From an economic sense there is no point in leaving the Eu. However this was not about economics it was about sovereignty.
It may also be that about Britain being in a better position should the Eu one day collapse. I believe one day the Eu will collapse. It seems to barely scrape through theses stresses whether financial or related to migration but one day there will be a stress that will have a destructive impact on the Eu
Brexit is a bit like the surgeon trying to respect the inoperable tumour, there is no point risking financial collapse and so for now brexit in name only and gradually unwind positions over the next 20 years
@Andy EU will one day collapse, totally agree. But I am sure UK will collapse first. HAHA
If allowed one more comment: "Gravity equation" explains the trade matrix. Small is not beautiful in the scheme of things. On a different level the manner of BREXIT how it was presented (as a fast shuffle) to put Europe in its place had the air of "cloak and dagger" mystery tour. To hide all the policy mistakes of the British government such as allowing mass uncontrolled immigration; not factoring-in housing gap. The "dagger" of government plot accusing EU of refusing a la carte UK trade deal as March 2019 deadline approaches. Europe knows the English enjoy cricket but this time they have chosen the wrong pavilion on a very sticky wicket. What did the Europeans ever do for Great Britain? On this occasion precious little because the EU is not an amateur sports club.
1
EU may use this analysis as study in their negotiations with the British government officials constantly resigning for some reason. In effect there is no point for UK to quit EU as UK will need to stay in EU customs union for EU tariff-free access. Note: Europe preparing to offer US better terms on car imports by lowering the tariff rate of 10 per cent in order to diffuse Trump tantrums; Europe the "foe" slightly off-key.
As Paul Krugman summarizes exporting say passenger cars over long-distances not feasible; unless in huge quantities. That point also made by China that allows US car companies to operate in China; with great success for GM and FORD. FORD quit Japan car market due to many hidden barriers. China considers US trade war as highly provocative requiring more time to make the necessary adjustments; as a courtesy.
It was obvious from before the Brexit vote that it was, to put it mildly, a stupid and self destructive idea. No matter who initiated the idea.
But it was dumbfounding and strangely satisfying to realize that there are as many ill-informed and under informed voter, by population size etc as in the U.S. and any third world country you can pick out of a hat. I can vouch for it because I am an immigrant ( yes homeland security goons, I am a naturalized citizen.)
They can overwhelm an informed voter base. I used to think the U.S. was different, but no. And England, is the same.
Now they are on a path that must be changed or their industry will have to act to guard their self interest and that will be when workers in those companies know they have been done in. Then the rest of the population, by then it is too late. They have dialed back about 20 plus years or whenever EU was established. The big winner? Putin and not the United States because we have to contain the mess.
9
Actually. Blackforest is completely correct. The EU is not without issues, but it would have been a lot better to try to resolve these with a seat at the table, than simply by leaving and becoming beholden to all of the same laws and regulations (the present ones since the 70's have to be incorporated into UK law, any important future ones will have to be assented to in order to continue to have a trade etc relationship with the Continent) without getting to actually be involved in the process of informing them. As to sovereignty... As you'll note if you look at the legislative agenda of any modern house of representatives, there is a LOT of international law already incorporated into national law already... this is the way the world is going whether we like it or not. More globalised, not less. It's better to have a say in how that international law is formed and how it is incorporated than to try to ignore it, because it ain't going away. "No man is an island..."
2
I was getting ready to correct you: to say it's not just 'England' but 'Britain' or 'the UK'... but actually, you're right. It was England. A large number of old, angry, economically-depressed dullards who live outside of the London and the South East, and far from anything resembling a good university, who managed to drag 38% of Scotland, and half of Wales and Northern Ireland with them just so they could relive their Dad's Army fantasies, and ignore the will of the younger half of the electorate who will actually live to see the consequences.
2
@Rico Hold on....as one of those old angry men now retired in France never imagined PM Cameron would yield to his party extreme right-wingers; English light-brigade rides again into the wrong valley? Frustration with Europe comes in three sizes: ECJ European Court of Justice ruling over British courts. Secondly years of austerity have taken their toll on the nation with wages freeze. Thirdly immigration not controlled from EU or non-EU countries. More immigration from non-EU on a much greater scale for low-paid jobs like NHS national health service with one million employees. BREXIT a poisoned chalice; the government clutching at straws for any deal. European Union will not concede any ground in negotiations that much is now obvious. Ireland as the dividing line; somewhat ironic the last province of the empire that will break the United Kingdom stuck in the EU....with wheels spinning.
lol, that free movement of people won't stop anything, matter of fact, it will mean less white's in the former UK. Scotland and NI need to leave that pos now.
This article is so incredibly misinformed about why 17.4 million voted for BREXIT (sovereignty) against all the vested interests (which corporatists like Krugman spin) and why millions of Remainers succumbed to 'lies' (yes, two can play that game) of Project Fear.
If Krugman can't ever bother to evaluate the pros and cons of this issue about what I do know about, I will simply discount all his other articles because they are nothing more than motivated reasoning.
In essence, Krugman persuades nobody and is simply part of the problem of division and certainly not the solution.
2
If you know so much about it, why don't you tell us which statements of Krugman's are false, and why they are false?
7
27 countries cannot be wrong. The EU was not formed with trade alone in mind, I state that trade was last. Has the writer ever heard of WWI and WWII? My Mother got me through it while my Father was at sea.
4
"... because individual freedoms are more important."
I agree. So why are they being crushed by our president who daily undermines our democracy - which was established to ensure individual freedom?
You know, an idea popped into my head after reading about all of these problems going on in the world: Trump, Immigration Issues (in the US as well as EU), Brexit, Syria, the rise of Ultra-right wing parties (and in response Ultra-left ones), etc.
This is ALL George W. Bush's fault. If he never invaded Iraq, then there would never have been an Iraqi Civil War, which in turn created ISIS, which in turn created the Syrian Civil War, which in turn led to a refugee crisis, which in turn led to Brexit and the rise of the right-wing in the EU. Bush's failures also undermined "respectable" conservatism in the US, which gave us Trump.
If only I had a time machine, I'd travel back to the year 2000 in Palm Beach County, Florida and beg hundreds of seniors entering polls to make sure they don't accidentally vote for Pat Buchannan.
13
Brilliant.
I'm late in catching up with articles, but happened to also read today about how Boris Johnson sold Brexit to the Brits in 2016 because his guys didn't really believe that they would win, but would advance their brands–much like Trump accidentally winning in 2016.
Johnson made outlandish, non-evidential claims about the benefits of Bfrexit, just as Trump made outlandish claims about what he could do.
So, today (July 12), The Donald is in Britain, evidently more interested in meeting The Boris than meeting PM May. Then off to Putin...
...Onward with a marketing campaign by a child playing president. (Putin clasps his hands in delight with the instability that he’s sustaining.)
10
Poor UK. Hard Brexiteers from the misbegotten Tories, have this bizarre idea that Rule, Britannia still matters in the scheme of things. Many Tories have resented the presence of the EU, as a mistrustful institution, trampling on the soverignty of precious Albion. However, reality intrudes. The United Kingdom can no longer survive as a prosperous nation outside of the EU. Brexit, is nothing more than a suicide valentine, promoted by irresponsible political clowns and their acolytes. Exiting from the EU will leave the UK, poorer, with little or no influence in world affairs. A self-inflicted wound, for which their may be no recovery.
12
The usual misrepresentation of the referendum arguments and the intelligence of the voters. 'Remain' had the full weight of Government (and Big Business by proxy) behind it, and bombarded the country with imagary of how catastrophic Brexit would be. 'Leave' said yes, there will be a trade impact, but the EU will wish to continue trading with us; it will not be the end of the World. I accept 'Leave' appears to have broken funding rules and also stretched the truth to breaking point at times (that £350m per week for the NHS), but nothing the god of politicking wouldn't let them in heaven for.
But it is the implication that Leave voters were suckered into believing a fairytale that really galls. They knew there was a price to pay, but they considered it acceptable for the opportunity (note that word carefully) to restore democracy and control over borders. They voted to be able to elect a Government that could do the will of the voting majority. Whether that ever happens remains to be seen, but at least the possibility now exists.
And it was categorically not a rejection of Europe. Most Leave voters would be delighted to remain in a European Union that upholds human rights and works for the many not the few. They had the good sense to see that that was not and never would be the case.
1
What? The press loved "Brescamit" in the uk. Stop lying when Brexit lovers don't care about human rights. Scott's d and NO should dissolve the uk.
1
There were definitely lies on both sides of the referendum.
But I think you underestimate the economic damage that will occur. There is no economic benefit to brexit, only damage control. How much damage occurs depends on what arrangement we finally agree with the EU. If we leave in March 2019 with no deal at all, the government's own report says there will be food, petrol and medicine shortages within two weeks.
What worries me is that two years after the referendum a no-deal scenario is looking more and more likely.
4
Refugees, cause and cure.
One of the major discussions in the news is refugees, and how they are affecting their host countries.
While one can conjecture the driving force behind refugees might be economics, country instability, climate changes. How can the more powerful G12 Countries, and UN create a situation where these people stay in their home countries, and prosper there?
Can Mr Krugman give us some insight?
3
Brexit is the end result of successive UK government’s failings, being blamed on the ever convenient bogey man of continental European countries. Want to bring in a new law that is unpopular - the EU made us do it. Red tape and over regulation that’s the EU not us. We need immigrants to provide workers for the ever growing pool of old age pensioners, but we are not prepared to pay for the additional infrastructure required to service the numbers, and the people are complaining - I know lets blame the EU for making us take them. I’m sure you get the picture, now do that every day, every month, every year for 40 years and you end up with a majority of the voting population who believe it. The biggest surprise was that the establishment thought they could carry on with their manipulation of the truth without there being any consequences.
8
The point of BREXIT and why most voted for it is to end free movement of people. Just wait and see the political chaos if the British government tries to get rid of that too.
1
"Too bad more people didn’t ask it before the referendum." Too bad the press (as usual) did not fulfill its function of informing the public before the vote.
8
The failure of the press was certainly a major contributor to the result of the Brexit referendum. It was only after the vote that news and documentary outlets started providing accounts of how Brexit would impact the NHS, the financial industry which London depends on, prices and availability of goods the public had grown accustomed to, property prices, ad nauseam. I spent a month yelling at the tv "Why didn't you tell people that *before* the vote?!"
The result: a decision based on fear and personalities, rather than reliable information. Sound familiar?
10
Who needs a free (liberal) press when you have Boris and Nigel to tell you the truth?
5
David Davis spent 2 years on Brexit and resigned. Boris Johnson didn't even try because his Populist Brexit was pure fantasy.
Upon his resignation as Briton's "worst foreign secretary in modern history" and with only 14 weeks until the European council summit deadline, THE TRUTH is:
"The publication of the government’s Brexit white paper– which should have happened long ago – is the beginning of the true negotiation between the May government and the EU."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/...
Let's see. Populist using fantasy to get elected; no white paper as a basis for foreign negotiations; and deadlines have come and gone. SOUND FAMILIAR?
The President started this Tariff War on many fronts; and our business community received A JUNE POST-IT NOTE from our Administration's heterodox economist, Peter Navarro:
“President Trump will have the backs of all Americans who may be targeted by Chinese actions.”
5
Troll bots gonna get you, professor. Did you know that you are a Marxist? In favor of a one world government, no doubt run by the illuminati? Do you laugh or cry when you read the comments? Thanks for the education.
6
"These days I’m writing a lot about trade policy. I know there are more crucial topics, like Alan Dershowitz."
Yesterday on NPR Mr. Dershowitz said a number of questionable things that are not supported by the facts. He claimed that Clinton's email server was equivalent to anything Trump has done or could have done. And he claimed that the Trump campaign's soliciting of and receiving help from Russia in order to win the election was neither illegal nor sufficient grounds for impeachment. Given for instance that treason is a very real possibility, both assertions are silly to say the least.
7
It isn't because the MSM refuses to address such issues, dfdunlap, it's that those issues were already decided decades ago - starting with Ronald Reagan, and moving smoothly through successive administrations. How, exactly, do you propose to extricate the US from 'globalism' in a way that doesn't send the US into a deep, dark, Depression? American industries and markets are so entwined in global supply chains and capital markets, trying to unravel them to ostensibly support a few dying American economic sectors seems the height of folly, and unnecessarily costly to boot. You can control borders bringing immigration to a standstill all you want, but tire-making (as a metaphor, here) is not going to return to Akron in any meaningful way - not as long as tires can be made cheaper elsewhere. If you refuse to allow entry of foreign tires into the country through higher tariffs, all you've effectively accomplished is to place a higher tax on the American consumer. "The great rush towards some techno-globalist-single market-capitalist utopia" has nothing to do with it. It certainly won't be a utopia, but I doubt there is any avoiding it. This is not "liberal orthodoxy", it is just Eyes Wide Open.
2
Dershowitz has always been a Zionist (first and foremost), so anybody who supports Israel unquestioningly (Trump) is de facto better than one who does not (HRC). It really is that simple. Dershowitz has been nothing if not consistent over the last few decades.
2
Yes, I know: I missed the point here. Paul is saying that Dershowitz is an unimportant sideshow. All the same, Dershowitz is giving the Trump Republicans political cover as they sabotage the Republican Mr.Mueller's investigation.
2
Those voters were egged on and made artificially angry by the same type of Populist tripe that Trump is spewing. Hate filled fear mongering abetted by Russian cyber-actors.
3
"The great rush towards some techno-globalist-single market-capitalist utopia, is being interrupted by people asking:
How fluid should our borders be? How integrated should markets be? How much local economic pain is acceptable on behalf of global growth? What does our government owe its citizenry, vs. “the world?” What makes a nation, and a people? Who runs my government, Davos? What culture and values define my nation and bind me to my fellow citizens, or is it all about assuring the flow of cheap I-phones and easy travel?"
Yes. Brilliant and honest, but the MSM refuses to address such issues because to challenge those beliefs is to question liberal orthodoxy. If anybody raises an objection, they are subject to ad-hominem (sp?) attacks of xenophobe, racist, Nazi blah blah blah. The echo chamber of liberalism.
2
"Good question. Too bad more people didn’t ask it before the referendum."
Too bad Farange and his fascist associates were bankrolled by Russia and created a very good disinformation campaign in favor of Brexit. Too bad Trump will meet with their representative in Britain this week. Too bad the British public was brainwashed as much as the American public. Too bad democracy in the West is crumbling as we speak.
6
Noone cares about tariffs. This is pure fear and hatred of foreigners. Just like trump.
You can thank Merkel for letting in those one million refugees. She literally destroyed the EU with that dumbest-of-dumb announcements. And gave us Trump, most likely.
@J c. Which "announcement"? There is a very detailed Spiegel article in English chronicling these events. It shows how Mrs Merkel hardly had an option to act differently. There had been a toxic campaign by UK media ("Germany Opens its Gates"). Germany was vulnerable because it takes the Human Rights seriously. And that's something I am not particularly ashamed of as a German.
2
Boris and Donald, a matched set of liars...who knew? Or, rather, is anyone at all paying any intelligent attention to anything? How gross does it have to get, this lying thing?
7
Dear Paul，
Superb analysis, other EU nations need UK more.
God bless you!!! Just try to read as many magazines and books as you can!!!
With regards,
Joshua Tan
You're right! Now, what's the plan??? The whole point of saying "Brexit Meets Gravity" is that the results of the vote put your country in a huge bind with no easy way out.
Krugman's goal of a world government is getting crushed at every turn and he is so disappointed. These Marxists just won't go away and continue to push their totalitarian and one world government ideas. Americans are never going to go along with this because individual freedoms are more important.
I wonder if behind the scenes, very quietly, companies like Airbus have been saying that they will be leaving Britain.
Now they are saying it publicly, because now is "crunch time".
Why would Airbus stay in Britain if Britain doesn't at least have some "special deal" with the EU ?
Two things:
First, the UK shouldn't be afforded the benefits of EU trade without also shouldering its humanitarian responsibilities. After all, the EU is MUCH more than just a trade organization, it is an idea, or an ideal. (One could write volumes on how our politicians, and our generation, has failed to communicate and live this last piece).
Second, only a fool would trust Trump to make any deal. It is one thing today, and another tomorrow.
Please, UK, come back to Europe. The EU is not the enemy. Can we, must we improve the EU. Yes. But the enemy are the forces that are trying to destroy the strength of self determination, of freedom, of democracy, of fear, of cowardice. The EU needs you. You need the EU.
4
Is there simply no chance of winning a second referendum to overturn the first?
1
@John
Now (6 mos after my above) this questions is still relevant. It also poses another: what would be involved in the UK applying for reentry once regret sets in?
1
Keynes in 1936:
.“A favorable balance, provided it is not too large, will prove extremely stimulating; whilst an unfavorable balance may soon produce a state of persistent depression.”
He advocated tariffs on imports into the UK as an alternative way of cutting real wages (by increased import prices) “I am frightfully afraid of protection as a long-term policy,” he testified to a UK parliamentary commission, “but we cannot afford always to take long views . . . the question, in my opinion, is how far I am prepared to risk long-period disadvantages in order to get some help to the immediate position.”
Professor Krugman is mostly right, of course, but his is an economist's perspective (how could it be otherwise? that's what earning a Nobel prize in economics makes to your worldview), and thus woefully incomplete. A slim majority of Brits judge the EU is a bad deal not because it makes them poorer (the disingenuous argument that nominally decided the referendum), but because they have no sympathy for continental Europe whatsoever. Now that lack of sympathy has been exposed, shared, cemented and solidified, they are perfectly fine with losing a substantial amount of welfare (10%? 20%? again, they are rich enough for world standards!) to give it political shape.
You could apply the same insight to the rest of the EU members' decision to remain in the union, regardless of (slightly) smaller growth rates for years, and in one case (Greece) a catastrophically bad austerity policy. We (by a slim majority also) instinctively like the idea of being all together in this troubled world, no frontiers and all, even if it costs us a little (or sometimes a lot). Politics and sense of belonging trump economic rationality any day of the week...
More detailed analysis in http://purebarbell.blogspot.com/2016/06/bye-bye-uk.html
6
Politics is a distorted and secondary form of economics. And economics as theorized by the mainstream is merely the rationalization of empirical phenomena, which deceives us as it hides its substance.
The conceptualization of nationalism and protectionism in times of diminishing returns (relative to total capital) is but the extrem failure of economics and politics to explain the substance which drives society.
In the end it’s reduced to the illusion that if everyone fends for himself, they will at least keep something. Previous experiences show us the destructive character of those illusions.
In this type of equations, the social dimension, or the true source of wealth, is obliterated for both selfish and limited theoretical visions. Even Keynesian economists, unlike Krugman, are playing with the protectionist idea.
1
I respectfully disagree with your opening comment about politics being a distorted and secondary form of economics, although I pretty much agree with most of the rest :-)
The disagreement, however, is probably purely semantic. Both politics and economics are forms of discourse with (somewhat inflated) claims to legitimacy based on the interpretation of (supposedly) empirical data, and it is undeniable that economics is better at making sense of measurable quantities.
I stand however by my initial statement: Brexiters (and your average Europen acritical "remainer by default") are not moved mainly by "economic" interest, but by gut feeling. Is that gut feeling caused by diminishing returns relative to total capital? yep, sure. Is it an extreme failure of economics and politics not to be able to explain the substance which drives society? you betcha.
I'm truly curious, though, about what you consider that substance to be. Demography? Ideology? Capitalist relationships of production?
" Now lack of sympathy has been exposed, shared, cemented and solidified, they are perfectly fine with losing a substantial amount of welfare (10%? 20%? again, they are rich enough for world standards!) to give it political shape."
I think the lack of feeling on the part of brexiteers for "Europe" is correct (and among remainers it is just the opposite). But I don't think they believe they actually will be losing a substantial amount economically. In fact, many people voted leave because they believed the lie on the side of Boris's red campaign bus that once we stopped paying into the EU there would be "£350 million a week for the NHS". That was just one of many blatant lies and demagoguery on both sides of the referendum campaigns. And the lies continue with our politicians denying the warnings by businesses of the dire consequences brexit.
7
The magic of the Brexit vote is that, having been simply a measure of sentiment unattached to any concrete plan, everyone is free to read into it whatever they want. So every long suppressed nationalist sentiment has been given rein to run free unfettered by reality. Dreams of once again hunting wild game in East Africa with Range Rover and pith helmet. Maybe another Falklands naval skirmish with Argentina. That sort of thing. It was great fun for awhile.
The problem is of course that each of these fantasies must at some point connect with the sober fact that Brussels is singularly uninterested in crafting a special arrangement with Britain that gives it the economic benefits of EU membership with few of the burdens. Unpleasant sourpusses, those gray-faced Brussels bureaucrats. No one has yet figured out how to reconcile Brexit fantasies with EU realities. But Theresa May and the Tories keep on trying, appealing to traditional British pluck and grit.
From a philosophical standpoint it is interesting to contemplate which is ultimately worse, Brexit or Trumpism. Trumpism is more bizarre and scary on the surface, but intrinsically superficial. It will likely be easier to get rid of when its absurdities finally come to fruition. But being pure and noble and more connected to centuries of imperial privilege, the Brexit urge is deeply embedded in the British psyche. It is "Make Britain Great Again" with an existential vengeance. It is unlikely to disappear quickly.
10
Why did Cameron do it? Sir Ivan Rogers told the inside story: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-inside-story-of-how-davi...
I fear the US fell to Trumpism in 1980.
2
Free rail travel across the EU for young people.
2
British political parties should all support a second referendum since the narrow exit majority of the first referendum was based on false information.
14
So we vote until there is the "right" result?
For those who were looking, suitable information was available to give an educated vote.
If the referendum is repeated, there will be the same mixture of truth and "alternative facts" than with the prior referendum. I see no sense in repeating a referendum about the same question under the same circumstances. Further, you do not hear any if-I-only-knew-voices. Both major parties pursue the Brexit.
