anywhere without being part of the EU.

[nzjrs]

In New Zealand we call what you did there 'moving the rugby posts'. Others might call it 'moving the goalposts'.

[Boothroid]

This often occurs to me too..

[badestrand]

Let's be realistic. In max 20 years the UK will of course be in the EU single market again. My guess is that they will make similar deals with the EU like Switzerland and probably end up in EFTA. And that would be not a bad place to be.

[rsynnott]

Probably. That'll be an expensive 20 years, though.

[degenerate]

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest" [1]

- Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, 1950

[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subc...

To put it bluntly, (consolidated government === consolidated control). We will see the media 'attack' the brexit decision in every possible way. TPTB (the ones with the money who own most media) do not want sovereign states.

[raverbashing]

> . TPTB (the ones with the money who own all media) do not want sovereign states.

Oh you mean like the Daily Mail and all the other tabloids that pushed for Brexit so they could get "their country" (read, their lobbying power) back?

[gpvos]

In the UK, the mogul-owned press is all for Brexit.

[fredley]

I suspect I'm feeding a troll by replying, but what the heck. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are countries. London is a city. It is a truly global city, unlike Zurich, Oslo or Reykjavick.

London is currently one of the top few cities in the World in terms of wealth, culture, diversity and other measures. If it 'falls', it will probably still outrank the vast majority of the World's cities still, but lose its status as one of the jewels in the crown.

[Boothroid]

'culture', 'diversity', what does this actually mean? As if London is going to become some kind of backwater! The tourists will still come. The migrants will still come. There are millions of migrants in London that will stay after Brexit.

And if there are fewer property speculators and the housing market cools off a bit, bloody good thing too.

[ecdavis]

> Why do people wish for apocalypses?

To validate ideology.

[breatheoften]

Not necessarily -- if I believe your actions make everyone but yourself worse off, it's not entirely unreasonable for me to choose an outcome where I'm a little worse off than I would be in order to ensure that your benefit is reduced or taken away. This outcome is common in situations where trust does not exist between parties -- my action might actually be required to motivate you to seek to rebuild trust.

I can easily interpret your characterization of me with the phrase "wishing for the apocalypse" as you overstating the relative importance of your loss vs mine.

[ecdavis]

If the premise of the question is invalid then my answer is irrelevant.

[grkvlt]

Some people just want to watch the world burn?

[tartuffe78]

Watching something is a spectacle, even if you know it's bad its still entertaining. This kind of article will get more traction than a dry analysis, "London will probably be fine".

[mangecoeur]

Switzerland is part of the single market, the free movement area, and is subject to the European Court of Justice - three things that the Brexit bunch explicitly want to be without.

[digi_owl]

Could have sworn the Swiss voted to get out of the free movement stuff a while back.

[StavrosK]

Are they? When I was in Iceland I got the feeling that young people couldn't wait to leave, mostly due to low wages and unemployment.

[BjoernKW]

No, London of course won't fall (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway) but it probably will be significantly less important if the Little Englanders have it their way.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland all have very unique characteristics that make them rather independent. The UK on the other hand - and London particularly so - is very connected to the single market.

[ConfuciusSay02]

Because MSM really hates Brexit, therefore they'll remind you about it forever.

[digi_owl]

Because the MSM is either in the pocket of the economic elite, or have a workforce of 20-somethings that can live and write from anywhere with a net connection.

The anti-EU sentiment is coming from the people with family, a mortgage around their neck, and watching their former workplace rot away, stripped of all machinery, because the bosses in the glass tower decided that it was more beneficial for the bottom line to sack the lot and contract with a foreign company.

[diego_moita]

> MSM

I don't believe you even care about credibility outside of your ideological bubble.

But, in case I am wrong, I'd recommend to avoid clichés that only have meaning for you. It is sloppy and lazy. This acronym is like crying out loud: "I'll just blurt out a standard canned answer devoid of any deep thinking or originality".

[ConfuciusSay02]

Replace MSM with NYT if it makes you feel better.