[yocheckitdawg]

> The British had something precious until not long ago: a working welfare state, a welcoming society, and an influx of enthusiastic citizens from all across the EU. It’s sad that they are throwing it all away.

The British have many more precious things that that.

They also have a rule of law determined by the BRITISH (NOT Brussels), responsive and accountable government (even though of course trade offs must always be made), and still have enthusiastic citizens from around the world banging at the door wanting to get in. As well as a dynamic and capable population of natives willing to bear the costs and risks of really changing their society in the 21st century. And they are still a welcoming society, them feeling they are in control again will make them more welcoming, not less.

People counting out the UK yet are being very premature. There will certainly be economic pain from this and likely other costs, but there are potential big benefits too. Brexit is a story that will play out over the next 10-20-50-100 years, not just the next 5-10. Would not surprise me at all to find the UK a wealthy more developed nation than Germany by 2050.

Even when you look at the Boris Johnson Cabinet, the ideas and intent that is emanating from there is very promising. No more "we can't do this because Brussels" or "nothing can be done". Real thought into how to make the UK remain relevant in the 21st century on its own terms, real efforts into how to improve the country.

This isn't the End of History. This is the end of the insular old folks home the EU is at danger of becoming.

[kirrent]

I assume these tradeoffs you're thinking of might be proroguing parliament for political intent, purging anyone Cummings can't dominate from the cabinet, withdrawing the whip from anyone wanting to vote their conscience, attacking the independence of the judiciary any time it finds the government has acted illegally, and expelling journalists from the lobby for unfavourable coverage? It's a pity such tradeoffs are inevitable (if you exclude all previous governments from both sides of politics).

Snark aside, I think your comment is a useful example of a kind of patriotic (or dislike of international orders in general) motivated reasoning. Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks? It's a bit hard to know when there's been so much noise on the potential financial upsides/downsides of leaving the EU. Will people become more welcoming when freedom of movement is ended or does insularity have other costs? These are hard questions with difficult answers and patriotic optimism is no substitute. I'm certainly not prepared for you to assert anything about the cabinet being promising without proper justification.

All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

[rayiner]

> All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

How in earth can you say the evidence is against that view? The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU. The U.K. has an established track record of success without the EU. It’s the EU that lacks any antecedent historical evidence of long term viability.

Maybe your point is that, in modern times, you need to be part of an “international order” to be prosperous. Australia, Canada, and Japan are stark counter examples—they’re richer than nearly every EU country and have achieved that without ceding sovereignty to an international body.

[qmmmur]

I'm sorry but if you think Australia is rich without America's defense budget you have some serious rethinking about geopolitics that you need to do.

[MagnumOpus]

> The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU.

You might be too young to remember, but before joining the EU, the UK was something of a failed state. It had to go cap in hand to the IMF begging for handouts, the rubbish was piling up on the streets, and so on. Look up the Winter of Discontent.

Brexit not a choice between the British Empire or the EU, it is a choice for being run by Johnson’s SPADs rather than a sane government.

[cmdshiftf4]

>Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks?

86% of the current population of the UK was born there. The overwhelming majority voted for the current Tory government and as such, for Brexit.

So therefore yes, I believe the natives are likely to bear the costs and risks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...

[MagnumOpus]

Only 42% voted for Tories, while more than 50% voted for parties endorsing a 2nd referendum. So much for “the overwhelming majority voted for Tories”.

[newsgremlin]

I don't know where this idea that brexit has fundamentally changed british society, it hasn't, all it has shown is that the entire country is still polarized by class and political leaning. The two party state still exists, or perhaps one party state by the current looks of things, a broken FPTP voting system still in use. The undemocratic house of lords still lives and monarchy that uses celebrity style PR to justify their existence by attributing all tourism revenue to their existence. The welfare of this welfare state slowly decaying away.

Leaving the EU won't stop the twilight years for a generation of people that want things the way they never will be the same again.

[biscotti]

The FPTP system is designed to result in strong goverments with working majorities.

I'm not so sure the system would really work if we had proportional representation, each government would have a questionable mandate and every decision would end up a compromise between coalition partners.

In the EU you can't really argue it has worked out, the lions share of the budget and regulations goes towards agricultural policies biased towards industrial french farmers and crops that operate in a much different environment than the countryside found in other nations. France and Germany bully the commission, and if the EU wants to take big decisions or persue a different direction it needs the consent of all 27 members, impossible!

I know this is changing with the loss of vetos and qualified majority voting, but don't kid yourselves that it's democracy. Your vote is meaningless. It would be better in my mind to enrich a benevolent dictator than to pin your hopes on a commission and parliament susceptible to lobbying and corruption. It is already clear to many they do not act in the interests of the European populace.

Hopefully it will die, and something better will form from its ashes.

[newsgremlin]

But if you represent part of the society that is entirely against said strong governments policies which directly affects you, relations, or your morals and ideals - you don't want strong governments to have unmitigated power.

But instead people end up voting for a party just because its the only one that can beat "the other", not because it actually represents their ideology. All the talk of freedom and sovereignty goes out the window when we concede that our only practical options are limited by the ruling system and not stifled by a foreign entity.

A meaningless vote to me is one that only counts for one and only one possible option in a vast sea of them. That's what PR and STV address better than FPTP in a democracy.

Bigger unions in the world are forming not dying and the UK will get eaten up by one of them or remain a secluded island of funneling suspect finances, it won't be the one pushing its weight around other big unions, it's the empire mentality that hasn't been shaken off and the sooner it fades the better decision making by the national government and people.

[ramblerman]

> Would not surprise me at all to find the UK a wealthy more developed nation than Germany by 2050.

It's also not unlikely the UK constitutes just England and Wales at that point.