UK voted for Brexit. Fullstop. For what reasons whatsoever. It is not ours to judge that. It will harm the EU and it will harm UK more. But it was and seemingly still is their decision. We have to respect that.
3
Much as in the U.S., I believe a segment of the British electorate felt (with justification) that Brussels had too much control over their lives. Nobody would argue that the operation of trade union spanning so many different countries, languages, cultures and political actors is easy. Mistakes have been made. But what Brits and Americans have done is to collectively cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Nigel and Boris will be long gone when the butcher's bill for this fraud comes due. Those who supported will suffer the most. Ignorance is a cruel affliction that punishes those infected with it. Worse still, when punished, Brexit supporters not unlike Trump supporters will cobble together thin arguments as to why it was the right decision despite mountains of unambiguous evidence to the contrary.
You know, it is amazing the human race has made it this far.
26
Not understanding stuff seems to be SOP everywhere these days. Which leads to the eternal question:
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happier?
22
Thomas Gray in "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College" was referring to childhood when he wrote:
"Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."
Mr. Gray was not referring to the ignorance of the Brexit crowd or the Trump cult. That ignorance along with fear and racism are what Trump feeds his cult, and they adore him for it.
1
Hmmm... So Trump is playing w/o a winning hand.
Hmmm...
Who isn't happier?
Why not?
It's strange that Americans simply don't get the point of Brexit - ultimately it is not about economics but about complete loss of sovereignty - everyone who voted for Brexit, particularly the poorest, did it knowing that it would certainly involve sacrifice, but this is preferable to being bullied by corrupt Brussels bureaucrats without democratic accountability who have already succeeded in destroying Greece - why anyone can place an ounce of trust in the EU is beyond comprehension
3
"everyone who voted for Brexit, particularly the poorest, did it knowing that it would certainly involve sacrifice"
That is just not true. To make such a claim, one has to ignore the repeated assertions by Brexit proponents prior to the referendum that the UK economy would be stronger after Brexit. For example, on the 28th of April 2016, a group of leading Brexiter economists claimed that "Higher wages, output growth and lower unemployment would be among the financial benefits of voting out of the bloc, independent analysis by the experts shows". Are you seriously suggesting that noone who voted for Brexit believed these incorrect claims?
29
I'll take this one on, since my mate across the Tasman nicely took down your second point before I could:
"It's strange that Americans simply don't get the point of Brexit - ultimately it is not about economics but about complete loss of sovereignty."
First of all, I would think most Americans don't give a fig about Brexit, or even know what it is. Those who do, though, may have a different view on inter-dependence in the 21st century, and that there's no going back to the Raj for anybody. Sorry.
Now, those who tend to be labeled as "populists", who are in fact nationalists, probably see it the way you do. The Make England Great Again crowd. But that group demographically tends to read less and are less informed on the issues of the day. This is the same group that thinks that America is always right and everybody else is always wrong. But even so, are things that bad for you? Is England Greece? Or is that you just can't get over the reality of living in a multi-polar world that doesn't have room for a colossus or two?
15
"everyone who voted for Brexit, particularly the poorest, did it knowing that it would certainly involve sacrifice"
This is absolutely wrong. People were told there would be MORE money after we stopped making contributions.
Remember the big red battle bus and £350m/week for the NHS?
6
The 'just-in-time' coordination of supply chains is an efficiency advance no manufacturing industry ignores. It is also the weak point in trade conflict. Trump gambled that those corporate tax rate cuts would return overseas profits to invest in North America but nothing tangible came from that. Now the gamble is that disrupting supply chains will force investment here to take up the slack; sort of like raising in a poker game: White House vs Corporate chiefs.
2
Isn't he saying that Britain is out but will have to (ask to!) subject itself to E.U. policy regardless or suffer economic consequences? Not sure I get the "no" part.
1
Your pieces are always interesting and illuminating, Mr. Krugman. I'm not much of an economist--but I do know you endeavor to explain the arcane stuff as clearly, as lucidly as you can. Thanks.
This'll sound a bit odd. Bear with me.
But I found myself thinking of Sir Winston Churchill. During the dark days of May and June, 1940.
AND, of course, the ringing lines we all know. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears."
Marvelous! Especially when we know two things:
(1) Sir Winston was speaking for the right cause.
(2) That cause (in God's mercy) WON.
But there's something else too.
The man (so far as I can discern) was TOTALLY HONEST about the road ahead. The Brits (my goodness! seventy eight years ago) were in a bad place. A VERY bad place.
And so--he was honest about it. No bromides. No panaceas. No cure-all's. No snake oil.
Very different, would you not say? Mr. Krugman. . .
. . from the Brexiteers of two years ago.
Peddling snake oil and panaceas.
Peddling easy solutions that were no solutions at all.
Just like. . .. like. . .
. .YOU know who I mean.
Thanks. Good column. As always.
23
no.
May signed the Article 50 paperwork to start the "divorce". There is no mechanism to undo that.
The UK would have to reapply for membership in th EU and would likely lose all power it held as a founding member.
1
Arguably at that point Churchill was actually being if not dishonest, economical with the truth, the situation was much more dire than he was letting on.
Incorrect, article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK Government.
19th century European scientists had advanced farming with crop rotation and other techniques not yet used by American farmers. It was common back then to plant a cash crop until the soil was exhausted, abandon the land, and move on to new farmland and do it all over again.
In 1862 Lincoln signed a bill to introduce Agricultural Colleges to teach improved farming . Most farmers did not trust "foreign experts", insisting they knew best, after all, they worked the land. It was not until the early 20th century that the children and grandchildren of the previous two generations of farmers began to attend those schools in any number.
The anti-science stubbornness of those older farmers led to the Dust Bowl crisis because of the soil not farmed intelligently after new knowledge developed.
The anti-intellectualism famous in the US is now leading to self harming decisions like Brexit, right wing populism again even after WWII in Europe, and Putin is loving every minute of it.
Politics usually draws the people with the least knowledge about complex subjects and allows them to have power over the people who know the most. Thus we get myriad idiotic, harmful decisions and laws by elites who are not elite in knowledge. But the founders were intellectuals who feared the "rabble". Ironic!
Let's vote on military strategy, shall we?
Kissinger & McNamara were brilliant? Trump claims he's brilliant. Really? Brexit? It's all like a joke told by a hopelessly unfunny person.
19
A large number of the pro Brexit voters cared nothing about trade or economics. They were motivated racist nationalism, put and simple.
28
Oh Mr. Krugman, what a superb opening to a very important article.
I am so glad you recognize the cruciality of Alan Dershowitz.
You so correctly adjusted your article accordingly by mentioning that name only once.
12
"oo bad more people didn’t ask it before the referendum." Here it's "Too bad more people didn't ask any question before the election."
10
I am missing the point where Brexit was about controlling immigration at borders and not about free trade. What is the crux of the issue for Brexit? Trade or immigration?
3
Trade will gravitate towards Asia.
China Daily .... 2013
President Xi Jinping on Saturday proposed that China and Central Asian countries build an "economic belt along the Silk Road", a trans-Eurasian project spanning from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea.
Xi made the official suggestion for the first time during a speech on China's Central Asia strategy at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan.
The proposed economic belt is inhabited by "close to 3 billion people and represents the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential", Xi said.
3
The Brexit referendum was explicitly non-binding, took place amid great complacency among its opponents, and no one could say what it meant (still true). Could someone please explain why the Tories, who opposed it, immediately took the result as expressing the will of the people?
6
Then Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum sure that it would lose. He did so to prevent the extreme right wing of his party bolting to the new UKIP party (now mostly dead). He then led a terrible campaign against Brexit that did not attempt to counter the many lies of the Brexit camp. The economic pain of Brexit was called a tremendous dividend. The pro-Brexit folks also never expected to win. They had no plan, only a slogan. They were demanding before the vote that only a majority of 60% or more would be valid (remember they expected to lose. They were setting up multiple votes. When Brexit surprised everyone with 52% of the vote, it suddenly became an absolute mandate (which it never was). Cameron resigned. No Brexit Conservative could win a majority of the Conservative party. So a Leave supporter whos promised to honour the vote, Theresa May, became PM. Almost all Conservatives want to get rid of her but that will not ahppened until after the Brexit deal is reached and she can be blamed for the disaster.
4
The Tories took the vote to represent t the true will of the people because that is what it meant.
The British ruling class have learned by bitter experiences through history that they ignore the peasant class at their peril. Too often the British Aristocracy have woken up one morning to find the peasants spiking their Royal heads on pikes outside the Tower of London.
the problem with your post is that people and nations still need to eat, build roads, have toilets fixed, and cheap geegaws made to suit their fancy. Even the $3 dollar tshirts at Walmart will eventually cost $11 bucks thanks to the trade wars.
Data does none of those things, people do, and when economies, like the U.S., allow the outsourcing of those functions, they need to stay committed to that path.
The burgeoning trades wars Trump is intentionally fueling will (relatively) soon be felt by regular Americans.
Employment is many of those industries will drop as exporters have no available buyers. Importers will have to either raise prices or reconfigure supply chains. both of which are expensive and time consuming. In the short term prices will rise, quality and availability will fall, and jobs will be lost.
Housing, Military, Infrastructure and even computer components will become more expensive and that cost will trickle down to buyers. Which by the way is the true meaning of "trickle down economics", a.k.a. the buy pays more.
so no, data is not defying gravity, as the machines housing, transporting and manipulating it will soon cost extensively more.
6
"Too bad more people didn't ask it before......"
Gee, the same statement could be made about soybean farmers, bourbon distillers, Harley builders/investors and more in the United States. At the rate things are going right now, about the only entity that won't be hurt by tariffs is the Trump Organization.
Readers can decide if that is by chance or design.
9
Sorry the point of no return was reached on Mar 28 2018 when Theresa May signed Article 50 which started the "divorce" proceedings. There is no way back through a second vote, which is sad but intentional to avoid fickle politicking.
The only way back in is if the EU decides to accept the UK again after it re-applies. If so it is very likely that the UK will be treated as a weak newcomer with no power seats and little control of votes and laws that affect UK interests.
4
Mr. Krugman puts out a cogent, logical and detailed explanation of his point. The problem however is the same one that affects all conversations of politics, law, economics and even religion.
If the claim/answer/position, does not fit on a bumper sticker most people won't hear or try to understand it
Trump has mastered this skill and wields it to expertly to promote hate and chaos among his followers.
To be effective in the coming elections the Liberals need to master the bumper sticker explanation/answer/claim. They must find the phrasing that smacks the fear-never in Liberals hard enough to make sure they come out and voter for whatever Liberal candidate get the nomination, instead of their traditional habit of having hissy fits when their favored candidate is not the nominee.
Until that happens, mongers of hate and chaos will control both Washington but more than half of state governments.
5
hat I heard was that the point of Brexit was to keep Polish workers from taking jobs in Britain . But maybe I heard wrong.
1
The UK is not subject to non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels.
The EU Commission has NO POWER TO PASS LAWS - that is the reason it is not elected. No point electing someone who cannot make anything happen and has to take orders from the nationally elected Council of Ministers and the elected Members of the European Parliament.
1
Problem is leaving the EU will stop British workers getting jobs in Germany and 26 other countries :(
1
Given that the evidence is piling up that Russia influenced this election as well it seems reasonable that a argument for a second vote could be made. I'd say it's time Theresa began to make it.
7
Yes. My recollection as well. Brexit rejected being subject to non-elected bureaucrats in Brussels. It was about sovereignty and being able to control one's borders. Let's not forget who stood alone and was never conquered by Germany. Nor was the rejection of the Euro a bad idea.
3
A previous comment asserts re Brexit: "...It was about sovereignty and being able to control one's borders. Let's not forget who stood alone and was never conquered by Germany."
The UK has 53 former colonies as part of its Commonwealth, with nearly 2.5 billion people, all have voting rights and are eligible for British Overseas Passports and freely enter and leave the UK. The Brexit backlash was in large part a white Brit rejection of Commonwealth diversity that makes up most of non-white UK residency channeled into animosity towards EU Eastern Europeans working in the UK. There are as many Brits as Americans enthralled by The Whites R Us pheno-mena and Brexit was an easy and timely opportunity to act out
This is another instance of British Empire enjoying the spoils of colonial plunder while its Crown home subjects repudiate the terms and moral obligations of Rule Britannia after the fact.
The "special relationship" between the US and UK exists because the Brits didn't stand alone as Americans spilled an ocean of their own blood spearheading an allied effort to defeat Hitler.
PS. One might recall the English Royal Family is entirely of German aristocracy as the Windsor-Mountbattens, anglicized from the original Bittenberg, and Windsor from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Hitler may not have conquered Britain but German royalty sure did.
1
Given the mess that Brexit has become, the people of Britain deserve another chance to vote on whether or not they really want to do this. If not a referendum there should be a general election in which candidates identify as pro or anti-Brexit. The result would be a huge shakeup in British politics, which is something British politics sorely needs.
12
Some things are best left to experts/elected politicians to decide. This was one of those things. The average person doesn't understand the complex world of trade, etc. David Cameron should never have put this to a vote (by the public).
16
This essay is an important help to me in understanding more of the ramifications of Brexit. I am grateful, as usual.
14
Time for Britain to eat a little humble pie, admit they made a mistake and ask to cancel their withdrawal from the EU.
Brexiters are now seeing that Trump will do nothing to help a post-Brexit UK. He's already moved on. Brexit was fine when Trump could roll it into a sound bite about his "achievements" - but that was always going to be the extent of his involvement.
Brexiters have some solid arguements, as do populists in other European countries. Time for leaders to pay heed - hopefully collectively - and address these arguements in their policy making.
9
As always a very insightful article from PK. I am still puzzled over why the UK is dead set on Brexit almost like Thelma and Louise driving over the cliff edge. Yes there was a referendum but given everything we know now why would there not be another chance to reconsider such a momentous change? Why are anti-Brexit politicians not fighting tooth and nail to stop this madness?
15
Well, because while "being dictated to from the Brussels-led EU" was an important reason for Brexitters, "immigration" is THE most potent populist reason for leavers; the proverbial "third rail" of Brit politics.
9
Thank you for the lesson. I did not understand the the difference between a “free trade agreement, like NAFTA” and a “ Customs Union, like the EU.”
Please continue to educate. Knowledge is a powerful antidote to the despair we feel in the face of constant lies and propaganda.
22
.
Perhaps the UK should adopt a fully frictionless import mechanism?
Capital Transfer Securities, (CTS), are fully frictionless.
.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1330159537114737&id=1000...
.
.
___Capital_Transfer_Securities___(CTS)___
.
Supporting domestic industries and maintaining currency values are two perennial international economics problems that require better solutions.
Supporting domestic industries with tariffs and subsidies is both banned and contentious.
Maintaining currency values with interest rate rises, central bank currency purchases and crude capital controls can be counterproductive and untenable.
Both of these problems can be addressed by Capital Transfer Securities (CTS).
CTS is implemented by a Balanced Capital Transfers Law.
Balanced Capital Transfers Law ( BCTL):
1) The act of transferring capital out of the country creates a Capital Export Security (CES) notating the amount exported. This security is taxed at a percentage of the value of the transfer. That percentage, X, will be set and adjusted as necessary, by the Central Bank.
2) The act of transferring capital into the country creates a Capital Import Security (CIS) notating the amount imported.
3) The tax paid on the CES can be refunded by holding an equivalent amount of CIS.
4) All CIS and CES will be recorded by a central entity to facilitate trading.
See link above for the rest.
1
The citizens of the British empire realize they were duped. Boris is gone and May is not a strong leader. Scotland and Ireland will leave and Britain will become just England. A self destroyed country that putin had a big hand in the break up.
Gees, allow the people to vote again and get back with the program and keep your country and the EU. strong . Here in the US were doing much to stifle this haircut that passes for a dictator.
18
Throughout this entire Brexit mess I've thought - why did Cameron even hold the election on Brexit to begin with ? It cost him his prime minister job, might cost May the same job, and only hurts Britain financially in the long run. And to think Britain can get a better deal out of the US with Trump ? You've got to be kidding ! I think Britain should junk the whole idea and go back to being an EU member.
15
It was a political gamble - he never thought the vote would be to Leave.
3
Someone please explain trade policy and treaties in general to our president.
Perhaps a picture book, gold binding, of course.
15
I don't think many people voting in favor of the referendum were particularly interested in trade theory. Those other factors we didn't discuss are largely to blame. However, I agree with the general conclusions.
Even if you eliminated customs and tariffs, lead times would still shape roughly the same economic order as we see today, at least for developed countries anyway. Transportation infrastructure is a much more significant factor in business strategy than trade barriers. You can't sell anything if you can't ship it.
Shipping a product from China to Los Angeles takes about three weeks. Add two weeks for batch production and another week for delivery to destination. You're looking at six weeks minimum for most of the continental United States. A small delay at any point in the chain and you're backed up months.
Ontario to Michigan or Wisconsin though? You could probably ship parts in a few days or less. No lead time equals small inventories. Small inventories mean lower operating costs and more efficient production.
Trade policies, like currency fluctuations, are just a cost of doing business. Take it or leave it. Geography on the other hand is forever. With out the logistics to handle the trade you want to see happen, trade wars are a moot point.
This is why Xi Jinping is building a silk road while Donald Trump is stamping his foot at all our regional trade partners. Who do you think is going to be better off in the end? I know where to place my bet.
11
This article.....and the EU....an attempt to extort from Britain what they have every right to have....sovereignty.....
2
What was the purpose of Brexit in the first place? How about shrugging off the demands of a small, unelected administration of bureaucrats in Belgium and having Britain control its own trade policies?
4
well, that's worked out well, hasn't it?
1
Hey Scott, did you read that next to last paragraph? Don’t you see it won’t work the way you think?
That whining old lie about 'unelected EU bureaucrats controlling the UK' again? Seriously - read up on how it actually works. And while you're at it, you can read up on how Boris Johnson's career as a 'journalist' consisted of literally inventing petty stories about supposed EU 'demands', calculated to get people riled. The UK press has a lot to answer for.
4
I don’t think the inverse square law is the issue
I have some lovely friends in the UK who voted for Brexit. Wonderful folks, but clearly not that bright. Perhaps the government should invite Paul Krugman over to give lectures in Wales and the Midlands before revoting on Brexit. -This time without Russian involvement.
11
Brexit was about nostalgia for an England that no longer exists.
34
Just like the current far-right people in power.
2
It's been obvious all along that Brexit was a bad idea from the start. The EU has been a boon to Britain as well as to other member nations.
The harder the Brexit landing, I suspect, the more likely that Scotland will vote to leave the United Kingdom. This is just the start, unless the Brits do the smart thing and take a mulligan on Brexit.
4
The Anglophile in me used to admire the British for being seemingly more rational and level-headed than we Americans. I knew that it wasn’t true, but liked the idea of it anyway. With Brexit, I was rudely awakened. The Brits can be and were as easily hoodwinked as we were.
22
July 11, 2018
Brexit was not a question it was national rage in Great Britain and then the economists can deal with trade - but was about the human migrations and borders for self interest and here we have statecraft trumping economics - and the rest is endless political chatter that until and with Doctor Krugman to the rescue we will have to search to keep the machinery for smart economics maneuvering -and letting the politicians trade is slight of hand deals - and our dear Donald Trump is actually made for such madness - conclusions we create our own monsters and hell with gravity let's go full throttle to heavenly statecraft and on the credit cards for the ride.....
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
4
data and information are starting to make a serious impact on the global economy. these solutions and products defy the gravity equation. no server far too big or small. instant connections.
1
Data and information are, as you say, not subject to the gravity equation. But manufactures are.
1
Brexit was by far mostly about immigration and not the customs and trade union. And immigration issues and national and cultural identity mandates across Europe are addressed, Brexit is simply at the forefront, performed through a legitimate vote. Krugmans' last line about how people may not have realized the trade implications means nothing to people who voted entirely to stop immigration.
4
You mean those Muslims and Hindu's in UKIP(you do know that UKIP was 35-40%) whining about those "dirty" polish and romanian women?
4
Hmm, I think it was easy to see that economically the UK was well off with a customs union with the EU ... and so PM May would be expected to try and minimise the economic impact.
But motivation for Brexit hinged on exploiting xenophobia the other related anxieties - including economic competition. Therefore the impact of May's proposals on immigration or the Ireland boarder might be a more important factor to explore.
2
M cousin voted for brexit because she was tired of seeing all the French people in London.
Assuming that’s not a euphemism, once Britain exits, and thus London is no longer the finance capital of Europe, I reckon she’ll get what she voted for.
13
Brexit – and Trump, Orban, Italy’s lurch to the right, resistance to Merkel, growing nationalism – all of these things, are related.
The great rush towards some techno-globalist-single market-capitalist utopia, is being interrupted by people asking:
How fluid should our borders be? How integrated should markets be? How much local economic pain is acceptable on behalf of global growth? What does our government owe its citizenry, vs. “the world?” What makes a nation, and a people? Who runs my government, Davos? What culture and values define my nation and bind me to my fellow citizens, or is it all about assuring the flow of cheap I-phones and easy travel?
The greatest support for Brexit came from people who, within 10 years or less, found unrecognizable their tiny villages which date back to Chaucer, as they were swamped by EU immigrants.
If we can’t empathize with them, or dismiss the masses of other human beings around the world asking these same questions as “deplorables,” we’re handing our future to Trump, Orban, etc.
8
Showing empathy to the disenfranchised is one thing, exiting a strong economic partnership is quite another.
I'm afraid economic life outside the EU for the UK will be much worse than it us now.
6
I agree with you, Roger. But I am trying to understand the impulse which drives Brexit and many other movements in our world today, while too many wonder how the unwashed dimwits "vote against their own economic self-interest."
It may very well be that Brexiteers were willing to trade some financial well-being, for remaining a sovereign nation. It could be a difference in values, not intelligence, at work here.
All good points. Sadly, not unlike the US voters, the Brits were fed a lot of misinformation and those who were uninformed believed the spin. Everybody involved is losing here with the exception of......Russia.
31
Can they hold the referendum again?
6
So much easier to lie than tell the truth.
Whoever asks about anything which is too good to be true?
Just send me two of them, whatever they are, and put it on my bill.
Our President, our Congress and now it appears our Supreme Court and all the ancilliary courts are falling in line to buy the latest gee-gaw our huckster in chief has on the auction block.
It is going to be a big bill, too bad our kids and theirs will be the ones to pay. Poor babies.
21
Now that I am totally confused..ok
Funny, the rest of us had Cameron figured out when he slavishly put his country into your war in Iraq.
Maybe it takes some distance to see the truth, because what else could explain Trump?
2
the rest of us had Cameron figured out when he slavishly put his country into your war in Iraq.
That was Blair.
interesting article, but leaves out the immigration issues which are at the heart of the Brexit political vote.
Now of course the entire EU is struggling with the political immigration issues.
democracy is messy, not easy to deal with popular opinion,
but economists simply can't ignore it.
9
The other Brexit question on the equation of replacing EU trade with US trade is; what do the UK & the US ALREADY trade with each other? I suspect ould be a very different list of goods & services that the UK & EU trade with each other. Back to my fish & chips........
The bigger miss in all this rubbish is what American companies make and sell in foreign countries. That makes all the trade complaints look like total nonsense. And the sales and profits overseas drive American stock prices up, drive huge increases in the R&D budgets of American companies that support their competitiveness, and bring enormous talent into America. With 95.5% of all consumers in the world living outside the US, these markets, whether reached by exports and foreign subsidiaries, are critical for the future well being of Americans.
If the result of Trump’s political pandering was to turn the Chinese, the Indians, the Canadians, and Europeans against buying locally produced American products the US economy would collapse. If the US stops buying products from China, which is 4% of China GDP, China will march in
7
all this brainy fulminating when, as we all know, Brexit and the Trump Wars have just about nothing to do with trade.
trade is to the current situation as fever is to infection; a consequential side effect, but neither a cause nor the thing itself.
rather, it all seems to be about fear seeking refuge in nationalism - all, wrapped in a cloak of rather willful ignorance, a miserable tale we've heard before which usually has an unsatisfying ending.
iow, playing to the cheap seats for hometown political advantage. a groundswell of emotion fanned into fury by misdirection and outright lies. and don't try to convince me the perps behind the whole scam are just wrong or just ignorant: they do this with intent and malice aforethougt as a means of reaching their own ends no matter who is hurt along the way.
we are all those pain in the neck innocent bystanders Clamenza was worried about.
I could say Sad! but Disgusting! seems a lot more on target.
13
Your ideas are intelligent and well articulated-- they deserve correct punctuation.
2
BREXIT happened because a sufficiently large number of British people were concerned that they have an immigration and sovereignty problem. Their perceived problem was not identified or addressed by their government and they acted upon it using the Democratic mechanism available to them. They were not deceived by Boris Johnson, David Cameron, the Russians or anyone else. BREXIT was a legitimate result of the Democratic process.
Donald Trump was elected US president by Americans (not Russians) for similar reasons. The political class of both parties has ignored and disrespected the legitimate interests of the working class for decades. Bill Clinton cynically observed “Where else [beside the Democratic Party] can they go?” Trump is where. Enough Americans were sufficiently fed up that they were willing to take a major risk on Trump in spite of his many obvious flaws. Trump is also a legitimate result of the Democratic process.
It is noteworthy that both Trump and BREXIT were “unexpected” results. The Democratic process uncovered major problems that required action in both cases.
It is also noteworthy that the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet bloc, and the Shah of Iran were also “unexpected.” In each case there was no Democratic process to expose and allow correction of the rot before regime failure occurred.
The problems revealed by BREXIT and Trump require fixing. If they are not, the USA, UK, and EU could suddenly join the USSR and Shah on the ash help of history.
9
Trump was the result of a democratic process? Please, what democrtaic process results is minority rule. The election of a US President has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.
20
I am so sick of hearing "trump was elected"... while he acts as if he has a mandate from the majority, he in FACT does NOT. Almost 3 million MORE of US voted for HRC.
Trump squeaked in thanks to a multitude of sins, not least of which was 77,000 votes in 3 states (MI, WI, PA).
Thanks to the obsolete electoral college system, a person's vote in Montana or Wyoming (or other similarly small population states) counts roughly 80 times MORE than mine as a Californian. That is terribly wrong!
American's wake up and VOTE... for DEMOCRATS.
Only a massive turnout will counter republican voter suppression, financial advantages, gerrymandering (and help from Putin).
Once we have control of Congress, we can start repairing the damage wrought by trump and republicans.
8
1) Trump was not the choice of the majority of voters.
2) Trump was not the choice of the majority of working class voters.
3) Trump was not even the choice of the majority of white working class voters. White people earning under $50,000.00 a year went for Hillary, not Trump. White people with a college degree went for Trump, not Hillary. The portrayal of this as "poor put-upon economically anxious voters revolting against the elites!" is an almost perfect *opposite* of what actually happened.
3
I guess Krugman is seeing those sign and indications a Putin conspiracy again. Brexit was sold like a George Bush tax cut. Got a problem the tax cut will fix it. People wanted to believe in the rebirth of the British Empire and the soon to be golden age of British entrepreneurial spirit. They didn't like foreigners selling them coffee at Starbucks. Brexit sold the mean view taking back UKs destiny from EU bureaucrats. It was all out the ring wing nationalist playbook. David Cameron's ruinous decision to have a referendum on Brexit and over confidently think that the midlands of the UK were not going to listen Johnson and Farange who promised heaven and earth while Cameron would defend the EU. Voter anxiety and wanting to return to an idealized past made it easy for Brexiters.
7
Can't all these little problems you identify be solved by reviving the British Empire? The Prime Minister should invite Mr. Modi and Boris Johnson to a traditional British dinner (roast beef and Yorkshire pudding) at Chequers. Boris Johnson, whose diplomatic skills are exceptional, would surely convince Mr. Modi to rethink Indian independence and restore the Jewel to the Crown.
5
What group or organization is funding congressional candidates in proportion to their likely role in flipping the House to Democratic control?
1
The comeuppance of the British has reduced them to claim “colony” status aka the resignation letter of Boris Johnson. This is hugely amusing and insulting to the actual former colonies of the British empire whose economies were looted for centuries (looking at you India, Africa, Middle East) and whose blood and sweat was exploited by England during both world wars with no recognition even, much less compensation for, of colonial labor and lives. Maybe the only way for them to truly empathize is to be reduced to an economic footnote in the European economy. Sorry if I sound gleeful, but the British literally voted this on themselves!
7
Yo! Couldn't be said better. I actually lived under colonial British rule (add the West Indies to your list) and experienced first hand not only the rape, literal and metaphorical, of its colonies but the creation of a racist culture that insidiously permeates all former possessions including Australia. However, I'm hopeful that the influx of peoples from all those colonies over the years bring change to Great Britain.
1
Maybe the Brexiteers were more concerned about stopping the free movement of people than they were about the free movement of goods.
3
@Me Too: "The situation could be turned around if the U.S. pulls out of NATO, removes its bases from the EU, and tells Europe they are on their own."
Very funny. And what is your new strategy of power projection for the U.S.? Without friendly naval stations, air /army bases around the world, U.S. military might would be severely compromised.
What happens when the U.S. wants to fly a mission in the Middle East and our alliances are so degraded that countries no longer give their blessing for us to fly through through their airspace to get there? Well we'd have to either abandon the mission or fly warplanes through that airspace against the express wishes of the local government (making us an unambiguous hostile force subject to legally and morally justifiable attack). For instance, go ahead and make an enemy with Turkey. They closed their airspace in 2016 (coup attempt) and U.S. missions against ISIS was instantly thrown into disarray. Withdrawal from NATO would make that disarray look like a joke.
Logistics isn't as flashy as the "shock and awe" military people like Trump glamorize, but it's the U.S.'s main advantage over its adversaries. Without our strategic alliances (such as NATO), our supply lines would grow very long indeed. If you think military operations are expensive NOW... just wait until our alliances break down.
2
I believe that the main "problem" that concerned Brexit voters was the free movement of workers between countries, particularly with Germany allowing in so many immigrants. It is their equivalent of the illegal immigrant/open borders controversy currently plaguing the U.S. I guess the EU won't let the UK be part of it without accepting all of it.
2
I really think their problem was more with Polish workers than Muslims. The UK already allows UK citizenship to those born in former colonies, which include many Muslim majority countries. Breaking with the EU won't slow the influx of Muslims.
Krugman’s still cheerleading the neoliberal world order, I see. His area of expertise within economics is trade, so he surely understands that globalization has hurt the working class on both sides of the Atlantic.
Does he recommend programs to help workers made redundant by globalization, along with his anti-Brexit recommendations?
No. And he didn’t have much to offer workers on this side of the pond post-NAFTA, CAFTA etc.
What else would you expect from someone who has written odes to exploitative sweatshops overseas.
4
Even without free trade the "workers" would be facing substantial issues. Most jobs now require a modicum of intelligence as a large chunk of blue collar jobs involve running sophisticated machinery. Automation is making jobs obsolete at a faster pace. Check out how few longshoremen there are now versus 50 years ago but the ports are handling millions of more tons of goods a year. Lawyers can now be outsourced to computers that use AI to review billions of pages of documents in hours not thousands of hours. Corporate farms have made the small farmer obsolete and make it hard for farmers to create co-ops. The Republicans have been hostile to unions forever which help employees retain their power at the bargaining table.
None of these have to do with free trade but they have all greatly affected the workers.
13
Well, Trump could start sweatshops here for the workers he likes so much, except that he would have to import those workers (like he does at Mar a Lago).
7
And what is your answer and sollution?
On various trips to the UK before and after 1989, one notable change we observed was being served in restaurants by a pretty, cheerful Polish girl instead of a dour Brit with BO. Big improvement for us tourists, but can see why the British Trumpenproletariat didn’t think so.
4
Russia and the EU trade between each other, and isn't it amazing how well they accomplish it. The EU isn't having problems buying their gass from them, or increasing purchases by adding another pipe line through the Baltic. Seems the EU is making it very difficult for England to no longer be a part of the EU. Would this also happen for Greece, Italy, and Spain should they wave goodbye. The EU is digging a hole they may someday regret by imposing so many obstacles to England leaving. A hard Brexit will only cause more confusion, and cost to both parties. The situation could be turned around if the U.S. pulls out of NATO, removes its bases from the EU, and tells Europe they are on their own. We could then read about the EU bickering amongst themselves on the cost of defenses. Wake up EU, the hole is getting deeper every day for you.
The EU is not just a customs union. It is a supra-national body that can declare - throught the European Court of Justice - the democratically enacted laws of member states null and void. Moreover the EU's executive body, the Commission, is accountable to virtually no-one. Brexit is not just about economics. Many US commentators don't understand this.
3
And what is the WTO? Or the IMF? Unelected supranational bodies whose decisions can override laws, enacted by supposedly sovereign states' legislatures, as 'barriers to trade'?
2
There is a concentrated effort to destroy the European union! If the EU is destroyed ,the individual countries can then be easily co-opted ,controlled, by the neo-con world domination entity!
10
Or Russia...
6
Same thing...
All of the EU nations are wealth consumers living off of borrowed money to pay for their government activities.
Britain is very wise to leave this group of European wealth consuming nations before the EU nations cannot borrow any more money and become economic basket cases like Venezuela and Greece. (and the USA?)
2
Gerald, The EU includes some dubious actors like Greece which did actually use currency flows from rich to poor to pay for current consumption. It also includes France and Germany which compete quite well with the US on wealth generation:
http://www.worldometers.info/population/china-eu-usa-japan-comparison/
Note that EU GDP is greater than US GDP
I would entertain an argument about use of GDP to measure wealth but your statement is false with any measure.
4
Always Hopeful,
It does not matter what form of government that the USA, Spain, Venezuela, Greece, Nigeria, or any other city, state, nation or family selects.
Every Republic, Democracy, Theocracy, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Dictatorship, Kingdom, Principality or any other form of government still has to have their privately owned businesses continuously create sufficient new taxable national wealth in their nation so that there is enough available taxable wealth in that nation for that nation's government to confiscate a portion of that new taxable wealth and/or profit through income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc., and other taxes to pay for their wealth consuming government activities such as creating new infrastructure, police, fire protection, defense, courts, education, medical, and federal debt repayment.
This can only be accomplished by limiting government spending to less than the government collects in taxes from non-government supported businesses or that nation will eventually face bankruptcy.
Hopefully this can be done by each government without borrowing wealth from other sources (mostly individuals in the wealth creating industrialized manufacturing nations) to pay for their various wealth consuming government activities including any distribution of wealth confiscated from the wealth creators and then handed to the tax supported citizens.
Read up on some boring history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
The EU started as a trade block but the entire point was to integrate Germany with its neighbors and avoid the mistakes at the end of WWI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#cite_note-48
It really was an attempt to bring people together to promote peace.
It might not be that now.
3
Boris is an elite who felt that he was entitled to everything. He is as smart as Trump is at not doing any homework but complaining about everything. After all he came from a wealthy family who indulged his every whim.
He sold a bill of goods to the British people who stayed home when they should of gone out to vote. They to didn't listen to President Obama when he made that trip to England to tell them what was going to happen. Now that reality has come home and time for the hard work has begun he takes his ignorant self out of the game. His love of country never existed it was like Trump love of self. Would it be to much for Trump to do some of us all the favor by taking his riches and leave the white house and move to Russia where he can be appreciated.
I
18
If the UK has any common sense they'll put this BREXIT nonsense out of its misery and kill it. Would also have the positive side effect of handing Putin a loss.
18
The liberal love for the EU is perplexing to me. The EU is vehicle for Europe's big capitalists to crush popular resistance to policies that are in their best interest. It's anti-democratic and increasingly authoritarian. You don't believe me? Just read up on the Greek crisis.
The EU is not some noble project to bring humanity closer together. That's the propaganda angle. It is and always has been a big business cartel. They've dressed it up with a legislature but the fact of the matter is the EU is ruled by the big corporations and the big banks.
Gorbachev called the EU a puzzling attempt to recreate the USSR in Western Europe. He's not wrong.
4
Mr. Krugman, as well as many of your commentators, seems to think that one makes all one's choices in the passage of our life on economic grounds.
I am a Brit who has not lived there since 1976 and in the interim has spent his working life in Asia. During that time I bought a retreat in Portugal where I still live. I could not vote in the referendum but wholeheartedly supported a full Brexit and do to this day.
Economics had nothing to do with my choice. The UK has gone through two world wars, three day working weeks, the Crash and numerous other bad times and has always emerged, scarred but ok. It will do so again.
Immigration had nothing to do with my choice. How could it; I'm an immigrant !
My choice is because I sincerely believe that the EU will be unrecognisable in 15 years time. How can any 27 people locked in a room agree wholeheartedly on anything?
It will either have exploded -- with small factions dotted around Europe -- perhaps Iberia with Portugal and Spain trying to get along with their Pescudos; Greece and Italy their Drira; Hungary hiding behind their border wall; the Russian borderlands wondering where Nato has disappeared to; the French unions working a 24 hour week; and on and on. Or it will have imploded and become Greater Germany.
Neither appeals. Why become the member of a Club in receivership? Time to go home, I think...!!
4
Seriously, what is it about Krugman that gives one the sense he's a functioning New Dem neo-lib in the disguise as a progressive? Without the baseline understanding of the fraud that blew up the world in '08 as a result of a 40+ years march to unsustainable economies for the masses and a windfall for the fraudsters that own the system, the rest is utter nonsense.
1
It's about removing barriers. The framework was already agreed upon. Being an immigrant, you think you would be more open to that.
4
Its more complicated than one vote. Little is said of what bad the EU and the new world banking order is capable of Its like trying to find bad press about the Democrats in these pages or good regarding the orange devil. I have read negative things about fishing rights and corporations forcing buy outs of local fisherman. French chicken farmers dumping in Africa putting locals out of business. Nestle a European company influencing government to sell baby formula (Trump?). Loans not given to China for "ecological" reasons. Most of all a trillion in bad mortgage loans. Really 800 million but what s 200 million among freinds.
Blame the xenophobia and workng class ignorance. Chose between great GNP numbers and the dignity of a decent job but it's more complicated then your letting on.
4
Worth pointing out that your example of a British auto manufacturer getting its parts from Europe doesn’t fit your argument. There is no reason why the UK should charge any tariff on goods arriving from Europe. The only friction should be on goods going into the EU.
1
Its not the tariff, its the customs inspections. When goods enter the EU, they're in, and they never need to be inspected again. If an auto manufacturer orders parts from Germany, they now need to get inspected when they enter the UK. This takes time that will mess with an auto manufacturer's business structure.
12
A customs inspection that the UK could waive!
The Brexiters and Trump have one very important thing in common. Neither thought that they had a chance of winning and so never made any plans to deal with the consequences of electoral victory. Actually that's what everybody thought and so their opponents neither campaigned effectively against these political fantasies nor formulated a plan to deal with the consequences of their actually winning (Mr. Obama?). When both of these dogs actually caught the cars each was chasing we were all faced with a truth that should have been obvious all along: Dogs can't drive a car.
26
Ah, Reality! Who knew it was so difficult?
12
I would argue the problems we are seeing in Europe, the rise of the alt-right, are do to Syrian refugees.
I would argue the Trump and Brexit are economic, the reaction to 35 years of Reaganomics and Thatcherism. Look at the incredible increase in wealth in Wall St. and the City and trickle down for the for the rest.
Worse, the Syrian refugee crisis would never have happened if the US had not invaded Iraq.
We cause the damage and Europe pays the price.
Similar to the lack of SEC oversight that led to the sub-prime meltdown and the whole world suffers.
23
No one asked "Would you like to stay in the EU, but not have to take all the migrants Brussels shoves your way?" "Would you like to have strong borders and nice things, or would you like open borders?" No one asked the US "Would you like to have open borders and cheap crap, or would you rather we stop fighting wars and start caring about our own voters?" We don't have any actual choices. Two parties and our ballot reads like the choices parents offer toddlers - the red bib or the blue bib? - and you'll eat what we give you.
10
Well put.
4
Removing barriers brings nations together and gives them common goals, ending the tendency for war to solve disputes.
3
What British idiots could possibly think that they might secure a "really good deal with Donald Trump's America"? Don't they realize that they would be negotiating with Don the Con and his Band of Connettes, led by Wily Wilber and Slippery Steve?
18
They thought they’d be negotiating with Hillary.
6
So what was the point of Brexit? My unsympathetic view is that there were two. First, of course, was hostility to immigration, not only of non-whites but of Poles, Romanians etc. who were feared a cheap labor. More broadly, Brexit is an example of Ghost Dance thinking. Just as the Sioux thought that dancing the Ghost Dance would bring back the buffalo and vanquish the cavalry, Boris Johnson and the editors of the Telegraph seem to believe that making the UK an island again will restore it to its past greatness as an economic and political power.
26
The Brexit vote and the 2016 Presidential election boggle my mind. Alone, either would challenge my understanding of either country. Together they have me looking for where the aliens have landed. The only thing I have come up with is Putin's hackers exploiting populations made vulnerable by Roundup poisoning.
20
Both were funded by Russia!
10
Both were funded by Russia! The local leaders funded by Russia successfully exploited the ignorant nativist masses.
4
This is again the "homo economicus" fallacy, of attempting to evaluate all human affairs through the lens of economics. This was never the point - Brexit is a way for the people of Britain to reassert their sovereign status under British common law, rather than under the tangled, unaccountable web of Eurocrat regulations. So trade may be harder, so what? The British people will get to make their own laws, cut their own deals and treaties and be led by statesmen accountable to British citizens.
4
The simple retort to that is: "You can't eat your principles."
6
I doubt famine and hunger await Albion.
"I doubt famine and hunger await Albion."
Amos, the UK government's own study shows that in the event of a no-deal brexit, there will be food, medicine and petrol (gasoline) shortages within two weeks.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-food-medic...
With the political situation as febrile as it is now, along with the Tories failure to plan for a brexit vote, or negotiate anything with the EU in the last two years since, the government is actually planning to stockpile food in the event of a no-deal brexit.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/the-government-is-about-to-start-stock...
"Sovereignty" as you describe was a reason for many leave votes. Another big reason was a promise of £350m/week for the NHS.
"The British people will get to make their own laws, cut their own deals and treaties and be led by statesmen accountable to British citizens."
"statesmen" ?? Where???
Whether it resulted from ignorance, prejudice, fraud, there are three kinds of political mistakes. Mistakes that are fatal, those that can be fixed at the ballot box and there are those that cannot be fixed, not fatal, but leave you permanently damaged, an example of that would be allowing Donald Trump to name a Supreme Court Justice while being investigated for multiple felonies including obstruction of justice, money laundering and colluding with a hostile foreign power to attack our democracy to rig the 2016 election.
One of our best comment writers has compared the “election” of Trump to Brexit as in the former case as shooting yourself in the foot and in the latter to blowing off both legs. My view is that America was force fed a large dose of poison, and whether it is a fatal dose is yet to be seen.
Is there an antidote for America and a remedy for the UK? Yes, I think so but there is a requirement that is needed and is in very short supply. These are the courage to put your country’s welfare and security above personal and party interest, honor to speak the truth, admit fault there is fault, follow the facts and protect the great majority. In America is requires the Trumpian party who replaced Republicans, to grow a spine and act as if they were patriots for a change. In the UK the prime minister must have the courage admit what the public already knows that BREXIT was a big mistake and vote on the question: “Should the UK reverse course on BREXIT?”
17
once you are poisoned, how much difference does it make if the poison was concocted in secret Russian labs or in Jamaice Estates?
2
Politicians lie blatantly and wilfully deceive voters. Brexit and Trump and their backers undermine the foundations of our collective wellbeing, without meaningful recrimination nor punishment. Ultimately, the sad state of democracy must be laid at the feet of voters who retreat in ignorance. Dishonest inscrutable politicians and their wealthy puppeteers have always been with us. That they step out of the shadows and operate so confidently in the light of day should be gravely troubling. We should shudder at the thought because it indicates how little respect politicians and puppeteers hold for voters whose impotence is now laid bare.
Democracy greatly benefits the 99 per cent but it cannot survive in its present form where voters avoid their ultimate responsibilities. Voters must take back their power to hold public officials accountable and regulate capitalism. Freedom and prosperity take hard and ongoing work from the bottom up. It is encouraging to see the groundswell of ordinary people stepping into the spotlight to pursue political office. Jumping out of the hole we've dug for ourselves requires widespread and prolonged engagement from the bottom up. We must overwhelm the established political elites, sweep the courtyard clean and elect people who will faithfully and honestly represent the majority's interests.
17
I think the Brits voting for Brexit and the Americans voting for Trump really don't know much about the complex ins-and-outs of free trade, and they voted on the basis of cultural reasons and psychology, not economics nor the economic consequences of "withdrawing" from global trade agreements (U.S.) or the E.U. (Brits).
Culturally and nationalistically, many Brexit voters were not happy with the E.U. anyway, and workers felt more insecure than ever with European labor and immigrants threatening their jobs. Plus, tradition and national character were threatened if not melting away, they feared, due to the policies of E.U. cosmopolitan elites.
Meanwhile, American workers felt increasingly job insecure for many reasons: (1) the decline of blue-collar work, with corporations taking it abroad for cheap labor; (2) the growth of jobs in America requiring advanced education and specialization; (3) increased professionalization based on higher education, civility, specialized complex knowledge; and (4) 1-3 meant a job flight from rural areas to urban areas and thus, the decline in rural economic and cultural life. Again, tradition and regional character differences were being washed away by professionalization and economic elites.
Of course the populist politicians in the U.S. and Britain exploited these workers' insecurities--I would say principally to advance their own careers--and voters bought it.
But, based on the TPP episode, elites gave workers nothing & that's the problem
17
Which elites? In the US, any educated elite lucky enough to be employed paid tax and supported programs to provide access to retraining, health care, child care, clean air, infrastructure, etc while maintaining lower taxes in rural areas (e.g. Kentucky is largely maintained by Federal tax dollars generated elsewhere). Or are you speaking of Trump/Koch 'elites'? Those people who would eliminate all of the above benefits to workers, and more, would divert working elite tax dollars to billionaires like themselves, and have managed to funnel enough money into elections at every level to convince the unhappy that their salvation rests in the hands of the GOP/Trump cabal? Those bad guys?
18
winchestereast: Yes, those "bad guys" you mentioned at the end of your comment, plus the banking and corporate elites (especially the globalized banking and corporate elites) that feel no responsibility to societies, countries, employees, workers, people, and the planet and are primarily interested in making money for their companies and themselves and keeping their personal money from being taxed to pay for the common good and other people's children.
The educated elite in this country mostly voted for Hillary, not Trump. I don't know how the educated elite voted in the case of Brexit.
As May and the Brits continue to backpedal on Brexit they may just find themselves at the starting point and I wouldn't look to trump to help them. He seems intent on alienating the world except where there are fascist regimes.
10
The answer to Prof. Krugman’s final sentence is that voters who are emotionally enthusiastic about a change in policy—which has been misrepresented in simplistic terms by dishonest politicians—are more willing to vote than rational voters who assume that no one is stupid enough to vote against their own interests.
To paraphrase H.L. Menchen (though I am loathe to do so, given his abominable prejudices) “No one has ever lost an election
under by underestimating the stupidity of the electorate at large.”
26
Mencken was right on. Consider the Trump election.
5
The UK and U.S. are providing examples of why "do-overs" are necessary in democracies. Consequences were not adequately considered. Now seen, there should be an opportunity for the larger population to vote minus the Electoral College. Barring a vote, let me suggest an internal boycott to magnify the damage. Red states cost me so now let me cost them to underscore how voting Trump damaged rather than creating fantasy outcomes. The tariffs (aka taxes) cancel any tax advantage if there was one. We are all paying for their stupidity.
15
Apparently a lot Britons didn't understand what they were really voting for when they voted in favor of leaving the EU. I guess they have a lot in common with Americans who voted for Trump. Both countries have been getting some interesting surprised with their morning coffee or tea.
23
The elephant in the room is that the EU makes a really nice trade union, which it was designed to do, but a mess of a federal government trying to herd a bunch of self-sovereign cats. While Brexit doesn’t make a lot of economic sense, it does address the problem of diminished control of British sovereignty.
The size and shape of imported bananas is a trade issue, but the protection of borders and immigration/migration are sovereign issues. I fear it is this dismal of member countries’ primal need for security and identity which will be the EU’s undoing regardless of the actions of the UK. The EU is a very fragile commerce house of cards and both Russia and China know this.
12
As I recall, Brexit succeeded because ordinary Brits were losing jobs to Eastern Europeans who moved into England and worked for less, and by resentment of refugee immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Neither of these are "trade" issues. You made your point well. Capitalism is a mechanistic system that handles trade very well. It doesn't address social aspects unless forced to.
5
Given your points, valid indeed, one could well argue that the forerunner of the European Union, the European Economic Community was probably the best solution and where they should have stopped. Work out common trade policies, but leave sovereignty issues to the individual nations. But no, they wanted to create a pan-Europe "united states," with a lot of local power transferred to the new bureaucracy. Brexit is not surprising in this context, and others may well follow if more nationalist ascendent governments emerge elsewhere.
5
so Brexit is basically the old states' rights dodge, boiling down to: let us keep slaves, you're not the boss of me?
Little England should realize they lost their empire long ago, and stop acting like it never happened.
8
What makes it really eyerolling material is that they're hardly unique in this. "I used to be a world-spanning empire, but then I lost my empire and now I'm 'just' a very wealthy and successful nation in the middle of Europe" is a condition Britain shares with France, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany. But the British are the only ones in that lot who, even seventy years after the fact, *still* can't get over the days of empire.
14
Yes.
As one who grew up in the UK, I can say that few presently living there have much, if any, attachment to, or even consciousness of, an 'Empire' long gone. No, I would say that the unspoken - and often enough spoken - drive is plain xenophobia. The British are broadly suspicious of foreigners, especially foreigners who project any kind of influence, good or bad, on how Britons live. Brussels? As children we were constantly and casually reminded that the wogs start at Calais.
1
Krugman makes a good case for the trade perils of Brexit for the UK. But rhetorically (and incorrectly), he asks the question "what was the point of Brexit in the first place?" I suspect that it had nothing to do with trade for over 99% of the pro-Brexit voters. Rather: "It's the immigration, stupid." Brexit was motivated by nativism, racism, nostalgia and a reverence for Western (particularly English) culture. It was not a dollars and cents (or maybe "sense") question for the English.
21
The point of Brexit in the first place was the British public being fed up with their ever diminishing lives at the service of corporate and financial interests. Brexit analysis becomes difficult when you go in with a point of view totally oblivious of the wishes and needs of an utterly frustrated population.
2
It was racism.
3
Okay there are disaffected voters. As with our 2016 election, Brexit goes well beyond the act of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. It spites everyone, including the disaffected. Hopefully, the British voters will have a direct say on the final proposal.
Would Canada and Mexico rather have the EU system and one currency with the US or NAFTA?
Also PK keeps writing that the European tariffs on the US are only 3%. But 3% of what? And if it's an insignificant number why impose it at all?
Obviously I'm not an economist, but I prefer the Krugman of the "Pop Internationalism" book compared to recent writings (even if he's still better than anyone else).
I feel because he's so anti-Trump (understandably) and pro-Europe it affects his writing (and what he chooses not to write about).
rlsrd writes, "Plus, the polls were so wrong that a lot of people didn't vote because they thought staying was a done deal."
People really have to stop doing this.
Whenever the time comes, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!
8
Krugman has many times stated that the Euro was a dumb idea.
3
More and more the way to think about populism is that it is the people's way of expressing their frustration, if not anger, with their leaders. When people feel their interests are ignored by their elites and that their quality of life suffers accordingly, then populism manifests itself.
The problem is that the IQ bell curve exists. In other words, just because large numbers of people object to policy, that does not mean that those large numbers of people are correct in either their understanding of the policy or of the remedies.
Worse, it means that those mediocre intelligent people are prey to con men who promise to fix everything even while knowing that easy fixes are fantasy, if not out right lies.
The UK succumbed to the lies of the Brexit election and you probably know what happened in the US presidential elections. Pablum is just pablum even when propaganda organs repeat it ad nauseam and especially when cabals of self-conflicted parties act to convince the population of the righteousness of their cause.
It really doesn't matter whether its Russians buying Putin's lies, Brits buying Johnson's lies, American buying Trump's lies, Iranians buying Khamenei's lies or Korean buying Jong-Un's lies.
Like the Germans who bought Hitler's lies, the population who buys the lies of con-men politicians ends up by committing a form of socio-economic and moral suicide.
These are times that try men's souls.
41
"More and more the way to think about populism is that it is the people's way of expressing their frustration, if not anger, with their leaders."
Similar frustrations occurred in the soon-to-be USA from 1765 to 1783, in France from 1789 til 1799 and Italy from about 1850 until 1861 (largely due to the writings of Mazzini and the military prowess of Garibaldi). The establishments of functioning republics were results of armed rebellions against corrupt leaders. Do we not now have a similar situation in the USA?
3
I can follow this and I am not an economist. Why isn't the British government undertaking a public information campaign to explain the issues. Are the British so "anti-immigrant" that they are willing to vote against their own economic interests?
13
Because the British elites are up to their neck in this. For all the "Eurocratic elites are selling us out!" narratives, the truth is that far too many British bigwigs have been pushing the narratives that led to Brexit for a quarter of a century, as a way to deflect blame for their own crappy management onto the EU. What are they supposed to say? "Sorry, we've actually been lying to you for 25 years, but please trust us now?" Would *you* listen to anyone who told you that?
9
“So what was the point of Brexit in the first place?” The answer to that, like much of the answer to “Why did so many Americans vote for an incompetent and corrupt businessman in 2016?” is fear. In the case of Britain’s, it was fear of Muslims camped in Calais; in the case of Americans, it was fear of people south of the border and asylum seekers from the Middle East. Economic concerns we’re secondary, if they were considered at all. And Brexit supporters, like Trump campaign officials, were laser-focused on exacerbating those fears, because when fear takes hold, rational second thoughts are dispelled.
19
Honestly, the more I look at situations like this, the more I disagree with this. Fear isn't bigotry. Fear is the label we put on bigotry to try to convince ourselves that the people guilty of it have some forgivable reason for being the way they are. The truth is, it's a simple schoolyard bully mentality that sniffs out whoever's weakest and goes after them.
"Vote in haste, repent at leisure "- to paraphrase. The UK bought into the same isolationist pap as did the voters in this country who elected Trump, and now they are in a bind, just as we are, only with a far more informed leader at the helm of their ship of state. They are committed to exciting the European Union now and can only move forward. We are committed to over two plus years more of having to endure an extremely poor choice to head our country (unless Mueller's investigation leads to impeachment), so we just have to gird our loins as well, and move forward as best we can, just as the will have to in the UK.
Interesting that after wreaking so much havoc, that Boris Johnson, (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Trump) who sold the British public a pack of lies about Brexit, is leaving the government, further destabilizing it, like the bull in the china shop he is.
17
What I don't understand, wasn't the vote non-binding? Britain didn't have to go ahead with the vote? Plus, the polls were so wrong that a lot of people didn't vote because they thought staying was a done deal. The biggest issue with the EU is the Euro. The EU countries have to stop being nationalistic and let it rise and fall based on all of the EU economies. This is why the dollar works in the US among 50 states. Can you imagine if Calif says were not devaluing because Mass economy is doing poorly? As Germany did to Greece and Italy, etc.
7
People voted for Brexit. Period. It seems that the will of the people is delayed and may be destroyed. They voted because they were sick and tired of having bureaucracy deciding what was good for them, including unlimited immigration. ordinary citizens want more control over their lives, which includes their quality of life.
The Euro is worth the same amount for all the countries. That's how it's traded internationally.
4
Because no one wants to be seen as going against the right-wing nationalist loons who were at the heart of this vote. Of course the vote is worth questioning for any number of reasons, from it being non-binding to the blatant Russian interference in it. But that would mean the kind of unpleasantness that British elites aren't willing to risk.
Britain, and much more so America, are essentially living out the Klingon political drama from Star Trek TNG. First, a xenophobic faction colludes with the nation's enemies in what should be a pretty big deal. Then, all the important people agree to let it slide because nobody wants to risk tearing the nation apart by confronting the xenophobes as they deserve. And then, within a few years, the xenophobes tear the country apart at their own whim anyway.
11
Why aren't the British publicly investigating the role of the Russians in the Brexit vote?
23
Interestingly, we are in a political era where logic and reason are unwanted transgressors on decision making.
Putin and Mother Russia have grasped this and are using it to overturn the post WW2 world order.
The Ruskies yearn for the days when the USSR stood as a looming shadow over Western Europe.
The EU and NATO diminished that shadow into just a slight cloud that loomed on the horizon.
Putin and his trolls have effectively turned the racist right wing elements in many countries - UK, USA, Poland, Ukraine - against the progress that each has made because of the better ties between the nations of the progressive west.
I do not envy the job that our next POTUS will inherit - he or she will not only have to rebuild the USA, he or she will also have to rebuild the post WW2 world order.
28
Most of these commenters (and journalists) ignore the fact that the UK (and most of Europe) were sold the EU on a pack of lies, too...so don't come over all righteous on who said what during the referendum. It was only going to be a trading club that banded together could compete against the huge blocs operating around the world, most specifically, China and its buying, & exporting power. However the goal, unbeknownst to the general populace was to evolve into the EU which would determine not only our trading, but ultimately our laws, regulations, citizens and borders, culminating also...we thought....into a universal currency. The latest vision by the UNELECTED masters of the EU will be to form their own army. No doubt that will require copious amounts of funding from the member states...
What no one seems to notice or comment on, is the imperious nature of the EU...to wit...the UK is one of the largest contributors to the Union, yet cannot exert any influence (whilst Germany practically runs it) indeed, the UK has mostly been spat upon by the EU on a regular basis, and everyone is now witness to the cruel machinations of that body in its approach to the Brexit negotiations...and which have given the population of the UK a bellyful of them and their club.
4
Your comment was very interesting but I have a couple of questions:
- Are you sure that it was the goal right from the beginning to make the EU exactly into what it is now? My understanding of the history is that decisions were made over time (and included the voice of the UK) that reflected the goal of mutual economic dependency to reduce the likelihood of further conflict after two world wars both of which started in Europe. That's a good goal.
- Secondly, if the UK feels so put upon, why did it not negotiate from inside the EU? Bexiteers were childlike in their tantrum and did not consider what the UK would be left with sitting on the outside of a powerful economic bloc. Imbalances in power in the EU could have been rectified through good negotiation. And yes, the EU decision makers are unelected but they are appointed by elected national governments. The Foreign Secretary is unelected too, but he is chosen by an elected Prime Minister. It's the same idea.
5
The European Parliament is directly elected. And quite honestly, perhaps you do not agree with the regulations, but they aim to do something to benefit natural persons there. It's honestly something I envy. Here in the US, an individual's vote is worth less and less, and in 2 years of complete GOP control, they have only managed to lower taxes, mostly for companies, at the expense of services and debt for people. No attempt to regulate or punish companies that are careless with our sensitive information (e.g., Equifax breach), no attempt to lower costs for childcare, education, no attempt to better education or healthcare.
Also, to the extent that the UK has limited influence, isn't that what happens when it's clear you have one foot out the door? They didn't buy into the Euro, so why should they have a say on ECB decisions?
Cruel machinations in their approach to Brexit? They need to be tough to survive, if there is no price to pay for leaving, everyone would leave. It's self-defense, don't blame them for it when that is the very reason many Brits say they voted for Brexit.
I hope the EU stays together and prospers sans the UK - let that be a lesson for the future.
2
The UK has mostly been spat upon? I know, victimhood gives higher moral status but let's refrain from re-writing history, shall we? The EU leaned over backwards to accommodate Britain.
(1) Margaret Thatcher negotiated a considerable rebate of the British contribution to Brussels.
(2) Numerous opt-outs were allowed for the UK.
(3) The logical complementation of economic unity, common social standards, was dropped because of UK objections. That might have mitigated the effects of the race to the bottom that left numerous people up North worse off, now all "because of the EU."
(4) If I remember well, the UK was the only country in Western Europe to not take advantage of a provision allowing to postpone freedom of movement from the new Eastern European accession countries. Voilá, a sovereign decision by Westminster. Somehow, Poles and Czechs, now eager defenders of Christian civilization morphed during the referendum campaign into Turks and other Muslim inundating the white cliffs of Dover.
I think the only time Britain was spat at was when De Gaulle vetoed Britain's first attempt at joining. In hindsight, he might have been right in saying that the UK would never adapt. I do hope it's only the Brexiteers.
3
Krugman's use of "Just-'in-time(JIT)" is a great example of the potential problems caused by frictions that will occur under Brexit. JIT systems are risky and heavily dependent on suppliers to consistently deliver parts on schedule without delays. This requires close geographic proximity as well as no barriers to the rapid movement of parts from suppliers to manufacturers.
I remember back in the 90's when GM tried JIT for one of its Pontiac Plants,one of its suppliers had labor issues and was unable to consistently deliver the needed parts. The GM plant had to temporarily shut down in less than a week because of lack of parts inventory.
A custom union between the U.S. and the U.K would not work at all for their auto industry. The distances are too great to consistently meet the needs of a JIT system.
As in most things, politicians make matters worse not better in the area of economics.
10
Well said. Would add that the industries that benefit most from well coordinated offsite fab with JIT delivery of component assemblies is construction, where several disciplines combine to design and deliver increasingly complex facilities--think hospitals and research institutions. Proximity is huge, as is the ability to collaborate to and fro on modeling and then "tuning" the assembly process as well as the sometimes complicated procurement of materials and technologies that will eventually run in the finished spaces. Ends up perfecting both the performance of the end product and the process that builds it. Hard to do across oceans; easy when barriers like the US borders with Canada and Mexico are involved. Then resources such as cheap hydro-electric power from Canada supplying the Northeast and upper Midwest with power become extra valuable. These economic ecosystems don't play well on narrow bilateral platforms. Indeed they're optimized wherever inputs are costly and complex and reducing "friction" is wherever possible the way to optimize and create greater wealth.
2
The point of Brexit was, as with so many other problems in our world today, to gain control over immigration. This is obviously a theme in America, Germany, France, Italy, and so on... The Brexiteers were not attempting to have a better economy; in fact you could say they were willing to sacrifice a worse economy in order to gain control over immigration. One might also say that there was a fair amount of skepticism in the public, who saw that the "elites" got richer while the supposed benefits of the EU didn't seem to "trickle down" to worker level. If our governments could gain control over immigration, many populist movements would evaporate and the world would be a calmer place.
8
If racism and xenophobia are “gain[ing] control over immigration” then yes, that’s why they voted for Brexit.
8
Net immigration over the Rio Grande in the United States has been negative for almost a decade now (as in, there are more people crossing in the other direction to get out than there are coming in). And right-wing nativists have gotten most of the policies they asked for, from an uber-militarized border (Trump won't be the first president to deploy the military), to torpedoing any attempts at more general amnesties, to a bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration system that already makes it incredibly hard to come to the U.S. legally. Yet every time you talk to them, their mind resets to "the border is unregulated, immigrants are running rampant over it, nobody is trying to stop it, immigration is out of control!"
You can't satisfy identity politics, which is what the immigration loons want, by accomplishing concrete goals like "gain control over immigration." That's not what they're after. Give them everything they want and they'll pretend it never happened and ask for more.
17
just like with welfare "reform". Bill Clinton said he was ending welfare 'as we know it" he gave in to almost all conservative (at the time) ideas of welfare, changed it and made it much worse, pay less, harder to qualify for (pretty much need to be a desperately poor single mother) and Bill Clinton said "see now they can't attack us on this and "welfare queens" and the idea that they don't work, because now there is a work requirement for most welfare (which involves busing people dozens of miles away for minimum wage jobs but that's another story).He thought this would end the conservative attacks on democrats from this angle, and neutralize this issue. But if you listen to talk radio or fox news you'd think they're mailing bricks of gold to the lazy people not working in the "inner cities" (code for something). And they blame the dems for the "welfare state), it's like nothing changed at all. Dems sill get attacked over this issue and Clinton only made lives worse. He had good intentions, but conservatives got exactly what they wanted and STILL attack on this issue because it plays well to white racist voters. The lesson? Don't give the conservatives what they want, they will ignore that they got it and attack you on it anyway
Multi-national corporations are not going to put up with this nonsense about immigration. If a country wants to close it's borders then the Corporations are going to have to move or fund new candidates. My bet is on the latter.
4
Brexit may be bad for trade and economics, but it was never really about trade and economics, was it?
Brexit was about Telford and Rotherham. It was about Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and fear of the other.
So if we're really going to fight Brexit, and E.U, skepticism more broadly, we need to actually address what people are afraid of instead of talking past them about what they consider to be lower priorities. Because lets face it, while an upper class global citizen who lives and trades in London might care about the points that Krugman presents here, most working class parents living in towns like Telford and Rotherham don't. In fact, those working class parents would probably be more than willing to sacrifice 10%, 20%, even 70% of their income if it meant protecting their children.
So instead of avoiding the thorny issue of "grooming" and what happened in Telford and Rotherham, maybe we should address these head on. For instance, perhaps if people knew more about Islamic and Pakistani sexual mores, and if they realized that even though these people have different norms they still value marriage and their legal wives, and they work hard, they would understand and support more immigration. And maybe if those who were supposedly "groomed" were given more of a platform to describe what they experienced, and how it wasn't as forced or terrible as the xenophobic tabloids are making it out to be, this would help too.
We need to stop talking past one another.
4
I grew up in the almost lily-white San Francisco peninsula in the 50s. At that time people of color were only allowed to buy real estate in undesirable locales abutting the bay such as East Palo Alto. In a few years these places went from almost fully lower class white to about 90% African-American. Then, slowly the pendulum swung the other way. With real estate costs going through the roof, younger, poorer and more tolerant whites began considering these segregated communities and they experienced a renaissance. The best of humanity is seeing ourselves as one race. For the moment we are experiencing the worst.
4
You're kidding, right? You think bigotry against South Asian and African and East European immigrants is something you can combat simply by showing bigots that the people they're prejudiced against aren't like they say they are? That's literally never been how it worked, ever, whether you do it with statistics or personal anecdotes. That's simply not how tribal thinking works. All they'll do is get angrier with you and mutter something about if studies show that Pakistanis aren't drug dealing rapists on welfare, it just shows that the fancy-pants intellectuals who do these studies are on the side of the Pakistanis and not good hard-working Real Britons.
2
Exactly!
If we're one race, which we are, then "grooming" can become less a McCarthyite rape-scare tactic, and more of what it is - a cross cultural and non-ageist transfer of Love and Affection.
Brexit was all about immigration & by mostly older white English people & not Scotland where immigrants are welcomed & assimilate fairly quickly, the Scots backed staying in the EU 62% to 38%. That the Brexiteers would deny the young people the right to live & work in Paris, Barcelona, Munich etc is selfish & closed minded & they should remember it was nationalism gave us WW2.
14
I am now imagining that many Brexiteers and Trumpiteers somehow imagined that if it weren’t for these treaties trade would be regulation-free and that would somehow benefit them because...?
In fact, I know that’s true. One of the many silly arguments for Brexit was that Brussels was regulating the size and shape of fruit (which is silly and wasteful, but that’s a consumer education problem—the EU doesn’t want to import perishables that it knows statistically its people won’t buy, even if it’s perfectly edible). Did the Brexiteers think that suddenly they’d be able to sell the EU irregular fruit because they weren’t in the treaty anymore? Did they think that they would suddenly start importing cheaper irregular fruit, and go through the cultural change of actually consuming it?
Did Trumpiteers think... well, I don’t know how they thought they were going to benefit from NAFTA being dumped. I think they just don’t like Mexicans.
8
The only effective way to fight propaganda in the short term, that is to win the first battle against it, is counter-propaganda. Then, if you win, you start educating people.
If you lose, you don't need to stop the counter-propaganda efforts, they counter-propaganda truths will continue to work, but you have to steep up the mass education process.
That is basically what is happening with Brexit.
Dershowitz should concentrate on making retirement plans with Giuliani.
6
There is so much that is illegitimate about the Brexit vote. The Brits voted in 1975 to join the EU (then, the EEC; I know, I was there). Normally, a vote to overturn a motion that has already been voted must be decided by a supermajority - say, two thirds. This did not happen. Then again, the government said clearly that the vote that was taken was purely "advisory", meaning that negotiations would proceed with the EU, but not that it was a binding decision to leave under any and all circumstances. So all of this guff that we have heard about a "mandate", "democracy", "will of the people" is just warm air. Even further again, what we have learned about the activities of Cambridge Analytica and the interactions between various wealthy supporters of Brexit and the Russians give very strong credence to the idea that the vote was an act of political sabotage - basically, the country is being traduced in broad daylight (ask yourself, for whose benefit?). A more principled prime minister would have taken action on this, particularly considering the narrowness of the "Leave" majority. Since the vote in 2016, something over a million older people (who tended to vote "Leave") have died, and something over a million young people (who tend to favour "Remain") have reached voting age - so it is very doubtful that the country now favours Brexit (as reflected in most recent polls). It is essential that Parliament is given a free vote on the final terms reached with the EU.
9
Good piece - I am better educated after having read it. But I do have an uneducated question:
-I spent my working years in the importing business and when goods entered the country from overseas, the importer of record (A US retailer or importing agent) paid the import duty. So when Trump adds additional duties, intended to pressure of penalize the exporting nation, can I assume that the same people pay these additional duties??
The main idea of these additional tarifs is not to collect more money, but to deter people from buying the taxed goods. So there will be less imports, and locally produced goods will be more competitive. At least that's the theory - in today's complex world the reality can be quite different (as Mr Trump and his supporters will find out).
2
I understand this. Is the excess duty still paid by the importer of record??
Yes it is. Most of the time US companies.
"Britain’s self-inflicted Brexit crisis" Just as self-inflicted as the election of Trump in the U.S. Suspect if the Brexit vote was taken today the outcome would be different. Immigration, legal and illegal, was a driving factor in the U.K. as with the idiocy of the Trump Wall, which guess now means the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyway, thanks for the discussion of the "Gravity" as to trade! However, everything considered, the U.K. "Brexit" issue is relatively minor compared to the issue of Trumpism in the U.S. Oh Canada, wish I was there!
15
Say what you want about Brexit, but Brexit was just one boneheaded decision. It'll have a mostly negative impact, but it's not going to be the ruin of the U.K, either. Trump is every possible boneheaded decision that could be made on every possible issue crammed together into one orange package, and empowered for four to eight years. EVERY DECISION THIS GUY MAKES is a Brexit-level event, and frequently (see the internment camps going up on the southern border) far far worse than that.
7
As if from Brexit's dessert cart itself, we can't have our MAGA fake and cheat it too. Hence an attraction between products INVERSELY proportional to squaring the distance between them. Not to mention the anti-attraction walls -- i.e. good fences -- making us better neighbors insofar as cutting our OWN grass will sadly preclude our production smoke's higher calling.
1
I wonder why the Brits just have a clarifying 're-vote' since, like the US experienced, Cambridge Analytica and Putin, practiced ballot rigging of the Brexit voters. That's the heart of the matter. Not allowing the British people to decide for themselves sans "all the lies" certainly may have changed the outcome. It's certainly obvious that this arrangement with Julian Assange's dirty deeds has doomed the US to the foolishness of the trumpian dystopia. The UK has at least the chance to re-debate the cost of their racism.
Unless the Midterms here throw out enough republicans to change the leadership in Congress we have no recourse. At least Britons have a realalistic opportunity to right a self-destructive, impulsive wrong. Otherwise they like us will lose out for a generation or two.
6
NB that the 'racism' of Brexit comes in a number of contradictory variants including favouring immigrants from elsewhere in the world ahead of Europeans (leaves more Scandanavians for Donald) and seeing Europe as an open door through which illegal immigrants (mostly Muslim) would be free to come to UK in vast numbers. (Nonsense but it doesn't stop people believing it. QV USA)
If it was as simple as you suggest why did voters of African and south Asian origin vote Brexit? Amongst the reasons - they want UK to be more open to immigration from their countries of origin.
There are also those Brexit voters who simply want any immigration whether of white, brown or black to stop because the feel the country is 'full'.
Coherence is not a strong point of the Brexit coalition but mini-me Trumpism it is not.
2
NB that the 'racism' comes in a number of contradictory variants including favouring immigrants from elsewhere in the world ahead of Europeans (leaves more Scandanavians for Donald) and seeing Europe as an open door through which illegal immigrants (mostly Muslim) would be free to come to UK in vast numbers. (Nonsense but it doesn't stop people believing it. QV USA)
Looks like the actions of the past 24 months have brought home a great lesson for the US and the UK. Facts really do matter and ,yes, your vote really does count!!!
13
Read the question before you answer. Good one. Which is the corollary to the two types of errors. They are the sin of omission and the sin of commission. The sin of omission, obvious, you leave info out. The sin of commission, you provide info not asked for that doesn't address the subject. Britons and US voters did both. "white people go to school where they teach you where to be real thick". So the dolts had their white riot, and now we all suffer. Dumb, stupid, where is the exit?
2
Brexit was a dumb idea backed by Putin
Trump’s election was a bad idea backed by Putin
We feel your pain, UK.
18
One can only hope that all of the racist Brits who voted their prejudice against immigrants, get exactly what they deserve. What colossal stupidity. Of course their stupidity is more than matched by the racist Trump voters who voted against the "browning" of America. Trump's tariffs are sure to do a job on that group, too. It's exactly what those American racists deserve. Let them eat hate.
14
Trade is like fishing. You flip the bail on your reel and cast your line, then drag it back in in hope of getting a fish. Simple enough.
But if you are unlucky, you get a rat's nest on your reel and you are faced with two bad choices. Either spend hours trying to untangle it or just cut off all the line and reload the spool.
Britain now is trying to untangle Brexit and ministers are bailing and the May government may disintegrate. Mr. Trump would have us cut out the entire business and try something else.
Bad choices, both. And nothing to show for the effort at dinner time.
5
Interesting but I think the graphic has a problem.
While scaling by importing country GDP may eliminate gross amount differences, the rest of the article is explicit in the customs union concept.
I am not sure if Britain exports most to France and Germany because they are closest or because they are the intended end users of their exports.
It would seem to me to be clearer if the graphic showed gross exports to the EU countries divided by the total EU GDP less Britain's contribution.
Of course France and Germany are their intended market; why would you incur costly shipping fees, tariffs and other duties to send the same product to the US when you have willing buyers just across the Channel. The French and Germans, and for that matter nearly everyone with disposable income, would be a market for British goods in most instances. The deciding factor is how do you maximize your return at the lowest possible cost to you. You wouldn't travel from Boston to a flea market in Idaho to sell your crafts when there is one just as good in Cambridge, MA? Basic economics.
3
Bait and switch? You raise a fake problem with the argument (closest vs intended), then try to slide in your own bias (divide by EU budget) to arrive at your desired muddied conclusion .
Nope.
The argument is just poor reasoning and vacuous, transparent manipulation passing for erudition. Same type of mug's game already perpetrated on unsophisticated Breaks-it voters. Hint: don't try to out wonk a Nobel prize winning economist, you end up with egg on your face.
1
Yes there is one. Try looking elsewhere.
Brexit is a great example of what happens when people become single-issue voters. The wave of nationalism and fear of immigration that underscored the lead-up to the vote overrode a rational discussion about trade and economics. Britain had a fairly robust economy with modest unemployment.
I foresee a day when British unemployment rises significantly and just wait... uninformed voters will scream that the government is screwing up and needs to be replaced... when the truth is that the pro-Brexit voters brought this on themselves!
11
Brexit and Trump are both the result of a rehash of the primal, political scream, "The brown people are coming, the brown people are coming... aarrrh!" It's amazing this ugly piece of history still works, time after time. But then nothing has changed in who we are. We are the exact same species with the exact same wiring, with the same hopes and fears. So yes, all Putin had to do was press our racist button and watch humanity dive for the bottom.
13
This is far too simplistic a view at least as far as brexit is concerned.
Immigration was the main issue. But the primary objection was to free movement of people from EU member states.
I'm beginning to wonder about this democracy thing. Until Trump was elected, I didn't realize there were so many gullible suckers out there casting votes. Same with Brexit.
16
That is why Plato did not believe in democracy. Under this system every person casts a vote and all votes are equal, but not all persons are well informed or well intentioned or care the same. Manipulation of the poorly informed, of the uneducated and of the biased is a fact.
The result in the US was Trump. In Germany in the 30´s was Hitler, in Venezuela was Chávez and in England they got Brexit.
Problem is the alternatives are even worse.
3
If your problem is Trump, your problem isn't democracy. The only people who made the smart choice in 2016 were the voters. The Rube Goldberg device that our founding fathers saddled us with because they wanted to provide a check on the popular vote? That's what elected the "populist" loon, not the voters.
And it's the second time it's happened in twenty years, too.
Note also that Trump and those like him have gone all-out on vote suppression by any means necessary in order to stay in power. Democracy isn't their friend and these people know it.
4
CP, I would agree that the Electoral College can't really be considered fully democratic. Votes in some states are weighted more heavily than in others. Trump just happened to win the right states, not the most votes.
The text of this essay seems to imply that there is a graph explaining how UK exports line up against the distance to the country that is receiving the exports. However, there is no such graph, at least none that shows up on my ipad NYT app. Is it actually missing, or is the text just confusing???
ipad drawing issues it is there..
A nation shooting itself in the face to solve an imaginary problem (immigrants). Sound familiar?
5
It's embedded within the column, DaDa. Try opening on a different device or browser.
Goodness, allowing racists to determine national policy isn’t a good thing?
If only England had another foolish country to observe and the opportunity to undo a non-binding vote before rushing headlong into disaster.
4
Up here in Canada we've had a long relationship with our own perpetual Quebexit in waiting. The last attempt in 1995 failed, (just) and it probably won't be be the last. It only takes one to succeed!
The scary thing about divorces are that emotions drive decisions that have long lasting unintended consequences that only become clear after the paper is signed. Remarriage is possible, but unusual given that one party (usually the dominant one) has moved on.
This was a brinkmanship that backfired and now its a mess. Good luck.
8
Brexit was never about economics, it is about freedom from the E.U.
The fact that it is so extremely hard to leave that union, and comes with such huge costs, is only more proof of just how awful the E.U. is. It is like an abusive parent or spouse whom you can't escape because you're financially dependent and they have connections everywhere and can make your life hell.
The best outcome anyway would have been that the Brexit vote is just the ignition and they do not actually have to leave because the whole of Europe, of course excluding my country Germany which is a hopeless cause, will wake up and roll back the E.U. to the good thing it was in the past (the E.C., ca. 1986) so that nobody needs to leave.
Sadly, then the French voted Macron. Still, there are a few signs of hope now, with Poland, Hungary and even Italy going the right way. Maybe the Brits just need to delay a couple more years and then they can work together with new, better European governments to demolish the current E.U. and restore freedom in Europe.
4
It would be good for Mrs./Mr. GS to contemplate the basic reason to start the EU/Europe in what ever form. (Hint, wars).
3
It would be good for Mrs./Mr. GS/Veronique to contemplate the basic reason to start the EU/Europe in what ever form. (Hint, wars).
No Nexit, because leaving the EU costs money and the Dutch are cheap.
2
Poland and Hungary going the "right" way--you mean in the sense of moving politically to the right, the extreme right, that is? I believe only AfD voters would tend to agree with your statement.
3
If UK does not have vote in EU trade policy determination and forced to accept that policy as part of EU custom integration, why UK leaves EU. It looks like the story of Kalidas, cutting the branch of the tree on which he was sitting. PM May need to think through her decision carefully and include a clause to rejoin EU in future through referendum - otherwise regulation without participation may become a future A'lbartose.
1
"If UK does not have vote in EU trade policy determination and forced to accept that policy as part of EU custom integration, why UK leaves EU."
Easy:
"Because we have to be free of the EU!"
"Okay but then just don't trade with EU nations anymore."
"But but but I *want* to trade with EU nations."
"Okay. That's fine. You can do that too. It's just that then you're going to have to deal with higher tariffs."
"But why?"
"Because you're not in the EU anymore. Remember? That's what you wanted. And that's fine. It means that you have to pay higher tariffs, but..."
"But that's not FAIR!!!"
"Why not?"
"Because I don't WANT to pay higher tariffs!"
"Well, if you don't want to pay higher tariffs, you can just be part of the EU..."
"But I don't WANT to be part of the EU!"
"That's fine, but then you can't get your tariffs lowered..."
"But I don't WANT to pay higher tariffs!"
Truth be told, the EU owns some of this too. The EU chose to coddle the U.K. with special exemption after special exemption to a degree that no other member ever got. It's not surprising that it would produce a class of politicians, and far too many voters, who literally don't understand that things can't always be the way you want them to be, just because you want them to be.
Brexiteers were wrong, plain and simple. There is still an opportunity to fix it. What about Nexit?
3
Yes, Brexit was self-inflicted, but a little history shifts the blame from the public to the government. David Cameron agreed to the Referendum to protect his position against the anti-EU factions in his government and to decrease the power of Little England contingents such as UKIP, lead by Nigel Farage (now under suspicion after visiting both Ecuadorian resident Julian Assange [Wikileaks] at their embassy and Trump in New York).
Cameron never dreamt that we would vote to leave - just as you never dreamt your people would vote for Trump - and hence lead a hopeless campaign that put none of the realities of Brexit before the people. The Brexiteers (and it is now alleged they received Russian money so that they could illegally overspend on their campaign) cleverly played on people's insecurities (immigration, loss of independence, an underfunded NHS). Sound familiar?
I also would have liked to reply to Lara Prendergast's article 'Like Brexit, but more Orange', but could not find a way to do so. Prendergast writes for a right-wing rag which is totally out-of-touch with the majority of UK people. The snobbishness towards the US which she portrays is outdated by about half a century. Our horror of Trump is not due to some underlying feeling of superiority over other nations but to horror of the man.
18
You're right! Now, what's the plan??? The whole point of saying "Brexit Meets Gravity" is that the results of the vote put your country in a huge bind with no easy way out.
1
As pointed out by the British columnist today, conservative politicians lied, like they always do, and gullible conservative voters ate it up, like they always do. Sound familiar? Throw in a little Russian dressing and a heavy dose of xenophobia on each side of the ocean and you have the two formerly most stable democracies in the world teetering on dysfunctional chaos. Why? Because conservatives have no interest in governing, but only an warped necessity to win at any cost. They have no interest in world affairs, only a desire to control the lives of their countrymen. When China and Russia come to dominate and dictate the world economy the hollow, anti-intellectual, deceitful conservatives in both countries will double down on blaming liberals, globalism, and immigrants for the problems they intentionally and specifically created. Maybe the general public in the UK will wise up and oust the conservative destroyers in their midst. I fear it is too late on this side of the pond. When even the corporate capitalists in the Republican camp (that is, ALL of them) sit by and watch Trump destroy America as an economic power what hope is there for the rest of us who are seeing him wreck American society? Conservatives - economic, nativistic, anti-intellectual, religious, racial, social - will combine to destroy the world. They are doing it in the US and the UK right now. They are doing it in the Arab world, Asia, Africa. They just will never admit they are the spanner in the works.
7
Brexit is an example of simple minded people voting for important issues that they don't understand. Emotional voting has consequences. It takes a responsible person to study the consequences of their actions in the voting booth. The Brexiters, just like the trumpies here in the US are not sophisticated and have been swayed by social issues, religion, racism and Putin.
12
So what was the point of Brexit in the first place?, ask professor Krugman. Answer: immigration.
2
Indeed May is trying to negotiate a customs union model for the UK. However, it was from her mouth that the phrase "Brexit means Brexit" was uttered. This of course was taken to mean that there would be hard red lines that could not be crossed, such as being under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or not being able to cherry pick the which of the four freedoms should apply to Britain.
Political stupidity and magical thinking has been abundant since the vote, and moreover a there has been a failure to realize the critical importance of Northern Ireland which has, and continues to be, a major stumbling block to negotiating a future relationship.
5
Krugman just doesn't get it. Many of the British just want Britain to be for the British. Americans want America to be for Americans. Jews should understand it since they fought for the right to have a homeland, Israel, for the Jewish people. Mexicans want Mexico to be for Mexicans and therefore have some of the toughest immigration rules in the world. The same for India, China, Japan. If Israel could become richer by joining together into a Middle East free trade union but would have to up their independence, would they? There is no question the answer is no. Maybe Krugman doesn't understand there are more important things than money? I'm sure he does for himself, his family and his community.
2
If we’re really serious about “America for Americans,” we should turn our part of North America over to the true owners, the American Indians, and all of us white people (and others) should go back to the places in the Old World where we belong (Britain, in my case). Because, basically, we're all immigrants here, and the original inhabitants didn't exactly invite our ancestors to come in and displace them.
3
We tried this in the 30's, and the same demographics that support the America for whites only, or whatever you called, it will suffer the most now as they did back then.
1
Sounds like your the one not getting it. The EU is based on the idea of integrating European economies so that no further war is possible.
I do not know what you think that Brexiteers voted for, much of it was a vote against - against the continually falling standard of living of the working class brought about by the 2008 bank crash and austerity. People also voted for lies. Claiming that we will be swamped by millions of Turks and that a new NHS hospital will be built every week with new found wealth from leaving the EU.
Mr Krugman does 'get it' in that Brexit is at best a shambles and at worst cataclysmic.
Finally, it was the English and Welsh that voted leave, not the Scots or NI voters.
Like small states suffering under the votes of ill informed voters in Texas or Florida, we are being forced out of the EU by the tabloid crypto fascists who live in the U.S. (murdoch) or France ( Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere) who have a good portion of the English voters willing to do anything they are told - like fox news.
1
The "point" of Brexit, of course, was always xenophobia, and fear of "others". Economics was always a fig leaf, and not a big one, since Brexit is a loser for the UK economically.
6
That's like believing the "point" of Fascism and Nazism was anti-semitism. It ignores history.
Vladimir Putin seems to have decided that the exploitable weaknesses of the English speaking democracies are racism, xenophobia, and large segments of the population that vote based on emotions rather than understanding of the facts and issues at stake. Looks like he's going to continue using these to manipulate elections in his desired directions.
3
The late 20th Century was a Golden Age for Liberal Democracy, American Style. The USA basicly tied the world's tail in knot with the conclusion of WW2. Hurray for us. Post WW2 we set on a mission to teach the world democracy. We set up the UN as a "laboratory for Democracy". We instituted and financed incredible plans to rebuild the entire world in our American Image....World Banks, IMFs, Breton Woods agreements, PetroDollars, Peace Corps, Marshall Plans......NATO.......on and on........The results are amazing.....but, now the USA must accept that the rest of world has advanced forward on their own.....they will do it their own way and kinda resent American meddling. Instead of one giant American world, without borders, everyone holding hands, singing in english, using petrodollars to engage in "free trade"......we now have a simultaneous, instantaneous, global electronic economy that has matured into a myriad of trade unions that alternately compete and cooperate with one another.......Brexit is going to be a successful example of that development.....there is no turning back. The sun never sets on the the British Empire(now known as the Commonwealth of Nations.)
C'mon, everyone knows gravity, like evolution is "only" a theory.
4
“So what was the point of Brexit in the first place?”
There wasn’t a point, other than the electoral benefits cynical Conservative politicians believed they could reap by selling simplistic, nationalistic slogans to those gullible, ignorant, and prejudiced voters who wanted to hear them.
Brexit, like the Trump presidency, is an unintended consequence of this sort of callous political cynicism.
Point? None, other than a very painful lesson in being careful what you ask for.
5
What was the point of Brexit? Presumably the same point as electing Donald Trump: jingoism, nativism, and racism.
5
On the next online edition please provide your link to the evidence for "(self-inflicted with some help from Putin, it seems).
I am happy that you are filling the void on the economic implications of trade policy and the rumbling thunder over the horizon as we enter a trade war.
I found this link to a NYTimes article suggesting Russian meddling on Brexit vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/world/europe/russia-brexit-twitter-fa...
Dr. Krugman,
I sincerely wish more people would actually listen to things you have been saying for the past 20 years!!
Will the day come when you are no longer speaking into the wind!?
3
Why did Brexiteers push for Brexit? For lots of reasons, none of them good.
Some, like Boris Johnson, did it out of personal ambition: he wanted to get Cameron's job as prime minister.
Some, like Michael Gove, wanted to exact revenge at the UE. Michael's parents lost their fish processing business to the EU fishery policy that tried to avoid overfishing in the North Sea.
Some, like Farage, had made it their bread and butter to oppose anything EU, then bailed out once their raison d'être disappeared. And now it is Reese Mogg who has taken over this niche market.
Some, at last it seems, did it out of financial gains, and were more than happy to get involved in business with Russian money.
None of these reasons will make Britain better off. Brexit will create a lot of new problems, while solving none other. But since only half of the Tories are Brexiteers, and since only half of MPs are Tories, in effect, one quarter of MPs are keeping the illusion alive.
Poor little Britain.
4
Cherry picking from the paranoids Bible - inferring that it was
Putin's devilish hand that caused 48 million benighted Brits
to vote to leave the EU - is just standard partisan fare and if readers are not getting a little jaded by it, then they are cognitively in neutral. Interestingly a benefit of paranoia
is that it draws attention to one's self, ergo, it is egocentric.
The EU has been parasitic on the US in trade and similarly NATO allies have been equally parasitic in milking that cash cow called America.Trump has had the courage to draw attention to this, compare and contrast this to the supine Obama.
2
Who knew the 21st century would be so complicated? So, hey, let's just go back two hundred years! Because it was all so great then. Brilliant!
It's become increasingly clear that a functioning democracy requires, first and foremost, an informed and fully engaged citizenry. It also requires visionary, courageous, public-minded leadership to keep the masses from shooting themselves in the foot. On both scores - tilt.
21
Mr. Krugman gives us here an excellent lecture in Econ 101. But what it passes over is the major downstream reason why May and Johnson were able to grab power and begin to implement Brexit – that would be reaction's best friend; nationalism. It was sold to the British "patriots" as maintaining Britain's identity (with stoking anti-immigration furor as a major tactic in the battle). Trump successfully peddled the same agenda to America's "populist" "patriots" (see MAGA). The guess here is that those white working class Brexiteers all wrapped up in Union Jacks would share this in common with their red MAGA-hat wearers on this side of the Atlantic: Relatively few would be able to pass a Econ 101 quiz or worse, care to even audit the course.
18
For decades conservative politicians in the US used social issues as wedge issues, designed to get working class voters to support a party that was fundamentally opposed to working class interests. Recently, the GOP--the party of the business elites who created the global economic order--needed some new wedge issues. So, it portrayed international trade as the bogey-man that threatened jobs and, for good measure, stirred up anti-immigration fervor, an old stand-by for right-wing demagogues. Naturally, as soon as the right wing gained full political control in the US, their first and only economic action was a massive tax cut for the top 1%, to be paid for by gutting health care and poverty programs.
Europeans, who long have relied on immigrant labor in their aging work force, have been taking their cues from Trump's success and excess.
The politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who are the loudest about patriotism, nationalism, and protecting their country and culture are the ones who most threaten domestic and global stability, security, prosperity, and democracy.
15
Modern Tribalism has evolved with technology. Anyone can find a tribe and feel connected to it even if one never actually sees in person someone from that tribe.
What this has done is allow populists to create a tribe of like minded people to express their personal frustrations, whatever they may be, in the form of a vote for "the tribes" ideas.
In the UK a tribe managed to get a simple majority to vent their frustrations by voting for Brexit. In the USA a tribe did the same thing in voting for Trump even though it did so without a majority due to the idiosyncrasy of the Electoral College.
The interesting thing is that in both these situations the outcome has major and long term consequences that will run deep and wide.
Both countries it appears have a structural problem. Such deep and wide consequences should only be allowed to come about with the consensus of a 2/3 majority not a simple majority. Since in both cases, that did not happen it will lead to instability. Business insecurity, Personal financial insecurity, and in the end individual personal insecurity.
Both the UK and the USA have failed as systems of government. Until and unless we recognize this failure and correct it so that we can move ahead with a 2/3 consensus, there will be a future where our children and grandchildren will have a more insecure world to grow up in and live in than we did.
8
Brexit was never about economics; if it had been sensible economic argument like this one might have changed the outcome.
The pro-Brexit vote was first and foremost about immigration and even then it was not about the facts of immigration, but fears and the hatred.
There were reports of people of South Asian descent being harassed in public straight after the referendum. People came up to them saying, "Go home! We voted to get you people out." This in apparent ignorance of the fact that India and Pakistan and in no way part of the EU. It also overlooked the matter that many people whose looks are still South Asian are often 2nd or 3rd generation, born here and British citizens.
Nobody in national politics ever promised that Brexit would rid of all the non-whites along with all those who come in from Eastern Europe. Nevertheless some people believed that they were simply being asked if they wanted rid of the foreigners and answered Yes.
Facts actually had nothing to do with how such people voted then or react now. And pieces like this simply look to them like "clever talk" designed to bamboozle "ordinary people" into voting the way "clever people" want.
10
Why is it that unemployment is down in England and business is up following the severe winter causing a fall in the economy, if Brexit is so horrible, the banking class is unhappy? The mistake Britain made, aside from the Thatcher years, followed by Blair, was following Bush into the war of choice orchestrated by the neo cons around the world and forced to deal with the fallout on top of globalization. Europe should let The Saudis, Israel and American neo cons foot the bill for the immigration problem caused by a war fought exclusively for them at the worlds expense. The argument for stay is as false as your argument was supporting America’s poodle Macron a Sarkozy II, who has embraced globalization, tax cuts for the rich, the war on “terrorism “, cut backs on Frances’ social safety net etc. his numbers are at new daily lows proving him to be the lying banker many of us predicted, providing precisely the same result as pre Brexit Britain and America’s pro finance, anti labor stance; great for the upper classes and the immigrants who will serve them, lousy for the former middle class. Dr. K. You long ago lost the veneer of being a supporter of the working class, even worse The Times has become a tool of special interests while retaining a liberal facade on social issues, it pains me to say but Neo Liberal is a better description of this publication and its point of view today.
4
Has anyone though about adding five new state to the USA: Puerto Rico, England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales. Might stave off a lot of our Russia, NATO and EU problems.
Just a though, how'd you think the folks in the UK would feel about it?
Assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek and you mean Northern Ireland - the six counties? The Republic of Ireland is fine where it is and has no desire to slit its own throat by leaving the EU. Particularly when looking across the water at the shambles in the UK. Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU by a larger majority than the overall leave vote 56%. The DUP were the only political party who campaigned for leave in the North. A recent study showed an even greater majority in the North, if there were a second referendum would vote to remain
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-northern-ireland-s...
Time for Britain to call for a second referendum, this time without Russian propaganda. As America is much stronger with NATO, Britain is much stronger remaining in the EU.
It amazes me that a clear message to the masses cannot be sent to wake up Britain and in turn the United States citizens that hey have been duped with false facts by Putin surrogates as to their countries best long term interests.
That Trump in the face of this is having a private meeting with Putin where no one will know what is said is a clear and present danger to the free world order. Time to wake up to the truth of what is happening before it is too late!
6
Whether or not a second referendum is a good idea, there's no appetite for one whether you are a Brexiteer or a Remainer. May can't call for a referendum without her government falling -- Brexiteer Conservatives would be in open revolt and she would be in the position of having reneged on a commitment. And as long as the government is tying itself into knots of its own making, Labor will be content to sit back and bide its time. Conservative Remainers are simply gun shy.
1
"President Eisenhower is a conscious dedicated agent of the International Communist conspiracy." John Birch Society, c. 1950s
The Birchites were laughed out of US politics for believing that absurdity.
Today I read it as gospel every day in the Paper of Record.
I oppose President Trump 100% because he is a racist demagogue.
Is not that reason enough?
Why is necessary to portray your political opponents as in some secret way disloyal to the country and the puppets of the Evil Foreign Enemy?
Remember when liberals were for peace?
I tend to give all these EU countries some leeway- national identities that go back centuries, millennia, histories of friend/enemy interactions, and yes, stereotypes, assumptions, fears. And they are supposed to put it all aside in a decade, under an EU leadership that seems remote.
Our states came together with a common enemy and what....a few decades of emerging state identity. And in the name of unity we fought a civil war, put up with a century of Southern racism, segregation, destroyed native tribes, devastated our natural resources, .....
Unions have advantages...but “in the course of human events” some may need to be dissolved, or renegotiated. Give Brexit a break. “There will always be an England.” Time will allow it to evolve.
Britain will eventually work something out in the way of a new customs deal.
The insoluble problem of Brexit--which Mr. Krugman does not seem to be cognizant of--is the Irish border issue. The UK is committed by the Easter accords to keeping the border open--which will nevertheless have to be shut
--when the UK leave the Common Market of which Ireland is a member.
There can be no solution to this conundrum, except to re-unite the island politically, which the Orangemen of the North would rather fight than accept.
"It seems history is to blame" (Joyce)
4
Specifically, neither Northern Ireland -- which provided one of the largest Remain votes -- nor the Republic of Ireland support a hard border. It is the single thorniest issue with Brexit and is likely unsolvable -- neither part of Ireland will support anything other than a soft Brexit, which is anathema to the Brexiteer.
May's coalition depends on the Northern Ireland's DUP, which leaves her little room to maneuver. The Republic's political establishment has no inclination to help May, whom they seem to view with barely concealed contempt. The general view here is that Britain will blunder its way to a soft Brexit because in the end that will be the only direction open.
2
The conclusion of this article was known from the very beginning after June, 2016, referendum, but less well-off people who voted for Brexit out of sheer anger didn't have time to think about the consequences. Moreover people were expecting some kind of miracle in the Brexit negotiations that continued for too long, too much counterproductive for the reasons mention in this article. BINO seems to be a better option, but clever too...
6
The point of Brexit, if any, is probably encapsulated in Michael Gove's famous quote: "Britain has had enough of experts." Why listen to Paul Krugman, or for that matter, any number of competent British economists, including those employed in the UK civil service, when you can flog an unrealistic fantasy instead?
2
Actually, many, if not most, of the folks voting for Brexit didn’t understand it or expected (wanted) it to lose.
Many, if not most, were taken in by false advertising (lies) and manipulation of social media (Putin).
Democracy is a wonderful and very dangerous thing. Our Founding Father’s didn’t trust it and created a complicated system for electing our President. The Electoral College is meant to be a check on the popular vote - unfortunately the Electors didn’t do the job and we have Trump. You guys relied on ‘democracy’ to decide a complicated issue and you have Brexit. Lose, lose.
3
I wish they would realize that it is all a very bad idea voted in narrowly by a populace who weren't paying attention and who were influenced by Russian meddling. As I recall, the vote was non-binding, right? So just forget it.
13
The U.K. decided to have a vote for Brexit. They should have another vote. There is nothing that says they cannot change their mind. Perhaps they have a vote to decide if they re-vote.
It is absurd they had a single simple majority vote for such a momentous decision that can be impacted by fleeting current events. This type of vote should require a super-majority, or at least two simple majority votes with an appropriate amount of time between them.
That the principle politicians promoting this referendum lied to U.K. citizens about key aspects of the decision is reason enough to re-vote on the topic.
When you are driving off a cliff, there is no absolute rule that you aren not allowed to turn the wheel or put on the breaks.
5
It's always fun to play "Spot the Allusion" with the Times, and PK's column is always a good place to start. Thanks for the Wordsworth, Paul.
And what was David Cameron thinking allowing a referendum to take place? It’s truly mind boggling. This was a man made disaster.
4
Brexiteers fit into different categories, but one of the main ones is a nebulous one called “sovereignty” which has different weight with different people. Boris spread misinformation and downright lies about the legislation coming out of Brussels, which was variable in quality, but by no means all bad. Some are prepared for hardship in exchange for some ideal called “full sovereignty” and don’t care about the practicalities and economics, but others are more practical and were swayed by false economic arguments. Thank you Paul for this clear presentation.
5
"I know there are more crucial issues like Alan Dershowitz." I realize that Dr Krugman was being sarcastic when it came to Professor Dershowitz's recent experiences at being ostracized on uber liberal Martha's Vineyard because he didn't think there was enough evidence to impeach Donald Trump. On the contrary I believe this is a very crucial issue. Alan Dershowitz just learned the hard way that the Democratic Party he knew which prided itself on being the adults in the room is long gone.
What's the point of Brexit? Really? It's the same as the border wall with Mexico, a salve for immigration fears. Is the lay person more concerned with the minutia of trade agreements or the endless boat loads of migrants they see on TV? I think fanned up fear Trumps trade policy at the ballot box, if you know what I mean.
5
Is there any chance at all of the UK having another vote on the exit from the EU?? Bet the results would be far different this time now that more folks understand how costly and disruptive Brexit will be to their lives.
Every political flame thrower these days claims he or she can negotiate better deals than their predecessor.
Donald Trump says his predecessors did terrible deals and he can do better with China, Iran, North Korea, Canada, Mexico and the EU. The Brexit crowd like Johnson claims the UK can leave the EU and magically get better deals.
Trump has bullied and insulted most of our deal partners, but has he negotiated even one "better" deal yet? Or how about even one deal of any significance whatsoever?
Likewise, the EU has no incentive whatsoever to give in the the UK demands. Sure, the EU wants the UK to stay. But if they give the UK a deal that gives them the benefits of EU membership without any burdens, then everybody would leave the EU. So that's not happening.
Putin is loving this. Western blocs that oppose him are devolving into squabbling hens, all pecking at each other, while he methodically rebuilds the Soviet empire under his control and expands Russia's influence in the Middle East. China is running around the world cutting deals in Asia, Latin America and Africa to fill the void we have left, adding to its power.
Here is the most apt "deal" analogy: Trump and the Brexit guys are like real estate flippers, seeking to turn a quick buck now. Russia and China are like Amazon--investing in relationships now and willing to lose some money for awhile to make a lot more later. No one deals with a flipper more than once. But people go back to Amazon again and again.
4
As I recall, there was indeed some discussion in Britain before the referendum about the risk of ending up as Norway -- a country which implements every little bit of EU legislation while at the same time having no influence whatsoever. The mess that Britain is in now, owes a lot more to a completely deluded self image. Many Britons don't even see their country as a European country but rather as a continent in its own right! A shiny world power with the glory days of the Empire waiting just around the corner. Nobody personifies that delusion better than the Über-twit, Boris Johnson. Now that they made their bed and have to lie in it, at least they will get a grip on reality and that is not so bad after all, except that it is for all the Britons who knew better.
6
The border between fact and opinion has disappeared. Trump spewed lie after lie during the campaign and those lies were not challenged. This has laid bare the weakness of democracy, but also points to its potential greatest strength. The 24 hour news cycle could spend its time verifying facts rather than just endlessly repeating what the candidate/politician said. Would it take a great deal more research time? Probably, but isn't the truth and the future of Democracy worth it?
5
The point of Brexit, as in much of politics, was to use tribalism to allow certain people to feel better about themselves.
3
Brexit, like Trump's election, was mainly about immigration. Blaming immigrants is just scapegoating to avoid real problems.
In the U.S. real problems include the 31 million without health insurance, the average household net worth of $700,000 vs. the $100,000 the 50th percentile has, and a nearly 50% increase in the debt trajectory while Trump runs a stimulus plan 5x as big as Obama did despite the continuing Obama Boom.
Real problems require thinking and cooperation, not emotional knee-jerk reactionism to non-problems.
As Comey said famously, a quote that will long outlive him, "I try to avoid -isms of any kind."
Call me an idealist, a socialist, communist or whatever else you can think off. I'm Dutch, so what do I care.
I think "America first" is a losing strategy. And the Brexiteers used a similar logic to start this mess. Both inspired by Russia.
It is naive to think you can do better alone than working in harmony with others.
Any dictator has learned that lesson the hard way (Russia, North Korea, etc). It may have worked out fine for them personally, but the people in the countries are suffering for it.
4
The question I keep asking about Donald, Boris, Recep, Viktor,, Andrzej and Val is, "How do people continue to believe obvious and refutable lies". In the case of Donald, they are spun, recanted, and proven false several times a day. I can almost account for my fellow US citizens in that we haven't taught civics in high schools here for years, history texts for Texas are different editions than the same Textbook in schools in New York. At one point, recently, I thought about moving to Romania but, Klaus is getting kind of....Trumpish. Take heart. It will only take about 20 years for us to retrieve our Republic...after Donald is gone.
2
Is there a graph showing the impact of population density? Trying to fit 70 million people in a state the size of Pennsylvania may give you an idea why people voted for Brexit.
2
the graph shows exports to Germany, etc as 2/10 percent of GDP vs US as 1/10 percent. Aren’t you splitting hairs?
Whether the scale is right or wrong, a 100% difference in something that is manifestly important to the economy -- trade -- is not a hair.
5
Add up exports to all EU countries, and compare that with exports to the US.
1
There’s ample reason to re-do the Brexit vote including the Putin effect. It seems like political malpractice to say that a corrupted, non-binding vote suddenly became the law of the land. Britain can and should do better.
3
Brexit has been a terrible, unnecessary and self inflicted tragedy, above all because British voters were duped into supporting it by the same types of rent seeking, corrupt plutocrats who have taken over US politics and turned American elections into mass bribery competitions. Voters in the UK, especially England, have been rightfully frustrated by the British ruling classes' gutting of British wages, infrastructure, public services and factories, a process accelerated by Margaret Thatcher and her corporate cronies who wanted cheap labor instead of a well paid working class.
As British citizens' anger and frustration grew, however, the same corrupt plutocrats damaging the people's welfare also made sure to misdirect voters' anger at every opportunity. Rupert Murdoch, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson and others in this disgusting cabal did their best to blame Britons' sinking standard of living on the European Union, even though the EU if anything was dedicated to preserving British workers' rights and wages, smoothing trade and ensuring low cost education and healthcare-- including Britain's NHS, a great institution which the same plutocrats are slowly bringing to collapse.
Sadly we see it in America too where the large majority of Americans have seen wages stagnate for decades while healthcare and cost of living rise, then are duped into supporting the same plutocrats responsible for it. In the UK's case, the oligarchs have brought about the downfall of a once great nation.
10
re. 'Not that the British have any faith in their own elected political leaders.'
But they did. That was the problem. The electorate had way too much faith in their leaders. They even believed that if they set a small forest fire, the politicians would douse the flames. Brexit was too insane to succeed. So the much-too-clever protest voters and self-indulgent stay-at-homers handed the lunatics the keys to the institution. And where were the main-stream politicians? They were out partying and indulging their own instincts for high-risk behavior.
Welcome to the hang-over. It ain’t gonna get better till it gets a lot worse.
4
the British people will regret the Brexit, once it has become reality.
They were duped and let themselves be manipulated by Trump-like demagogues and Russian meddling. The only clear winner is Putin.
If Theresa May were a charismatic leader she would launch a public education campaign and work to avoid the Brexit by all means possible.
1
Lies of destruction are easier than the lies (when they are lies) of construction.
In terms of a systemic construct of how the human species behaves, it is trivial to suggest that some people understand human reactions as sacrosanct objects of our souls. Others consider them trade-able commodities for our individual prosperity.
This is the logic of the community versus the class.
What Britain had accomplished in its 20th century of evolution was the NHS, the BBC, an exceptional University system and a pretty solid parliamentary democracy.
There are not many losers in this framework. But those that exist clearly needed very little reason to vote leave. And Northern Ireland and Scotland voting in, while England and Wales voting out, shows you where the alienation is.
And it's visible for watchers.
"Small" lies and a little bit of Putin were all that were needed. But big lies and a fair amount of Putin were had.
Even if people did ask the question before, they wouldn't have got an intelligible answer. And there was no investigation of either side at the time, so the voting was clear.
No, this is an inevitable state of evolution for Britain.
Mrs. May has the chance to set the direction and drink from her poisoned chalice, and survive to tell the story.
She *will* get a deal that the Leavers will detest. She *will* retain customs union. The trade-offs on migration will be palatable.
She is better than her male colleagues. She needs to stamp herself on her opportunity.
3
Imagine if we had to check all of our goods through customs, and pay tariffs as we crossed state lines, or at least regional lines. We'd have checkpoints for goods on I95 as they crossed the Mason Dixon line; check points along the Mississippi; along the continental divide.
We'd wreak havoc on agriculture, and Amazon. Produce might now make it to market without rotting; and Jeff Bezos could kiss his drone dreams goodbye. We trade locally without friction across a really broad expanse of land. That is what the EU was shooting for. They didn't get there, entirely, because nations are nationalistic, but they made strong headway.
Fundamentally when you are busy destroying the status quo, you should start by considering why it go there in the first place. Social Security was among one plan that kept communism/rebellion stifled here when it ate up Europe. Clean air and water acts kept us able to breathe, and prevented another episode of a burning river. Trade agreements improve business flow, made products cheaper, and underpin our current jobs base. Pull out one of these programs and everything you built on top collapses. Actually understanding, or even caring, what got built on top, is a requirement.
Except for the destroyers... the folks who feel anything is better than what we have. They just wreak havoc, and then we all get to find out that change for the sake of change does not guarantee that the change is for the better.
4
What both the US and the UK have in common, is the distorting effect on public information inflicted by the intentionally deceptive practices of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and media properties like SKY News and FOX News.
The Murdoch empire acts like a foreign intelligence service using psych-ops to destabilize every democracy where they are allowed to operate.
(Props to Senator Hillary Clinton for letting Australian News Corp evade the restriction against foreign ownership of a US broadcasting license).
3
In foreign policy, you often have people wondering how we're going to deprogram millions of North Korean citizens when the Kim dynasty finally falls apart. Personally, I'm a lot more curious (and concerned) about how we're going to deprogram millions of NewsCorp viewers, who unlike North Koreans aren't penned up in a hermit kingdom but spread out across several of the world's wealthiest nations and globalized economies.
Dr Krugman once again sets out a key issue with beautiful clarity. Thank you.
Say, remember when Trump said Brexit would be “a great thing” for Britain?
Now he says it’s put us “somewhat in turmoil” – an understatement, but he got one right for once!
(And he misses his very, very nice, very supportive friend, the just-resigned Foreign Secretary. Aww.)
5
The referendum to approve Brexit was the most absurd vote ever. It barely passed and was likely subverted by Putin. It was an unintelligent attempt of the right wing of the Conservative party to appease its angry and older rural base with fantasy nationalism and anti immigrant
rhetoric. The establishment of this Conservative party then attempted to find a way to practically fulfill this absurdity and have discovered that they cannot without harming the British economy and the political standing of the UK.
Instead of admitting their mistake and reversing this ridiculous decision and even redoing the vote they will end up with a Brexit that preserves the custom union but in which the UK will be denied their leadership role and influence in the EU. Still London, the only truly affluent area in the country, may lose its status as the financial, banking and commercial center of Europe.
In short, Brexit was a policy error of the greatest magnitude and has exposed the Conservative party of its folly. They need to be voted out of office and Brexit should be declared a mistake. UK needs to return to EU as an European leader and promote a much more progressive policy of reintegration with Europe. Thank goodness we don't have binding national referendums in the US. But of course we have Trump, an even more malevolent absurdity, with his chaotic and incoherent trade policies. Just another folly! What a world!
7
I can see Putin smirking in the back ground as I read the insanity of what Britain has imposed upon itself. The pro Brexit crowd has a lot of similarities to the pro Trump crowd, everything is simple in their world. Well they are about to find out that is not the case in spades.
8
Sounds like Brexit was passed because many people in England don't like immigrants.
Many of our policies in this country are driven by racism, xenophobia, etc.
I suppose that it is difficult to make wise policy when it is made on the basis of your hates.
One question - will Brexit lead to the break up of the United Kingdom since Scotland favors remaining in the EU?
The United Kingdom and the United States are in desperate need of constructive political leadership.
I like it when the Good Professor explains economics and trade.
1
It is sure refreshing to hear Paul Krugman talk about a subject he is an expert in (i.e. economics) vs a topic where he just has an opinion (i.e. politics).
1
The future is hopes, dreams, plans, and wishes. And then the future becomes today and reality kicks you in the teeth. I hope the National Medical plan in Britain includes dental.
1
Putin's asset known as Donald Trump knows exactly what he's doing: Working to destroy the US and European alliance along with all of our other Western alliances so that his handler can invade Eastern European countries with impunity. Every time Putin's asset gets on Air Force 1, I pray for a mid-air explosion.
2
I just returned from London, what a lovely, cosmopolitan and diverse city!
So basically the older White Brits in the UK who voted for Brexit are cousins to the older White Americans who voted for Trump. It isn't about economics but racial resentment and the desire to put "those people" in their place. One wonders how we can rid ourselves of these wretched people??
5
There is a demographic timebomb awaiting older white Americans who voted for Tromp. Soon they will be outnumbered by black and brown people.
1
The vote: needless and nonbinding. David Cameron trying to consolidate his personal political power via a referendum question he thought the majority couldn't possibly be stupid enough to vote "yes" to. And Parliament could still ignore it, as was purely advisory (of course they won't though).
Now this is treated as a cast-iron collar and chain dragging us over the cliff, despite all the evidence of Leave's outright lies (thanks Mr Johnson), violation of electoral rules (Vote Leave and BeLeave's excess spending) and general shadiness (the spending was on Cambridge Analytica).
At this stage, there is more than enough evidence of the referendum's dubious legality and horrific consequences to justify a second referendum. But *not* with a cliff-edge as an option. The vote should be a) whatever "deal" the Tories manage to wring out of the EU's left sock, and b) staying in. Those are the only viable alternatives. Anything else is pure ex-imperial fantasy.
2
The person in the picture is flying the UK flag upside down; it's equivalent to having the stars at the bottom.
1
You hit the nail on the head regarding 'feelings and perceptions'.
I still can't get my head around the fact that 48% of voters, voted from Trump in 2016.
I may be a bit slow in understanding this, but after multiple debates and attempts at discussion with the Trump crowd I came to the realization that it has nothing to do with policies. It's all about tribalism. Trump voters are happy because they won a victory over 'liberals'. Brexit voters had a similar motivation in winning a victory over the EU elites. In both cases it's the working class voters who will be hurt the most, but still they don't care or don't understand.
2
I wonder what a second referendum, minus Putin’s meddling, would look like? Haven’t the British pretty much shed their nostalgia for colonial empire and its narcissistic “independence”? Brexit still seems out of character to me, just as wall-building in America is out of character.
1
Yes, yes, and yes. But it's at least arguable that the "lies" peddled by the leading Brexiteers about the economic aspects of Brexit were the main reason for the "Leave" vote in the - wholly unnecessary, unpatriotic and expectedly self-serving - referendum engineered by David Cameron, the Tory prime minister who presided over it to his lasting shame. There is plenty of evidence, not only anecdotal, that xenophobia, fomented in the run-up by the Brexiteers, to be sure, but a cancer on the UK's membership since the beginning, was the more important reason. For decades British politicians, of all parties, including the pro-EU Cameron, deflected blame from themselves onto "Europe" whenever a problem arose; the metropolis reaped the benefits of EU membership, and the rusty North and Midlands suffered the consequences. One of many examples: The London Olympics of 2012. Why London? Why not Manchester? Or Edinburgh? Too late now, but even the huge shot in the arm that a non-London Olympics would have provided economically might have been enough to keep Britain in the EU. The feckless Mrs. May, tellingly a silent "Remainer" presiding today over Brexit, has reaped the whirlwind. And later this week? Trump.
1
One more recent example of the importance of THINKING and then VOTING. The British people caused this self inflicted mess. Hopefully US citizens can learn a lesson from them before November.
1
We Americans followed this same Brexit-like fantasy down the same broken path. At least France learned from both The UK’s and America’s stupidity. If it seems too good to be true, don’t believe the lie. And it really was mostly about those “dangerous” immigrants who are taking all of our jobs. And now both countries are struggling with the fact that we need all of these immigrants to do the jobs we don’t really want- the grape pickers in Napa, workers in hospitality, caregivers, gardeners, janitors. Ah... if we just had a time machine and could have a redo on the elections.
2
Americans endorsing Trump and Brexiters are afflicted by a condition which we could call for now fiascosys. Of course they will not recognize this and continue the road to perdition. There will be no miracles though, and gravity will eventually usher in Fiasco 101: don't shoot yourself in the foot or God forbid in both feet: it does not pay off! Many will fail the course.
1
Perhaps Mrs. May should call for another referendum, one that will withstand Russian influence this time? Putin wanted to destabilize the west. Between Trump, Brexit and continuing to create refugees desperate to leave war-torn Syria, he has been very successful.
4
I always thought that Brexit was about immigration rather than economics. Without even knowing what the "gravity equation" was it seemed to me that those pushing Brexit were using economic arguments to push an anti-immigrant agenda. Thanks for exposing that PK.
7
The resignation of several ministers over the last few days - in protest at the government's much-delayed Brexit proposals - show that the prime minister has taken her party as far as she can. Her party will accept no more, indeed she has probably gone further than most in her party will vote for. Moreover, the position she has adopted is the worst of all worlds - it pleases absolutely no one, and even unites the hardest Brexiteers with those who would rather Remain in the EU. The UK Parliament will not vote for the hard Brexit, and it will not go for a compromise BINO. It seems Mrs May is unable to deliver any kind of Brexit. I suspect she is likely to face a leadership challenge in the next few months.
3
Well done economic integration-based piece by professor Krugman. A pity such article is published ex-post Brexit referendum. It could have helped immensely the public debate in Great Britain.
One quick comment about the use of trade gravity model (GM) mentioned in the article and presented by Walter Isard in 1954.
Since the 1980s, computable general equilibrium models (CGEs) are the tool of choice for evaluating the economy-wide impact of changes in trade policy
5
Excellent summary. Basically the Brexit vote was insane but it happened and thus left the British government with the paradox at the heart of the Brexit. Trying to reconcile two irreconcilables. Brexit MUST happen because it's the will of the people etc. versus Brexit CAN'T happen because it will do serious damage to the British economy.
Hence two years of British floundering around because ultimately the government was going to have to disown one of these irreconcilables. They now appear to have done this although the result is a dog's breakfast which will not be accepted by the EU. But I'm sure they know this already and are prepared for further concessions because not to put too fine a point on it the EU has them by (well you know).
Ultimately, the outcome is almost certainly going to be a more apparent than real exit that leaves the UK worse off but is the only politically and economically viable way they can get out of the mess they have gotten into as a consequence of that insane vote.
10
How does Brexit fit into Davos' plan from way back to harness the internet to cryptocurrency and the IOT, thereby eliminating banking as we know it and controlling supply chains for most major goods? The plan was not just English and American, but meant to benefit all of Davos--that is global mostly western corporations.
However, now China and India are pushing back on crypto because it can be HACKED; and there goes the elaborate plan. The EU also sees its deficiencies and is furiously writing regulations.
Meanwhile tech is working on a hack-free quantum code, but it is far in the future.
With all this flux, shouldn't UK stay in the EU?
3
"Brussels will set the new trade policies with the UK, but the UK does not get a vote on the policy."
I thought the idea behind BREXIT was to provide the UK with the ability to negotiate individual trade agreements with its former EU partners, supposedly with the idea of receiving preferential treatment and so as not to be bound by the free movement of labor that was one of the cornerstones of the EU agreement, in addition to the removal of custom duties between the signatories of the EU accord.
It was also my understanding that under the EU provisions, a member nation that withdrew from the agreement was given a two year window to implement its new trade policies on a bilateral basis with potential individual trading partners and since the two year window is closing fast and if, as your article states, Brussels is responsible for negotiating trade agreements between the UK and the EU member nations, the UK will receive much less favorable terms. I must admit , I thought the UK could negotiate individual agreements outside the scope of Brussels, but if not it would appear the UK has bit off its nose to spite its face under the fallacious promise BREXIT provided autonomous sovereignty. the resignation of leading BREXIT advocate, Boris Johnson is a signal the promise of BREXIT has fallen short of voter expectations, resulting in the possible capitulation by the UK and rejoining the EU on less favorable terms. If true, not a good sign for our current trade fiasco.
2
Brexit will be somewhat like the republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. There is no plan.
146
Paul,
Could you provide us with an estimate of how significant a reduction on global economic activity all this trade war/brexit folly will result in.
Will it result in a reduction in CO2 emissions?
Is there an up-side to china not feeding all those soybeans to pigs?
What is the environmental upside to having more local production and less trade?
(I’m fairly sure that if it was good for the environment the GOP would be against trade wars, so this does get complicated.)
2
Trump has made manufacturing in the US the center of his trade war solution (more jobs, exports etc.) which will increase demand for energy. Keeping coal plants online and tariffs on solar panels will increase CO2In the US and reduce them in say China. Steal takes lots of energy to produce, transport and fabricated for production.
British manufacturing is not that large or demand will not increase from Brexit. They are going green with cars I believe by 2026 all cars will be electric.
2
It's only one small data point.
I have friend in Belfast, NI, a retired civil servant, and over the last two years we've extended discussions on all sorts of topics but rarely Brexit. On the few occasions Brexit has come up, immigration is sore point as is the loss of local, i.e., UK control, over regulations of all sorts.
The only time I've heard him express economic worries was when Trump threaten huge tariffs on Airbus/Bombardier parts shipped to the US for final assembly. (A number of family members work for the company.)
His major Brexit worry is about the, currently, very porous border between NI and the Republic. If there's a "hard exit" the effects on the Good Friday agreement worry all sensible folks on both side of the border.
I can't help but wonder how much that may worry PM May.
1
Porous border? Porous suggests there are illicit items coming across it breaking trade rules but it's an open border like the rest of Europe.
Agreed, a hard Brexit will be bad for the Republic of Ireland but the North will be hammered like the rest of the UK.
10
I wonder if trade friction is not a feature of Brexit rather than a problem, at least from the perspective of many of its wealthy supporters. When the UK's economy is thrown into disarray, people who are already wealthy will be in a position to become even wealthier at the expense of their fellow citizens.
29
As usual!
As usual, PK, a good analysis. However, it leaves out feeling and perception. These helped to give us Trump and Brexit and challenge democracy across the Western world. Old as I am, I can still say I've spent more than half my life on the other side of the Atlantic, seven years of that time in GB. I saw clearly the remnants of imperialism and the Little Englander mentality. Thatcher gave a real boost to that mentality. If the World Cup gives us an England-France final, God help any French business in any English city: look what a small mob did to an IKEA store in London when England beat Sweden! The referendum on Brexit was too close to be the basis of major changes in the lives of so many from Enniskillen to Skye to Brighton. That was not democracy. The fine levied against Facebook for its relationship with Cambridge Analytica is too little.
49
It is interesting to read the endless number of anti-Brexit articles in the NY Times. To read them one would think that Brexit is something being sneakily pushed through by a small minority of Brits. It isn't. The UK held its largest ever exercise in direct democracy and people voted to leave the European Union. Regardless of what Remainers like to pretend, that support has not declined. Now people will continue to argue whether that is a good thing but it is no longer the point. Either democracy is respected or it isn't. Once people in positions of power start to believe that they can ignore election results they don't approve of then we no longer live in a democracy.
One other thing to point out to our American friends. Remainers like to paint Leavers as being racist, xenophobic, insular populists. While of course those people unfortunately do exist (as they do in many societies), the vast majority of Leavers wish to see an outward-looking, globally-engaged UK trading freely with the rest of the world rather than being tied to the protectionist EU. We are not anti-immigrant, but want controlled but fair immigration, where immigrants are considered equally regardless of which country they come from, instead of favouring Europeans. There are so many myths about Leavers propagated by sneering Remainers who have clearly have no respect for democracy and wish to impose their view of the world onto all. Respect the vote!
6
On what basis do you claim that 'the vast majority of Leavers wish to see an outward-looking, globally-engaged UK trading freely with the rest of the world rather than being tied to the protectionist EU.' What does that really mean? Anyone can make statements like that without really bothering with the details on how international trade works. It is far from clear that people voting to leave really understood the possible consequences. What for instance is in your opinion a 'fair immigration' policy. After all, Great Britain doesn't belong to the Schengan Treaty countries of the EU so how was the country adversely affected by immigration? Be specific instead of simply using broad nationalistic slogans. Learning some economics might not be deleterious.
53
Great Britain is not part of the Schengan Treaty therefore only EU citizens has easy access to Great Britain. So unless you think that EU citizens posed a problem for Great Britain, I don't see your point. Migrants to Italy won't legally end up in Great Britain.
20
English workers were mainly upset by Polish workers coming in.
England also had open borders for countries in the Commonwealth. A lot of West Indians came.
One can only hope that the Brexit case will serve as a catalyst to unmask populists like Boris Johnson who have used many and blatant lies to swing the Brexit vote in favor of an clear-cut exit. There will always be a hard core of Brexiteers who want to leave the EU for nostalgic, British Empire related reasons. However, many people have been swung towards voting for an exit because of lies that an exit would have economical advantages for the average Brit.
And when this emperor's new clothes realization actually happens it could trigger a pendulum swing against populist leaders who promise simple solutions without any pain to complex problems, across the world including the US.
44
Britain has a long tradition of rugged individualism, at both the personal and the national level. It's a tradition that promotes eccentricity and inventiveness but also encourages bloody-mindedness. That's not all bad and, at times, it has been important for the defence of world liberty and the promotion of global development. It's also sometimes rather inconvenient.
Additional trade "frictions" for large businesses might indeed discourage those businesses from making substantial further investments in the UK, particularly as a base from which to exploit the EU market. They may increase the costs of trade between the UK and EU. As a result trade volumes between the UK and EU could be reduced by BREXIT, howsoever implemented, even though a huge proportion of all UK trade is in services which are close to frictionless in any scenario.
However, this was not even a marginal consideration for most voters. The reasons that people voted for BREXIT were mostly to do with the sense of loss of control. Not that the British have any faith in their own elected political leaders who are subjected to more intense scrutiny and ridicule than in virtually any other democracy. People were just tired. Tired of endless bureaucrats from meaningless entities such as "Luxembourg" dictating how things should be done. They may even have been right, but at its root, the vote for BREXIT was a vote to take back the right to be wrong. Happily wrong.
That may be quintessentially British. Or not.
11
"a huge proportion of all UK trade is in services which close to frictionless in any scenario"
Um, no.
When the UK loses the "free provision of services" clause, access to European markets will immediately erode at a pace which will accelerate with time.
Only one simple example : how long do you think the EU will allow euro demoninated trading in a market which is not under the jurisdiction of and regulated by European regulators? That market, worth 20% of the City's business, WILL move to the continent at or before March, 2019.
Finance (inclunding insurance) play an outsized role in the UK's service economy. Aside from oïl, military hardware and tourism, it's basically all Britain has to generate export earnings.
#KaThumpGoesTheBrexit
27
Rugged individualism? Good god, man, who are these British rugged individuals you speak of?
2
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Mr Krugman doesn't understand the English, their history, or their motives.
In particular, he does not understand their priorities. To the English, control over their destiny, over their very lives, is more important than how much profit big business makes this year.
In 1940, after we had been thoroughly defeated in the field, Hitler offered us the deal of the century. We could keep our Empire, keep our navy, in fact keep pretty much everything. We just had to promise not to try and liberate Europe from the SS and the Gestapo, and not to interfere with his plans for Russia (and later the US). There were plenty that thought we should take the deal; and grow rich on the proceeds. Churchill didn't. He took the blood, sweat and tears option. And the people agreed with him.
1
"Brussels will still set UK trade policy, except that Britain will no longer have a vote. So what was the point of Brexit in the first place?"
All of the other things that were decided in Brussels as part of the Ever Greater Union subsuming nation states.
How important were those? That is what the Brexit vote was about, apart from trade. And let's be clear, just on trade, Brexit had no motive. It was about sovereignty, not trade.
The EU must either become one big state, or it must devolve some more powers back to sovereign states. The Euro is one example of that, but only one. Immigration is another. Right now it is stuck in the middle, not one thing nor the other, and not functioning to the satisfaction of many.
It was just a Common Market. Then it became more. Britain in particular was very reluctant about that more.
France and Germany and Benelux were very enthusiastic about that more from the beginning.
The new Eastern European members really like the prosperity and safety, but don't want to compromise their new-won sovereignty, so they want both at the same time, which actually just makes no sense.
If it was just trade numbers, this would all be very different. It is a lot more than just trade.
11
The UK was the second most powerful member of the EU. It has a veto over all major decisions and can fairly easily block 85% of all secondary decisions.
The UK very often set the EU agenda and had a good number of firm allies.
For example the UK was responsible for up to 85% of the EU rules that govern aircraft construction and airworthiness.
Giving up real power to chase after dreams is a serious business - just ask King Lear how that worked out for him.
65
This is an excellent observation regarding our situation here and, had we better politicians making the case perhaps we could have avoided the chaos that has been created since the referendum. The events of last week offer a glimmer of hope that common sense is starting to emerge from the hopelessly divided Conservative Party but Mrs. May is a weak leader and saner voices are just not articulating the issues adequately enough. If the referendum were held today I believe the outcome would be to remain which makes much more sense in my opinion. Yes the super state notion is and remains unpalatable but the UK would have been better off challenging this within the EU where there are other voices among the 28 nations equally uncomfortable. It is difficult to predict the future in such a febrile environment but I expect that we and the EU will fudge the way to an arrangement which keeps the UK closely aligned. Economic reality will take us there .
16
For all that talk about sovereignty, I have never met a single Brexiteer who was able to quote me even one single EU rule that he/she disagreed with because it put the UK at a disadvantage.
Amazing how a non binding opinion poll, has now seen Britain proceeding to Brexit. No minimum threshold, of say 60% or 75% of the vote, required to change the status quo. Just a simple majority, which will have far more repercussions than many voters realised.
The Brexit referendum was inspired by Conservative Party turmoil over Britain in the EU. Odd that the Conservative Party are still in turmoil over Brexit, 25 months after the vote. Now the Conservative Party are the ones trying to negotiate Brexit from a position of increasing weakness on their part.
Brexit will have a long term negative effect on the British economy. Not sure if voters realised they were signing up for lower economics growth and less economic relevance.
One common factor in both Brexit and the election of Trump, was the continued strong support for both from the Murdoch press. Fear of immigration was front and centre, while the reality of the benefits of immigration were ignore or downplayed.
Members of the elite establishment attacked those who wanted to remain in the EU, as being elitist. Any opposition was derided and attacked. Negatives were ignored or glossed over. It was all going to be better fro Britain ...........but the reality is that a small majority of voters have given their approval for a Little Britain, which seems to be economic suicide.
71
Every time the Party of “more for a few and less for the many” comes into power, Democracy is damaged - sometimes severely.
Democracy is true representation, that means fair access to power, the decisions of power, and the outcomes of power. It therefore stands to reason that Democracy stands for far less inequality, especially pain inducing inequality. Some may make more, but few are truly poor, and even for them, services exist to help. People matter!
It’s time to face it: all over North America, Western Europe, and some parts of Asia,the jury is in: Democracies based on systems of populist equality , fairness, and decency, ultimately lead to a good life for most, with pockets of prosperity throughout. These societies are generally stable, happy, hopeful, and peacefully well-adjusted. Any time all the wealth and power is hoarded, it’s bad for the overall wellbeing, and society as a whole.
Face it, modern Conservatism, and unfettered capitalism, simply aren’t compatible with a society whose focus is a happy and prosperous future for most. Every time Conservatives get to run amok, they pretty much ruin it for everyone else! Note as well, they are left not only making economic harm, but civic harmas well - as they must substantially lie or distort the truth together into power, or sell their ideas.
Centrists and Liberals have their problems, but at least they’ Not focused on selling snake oil to get their party into power....
62
So well said. We have the same problem in the US. Our chief snake-oil salesman has just implemented a tax cut that will give corporations and the wealthiest 10% billions in savings while giving crumbs to the majority of Americans. All this at the cost of trillions to the deficit which will cause them in short order to convince Americans that is social programs that are killing the national debt. Unfortunately the boom is going to fall predominately on the heads of his constituents..who are less educated and more susceptible to the jingoistic, xenophobic rantings of a snake oil salesman who is not even particularly good at that.
2
The gravity model is a travesty to both gravity and the theory of gravity.
It's one thing to say that in principle distance should make trade probably more difficult and the larger the sizes of the economies could mean more trade between them.
That seems like a reasonable thing to say.
It's a totally different thing to do pseudophysics, i.e. things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade#Econometric_estimat...
In this way one is not testing a model, one is just trivially fitting data (themselves let's say not that good...) to a model which isn't actually a single model but infinite different models.
For example the professor used "British exports to selected countries as a percentage of the importing country’s GDP, plotted against the distance to that country".
UK's exports to country y as % of y country's GDP.
How so?
(I won't even bother with the units used, is it percent or is fractional?)
This trick, given e.g. that USA's GDP is huge compared to every other country minus China, makes certain that e.g. the USA point on the graph would go downwards, very down, "verifying" the gravity model.
Now consult actual absolute UK exports or imports of either goods or services (WTO-ITC data)
www.trademap.org/Country_SelServiceCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|826||||||S00|1|3|1|2|2|1|2|1|1
www.trademap.org/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|826||||TOTAL|||2|1|1|2|2|1|2|1|1
and see for example how UK's trade with the US is actually faring...
7
PS1 Fwit
I wrote this
"I won't even bother with the units used, is it percent or is fractional?"
I had been influenced by
drdeanster's and George's exchange, i.e.
https://nyti.ms/2Jcp3un
https://nyti.ms/2JdMcwi
and more specifically George claiming
"Percentages are often expressed as ratios. 0.15 is the ratio and means 15%. The labels on the table are indeed misleading"
In fact, afaict now that I've ckecked again, the y axis data do seem that are indeed percent values albeit according to WTC data off by a factor of 2ish, at least according to the 2016 UK-USA data I've checked against.
PS2 To NYT staff: the trademap WTO-ITC links I've included do not work, do not read well in Firefox, they get cut off at the end by your server software; they do work, they're fine with Chrome. Please ensure compatibility with the former. Thank you.
Full links for anyone interested cause it seems the NYT site does not agree with links missing the protocol prefix, not only by not hyperlinking them but also by obscuring their end if they're too long:
https://www.trademap.org/Country_SelServiceCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|826||||||S00|1|3|1|2|2|1|2|1|1
https://www.trademap.org/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1|826||||TOTAL|||2|1|1|2|2|1|2|1|1
Brexit was always ill conceived so it should come as no surprise that it is being poorly implemented. But to its supporters, Brexit is a fanatical cause, even as its flaws are becoming increasingly obvious. It is clear that if a hard Brexit happens, Britain will become poorer, more isolated, and more dependent on an American master that has never reciprocated its loyalty (think of Michael Cohn before his fall). So why do the Brexiters persist in their folly? To answer this question, we should realize that to them the sole value of any economic activity is self enrichment, and if Britain becomes a backwater, but they themselves become as rich as Russian oligarchs, the price is well worth paying. Oligarchy may not be much of an ideology, but to its beneficiaries it does pay great dividends.
36
Despite how badly they've handled things so far, May and her Conservative Party will figure it all out before the deadline, or...what will the penalty be? A brutal, hard Brexit, with Britons suffering as they get cut off from the EU, and without any agreements, with the US or anyone else, to make up for being cast as a loner across the Channel? It might a poorer, more dour UK, but at least they'll be "free," right? (And Arron Banks, Nigel Farage, and Putin'll be happy too, no?)
23
I value Mr Krugman's opinion and others presented here, but I am not seeing enough discussion of the underlying problems:
(1) Immigrants move in search of "better" lives. Unless we stop turning a blind eye on our global neighbors and work with countries that are not doing as well, of course we will have migration problems.
(2) A free market system is only free if it has free movement of people. If I can move my capital or factory to another country but people/laborers cannot, of course we will have market and economic problems.
(3) Democracies that lose sight of their values (egalite...), and participatory mandate and then elect career politicians to run the show allow "populist" and "nationalist" ideas to take hold and so, of course we have governance problems.
Less zero sum, right and wrong, us versus them, and more lift all boats, win-win, we're all in this together is more than just pie in the sky -- it's a way to operate with honor, integrity, and compassion. I'd like a politician to seek my vote on that!
39
hhhmmm ... I wonder ...
---"For example, the British auto industry relies on “just-in-time” production, maintaining low inventories of parts, because it has been able to count on prompt arrival of parts from Europe. If Britain leaves the customs union, the risk of customs delays would make this infeasible, substantially raising costs."---
American auto manufacturers use parts from Mexico and also use "just-in-time" production. Customs delays are not making this infeasible. It's just something worked into the scheduling process.
"Customs delays" aren't a problem. Where there is a well-established relationship between the 2 countries the customs process will be predictable and can be included reliably in the scheduling. So in the beginning, once Brexit takes effect, there may be some hiccups. But no doubt there will be plenty of economic pressure on both sides of the Channel to get the process smoothed out.
2
All the UK based autos production firms are owned by foreign autos manufacturers which maintain production facilities across multiple countries. Coupled with the fact that UK manufacturing workers are generally less productive than most of their European counterparts, manufacturing and new factories will simply be moved to large European autos manufacturing hubs such as Slovakia and Spain for example.. That is the entire point of the EU, to be able to manufacture and trade without tariffs and customs duties. Sure the EU will look at finding a good solution towards the UK but it is the UK leaving the EU so the UK will suffer certain direct consequences of this decision.
27
"American auto manufacturers use parts from Mexico and also use "just-in-time" production. Customs delays are not making this infeasible..." That 's because of NAFTA. Impose tariffs and watch the delays and the paperwork soar.
10
The last paragraph is typical of the superficial, blithe, uninformed and delusional attitude of Brexit supporters.
The US and Mexico share a 2000-mile long land border with 48 crossings. The UK is an island with a maritime infrastructure that is many years away from being up to capacity post-Brexit, and an import/export chokepoint at the Channel Tunnel. That, my friend, is the reality.
Not to mention the other reality of the NI/ROI border, which is a nightmare about to happen. So much so that the UK has been sending Royals to the Emerald Isle this summer to dampen potential anti-British sentiment.
2
Probably a poor question, but does the amount of trade accurately reflect the value of the trade relationship?
2
Dr. Krugman could be right, but not necessarily for the reasons given. What’s certain is, short of a Trumpian miracle, that Boris Johnson’s political career not only has met gravity but has disappeared into a black hole. I, for one, won’t be conducting an interstellar expedition aimed at finding it again.
But Dr. Krugman, who can’t lightly be challenged on purely economic issues (and certainly not by me), might seek help in understanding the replenishment details of manufacturing operations (at which I’M an “expert”). If the extent of “friction” arising from more intensive customs inspections can be rationally approximated (and of course it can), whether it be Mexico or Britain, manufacturers still can run efficient JIT (just-in-time) operations perfectly well – they just need to account for the known lag and trip their replenishment triggers sooner – or their suppliers, with visibility into their customers’ inventories and rates of production, can do it for them. Volumes of contracted parts really determine cost-per part, not the transit method or duration, and in most countries addicted to tax accounting, you don’t undertake the tax burden of inventory until you actually acknowledge receipt of the inventory.
Of COURSE businesses are screaming, as they always scream at the hint of any inconvenience, but this aspect of Brexit (or NAFTA) is quite manageable. If they must, they’ll manage it without missing a beat. Or at least without missing two beats. …
6
… However, the reasons that Brexit has met “gravity” aren’t really economic in their intensity, but have to do with political awareness by the British people. They didn’t narrowly approve Brexit because they thought the economic reasons were compelling but because they wanted to limit the number of migrants entering their country, to regain control of borders that Brussels doesn’t acknowledge for the purpose of protecting cultures perceived by Community members as endangered. But they were given to believe that the sheer complexity of severing ties to support this interest, as well as ending rules dictated generally by Brussels, was manageable.
But they’ve discovered through the travails of PM May that the complexity is not limited merely to supporting JIT operations but is pervasive throughout their interactions with Europe. And there may very well be unacceptable COMPREHENSIVE costs to a “hard-Brexit” that place that original value-proposition at question.
And I’m sure they feel betrayed by the Brexiteers, who so minimized those complexities and costs.
Perhaps PM May, with a purged cabinet, can find a path to a looser confederation that Brussels will find wearable; but it does appear that a “hard Brexit” ain’t in the offing. And Brussels seems adamant about allowing migrants who somehow make it to Europe to cover the English landscape at will – because EVERY member wants to get rid of them.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the grip of such “gravity”.
5
Hmm, for once I agree with you, Richard. What you wrote was largely true and sensibly phrased, aside from the usual snark.
Possibly Richard's remarks are improved by distance - I took a lovely bike ride around Helsinki today, where the locals are dreading the coming meeting between the most powerful man in the world, and his apprentice. I hope Putin gives Trump a favorable quarterly review.
Here, again, we have Putin meddling and interfering with success in swaying the British public into voting for Brexit. Trump is doing Putin bidding domestically, and seems to be taking Putin's advice on his behavior abroad.
Our Democracy is not at a crossroads as many say, but it is actually being derailed, along with many stalwart alliances of our long time allies.
44
For many, Brexit was about sovereignty, pure and simple.
And the recent push for Article 13 in the EU makes a great retrospective case for Brexit, regardless of the economic impact. Having a say in the laws that govern you is worth paying a price.
6
Very true, but it would be more statesman-like of them to acknowledge the fact that the price (cost, but also loss of power) is far greater than previously claimed.
14
Every citizen of the EU has a say on what laws are governing him/her. Problem for the Brits is simply that there are others as well who have a say.
The UK has shown may times during its EU membership that the ruling, political class is simply not ready for the EU. And for this reason it's better for the UK to get out. The bureaucratic issues about import and export in the future will iron itself out. And if she's ready, and ready means common Euro and left hand driving, which I think will never happen, then it'd make sense to discuss membership again.
10
The essential problem, I believe relates to the Law. On the mainland law was based upon articles - Napoleon saw to that and the bureaucrats who drew up the Treaties maintained that position. Over in the UK the law is based upon statute and precedent, so the Law can be finessed by the courts. It forms our Unwritten Constitution. We also have a Civil Service that is hide-bound by rules and regulations. When law is passed the CS makes sure that the rules are kept, until the rules change. The UK has been scrupulous in applying EU directives even if it has worked against us whereas other countries have not. I have read about complaints being made to this effect by our fellow EU members. Simply put, our two systems do not marry. For example, look at the way the Schengen rules are being applied between Denmark and Sweden, and France and Italy at the border in Ventimiglia - the French police go through the trains and force people off, and Hungary, etc etc.
We were taken into the EEC on the basis of a lie (no mention of 'ever closer political and economic union' and we have been lied to ever since. Our politicians were too afraid to hold referenda as treaties were changed because they knew what the answers would be. Gordon Brown even signed the Lisbon Treaty after everyone else so he wouldn't draw attention to himself.
All have played their part. It is all very regrettable.
Mr Paul is simply trying to elaborate more on the 'Law of gravity ' in International trade.Distance and efficiency matters alot in international trade,This simply means that Britain need to cooperate with its allies in order to generate more profit and off-course, Their just in time method get automatic elimination right after leaving the custom Union.
1
You’re over simplifying, Paul. The EU is much more than a customs union; it is primarily a regulatory union. The frictions Britain will face arise from leaving the Single Market more than the customs union. The Single Market has common oversight and enforcement mechanisms that the UK is abandoning, thus jeopardizing crucial trade with Europe.
21
I wonder how many farmers in Montana or Idaho know what Brexit is or would care if they did know. Most of them have never been to the UK or the EU.
I wonder if any of them know that the crops in California can't be picked without migrant labor. Do they know that guns won't protect them from the fertilizer they use when it seeps into the ground and their ensuing illnesses will not be covered by Obamacare because it will be gone. Do they understand that Dow and Monsanto's CEOs will buy their 10th homes, cars and yachts? How many know what "international commerce" is and why what happens in the UK or in Poland or Turkey can actually have an effect on us? Have they ever heard of a gravity equation for trade? Bet not.
Someone should create a survey -- what do they actually know and understand? My guess is that Trump's base thinks they know but do not and they think it doesn't matter but it does. Ditto for the folks in Britain who voted to leave the UK. Didn't think it would matter but it does.
291
In reply to Jeanie LoVetri
The problem is the Dunning Kruger Effect - that people with low cognitive ability overestimate how much they know and thus happily go through life protected by their illusion of superiority.
1
I think Trump voters go no further than the soon-to-be-unemployed assembly line worker who opined that Trump is a smart man and would never do anything to hurt his supporters - and if he did, it must be something very important that would no doubt be good for them in the long run. I think the point is that Trump supporters don't want to be informed, they just want Trump to tell them what to believe so they don't have to be responsible for anything beyond their comfortable daily routines.
1
Idaho farmers know about migrant labor. The Idaho Republican Party just defeated a motion to prosecute employers who hire illegal immigrants, explaining that Idaho farms and dairies can't survive without undocumented workers.
Thomas Jefferson warned about major legislation passed with the support of only one political party. Likewise, no major changes in a nation should ever be passed by a single vote of the public. Passions become inflamed, those who take one side might have a lot more money than the other and some voters don't take time to fully understand the issue. A simple majority vote, also, is inadequate on something like Brexit because it was a system, a series of processes, built over decades.
In addition to all this, Brexit was supposed to have been an advisory vote, not a hard mandate. As soon it was passed, however, the politicians said they would fall in line, forget advisory. What a mess. Perhaps they deserve it, having failed to sell the public on the EU in the first place.
We need some sort of initiative process right here in the States, but something more limited and controlled than the California example which has evolved to be a side door means for the rich and powerful, mainly businesses, to get what they want.
Without change, we are lost. Congress can't even address our major problems. Floating on an ocean of billionaires' money, lobbied constantly by hordes of those protecting the interests of business and the wealthy, Congress is all but a lost cause. "We, the people" need a way to express our will since the majority view of the public on many issues no longer matters, especially with Republicans in control. There are risks, to be sure, but it is a gamble we must take.
33
The old saying about sleeping dogs applies in both these cases, UK-EU and US-Mexico-Nafta. Neither the EU-UK nor Nafta-US were broken, so why did Ms. May and Mr. Trump try to fix it? An ephemeral political boost, I guess.
It's amusing to watch the Tories clinging to mast of a sinking ship, er, issue. Has anybody gone below the waterline to check for leaks lately on our US ship of state?
25
Agree with your point in general, but must clarify one thing - Ms. May was not the instigator of Brexit. We can thank David Cameron for that mess.
14
Immigration was a major driver of the Brexit vote -- fear/resentment over the cultural changes immigration had engendered, more than job anxiety I think. But what I think gets overlooked in the Brexit discussions is *English* resentment about regulations created by the EU structure and the sense of a loss of sovereignty. I personally think Brexit is the worst thing to happen to the UK since WWII, and I think the impact will be very negative for the people who supported Brexit most. But I also think the actual or perceived accountability gap in the EU political and administrative structures created a lot of resentment - particularly in England. Authority without accountability corrupts, and the EU was perceived as having too much power and too little accountability by many people in England, where the average citizen until relatively recently could hold MPs to higher level of accountability. Scotland and NI traditionally have had limited sense of sovereign control in what an England-dominated Parliament, so the EU gave a welcome new pathway to money and power for many in those regions. NI and Scotland qualified for lots of EU funding schemes that England couldn't compete for, given its higher level of development. So among the stressed small businesses, England was perceived as getting the stick, and no carrots, while academics and other "elites" and NI and Scotland generally saw that they would lose a lot of good things under Brexit.
35
Nice explanation. Succinct and accurate.
1
the referendum was non-binding. why do politicians act as if a <1% tilt in favor of leaving the union is a mandate? And all this sounds even more than suspicious now that we know there was an misinformation campaign associated with that vote similar to the one in the US presidential election.
Isn't it time for a revote that requires more than a simple majority to disrupt something so fundamental to the British economy?
131
All you described is true. The Brexit vote was over one simple thing...English voters did not and do not trust the political establishment. When Poland et al joined the EU, the Labor government at the time)did not put a 7 year stay on immigration from new member states, stating that less that 75,000 would move to the UK. In actually, close to 2 it million did in the space of two years (Germany, France etc kept the 7 yr prohibition. While economically this helped the UK, no one in power addressed this issue. Brexit is not a rational economic choice but seems to be a cultural choice.
10
Immigration was the hook that got the electorate. But what was the real reason? What moves people like Boris Johnson to push for something so detrimental to his country? What was his personal gain? He's very similar to Trump.
70
Putin’s Russia...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_...
http://thehill.com/opinion/international/379183-russia-will-keep-attacki...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-brexit-farage...
Donald Trump's ascendancy and Brexit are showcasing the problems of democracy in which low-information and apathetic voters make a huge difference. Democracy works best when citizens are knowledgeable and involved, not part-timers who can walk in and walk out at their leisure. It is somewhat like parenting, a full-time job that requires 24X7 attention and involvement. Demagogues like Trump, Bannon, and others (here in America) and Farage, Johnson, and others (across the pond) tell lies without consequences. This demagoguery provides the bread & circus for the low-information and apathetic voter. The result: Donald Trump gets elected here in America and Brexit happens yonder in the UK.
320
All of your cited demagogues are funded by the Russians. The goal is to destroy democracy and the EU. NATO is also on the Russian hit list. Watch what happens this week.
3
So a lot of the comments are not about Krugman's economic points but about the "why did we do it?" comment on the end. Yes, as with Trump, there were a lot of not so silent dog-whistle's. Call it what you will: national identity, racism, white privilege. But Brexit would have failed without the false economic narrative. Similarly, in the US, Trump voters were told just enough economic lies to let them feel comfortable about voting for a thinly disguised appeal to ethnic nostalgia. The only reason people on both sides of the pond are willing to react to their feeling of "feeling neglected" is that they were willing to not look at the real economics. So that's the answer to Krugman's "good question." People were blinded by their own pride.
54
As many here have noted, the whole point of Brexit was anti-immigrant. Briton wants the customs-union advantages of theEU without the free labor market of the EU.
Why should or would the rest of the EU give them that?
Brexit was a child's tantrum: won't eat their vegetables, want ice cream now.
The EU is putting them to bed with no supper.
224
Love the imagery, Lee - here's hoping a Nanny shows up pronto, if not sooner.
1
Tongue firmly in cheek - why not just leave the EU and join the US? Get eight senators, more house seats than California and allow the Windsors to go the way of the Kardashians. You’ve been acting more like Americans than Europeans, lately, anyway.
12
Alan who?
8
Krugman's graph must be wrong. Exports between the UK and France only account for less than one fifth of one percent of the UK's GDP? Adding in Spain, Germany, Canada, the US and Japan still falls short of one percent? If that's the case, who cares? 1% can mean a lot in certain Olympic races but in matters of GDP and international trade it's not even a blip.
Check your numbers, Dr. Krugman.
Percentages are often expressed as ratios. 0.15 is the ratio and means 15%. The labels on the table are indeed misleading.
6
It shows the percentage of the GDP of the IMPORTING country, not of the UK’s.
Ron Cohen and others are correct about Brexit: "Above all, it was about immigration." Not just immigrants who wanted to live in the United Kingdom, either. Considerable disruption was caused by skilled laborers from poorer areas of the continent who wanted to work long hours and hard and amass what would be a fortune when they returned home. Hundreds of thousands of "Polish Plumbers" had successfully competed with complacent British tradesmen who did not work evenings and weekends, charged a lot more, and were often not as competent.
Several EU countries have repeatedly told the UK, including before the Brexit vote, that if there is no free movement of labor there will be no free movement of goods or capital. And the UK cannot have a sweetheart Brexit deal without unanimous consent by EU member states. Johnson and May probably really knew (and today definitely know) that the deal they claimed they would get was impossible.
And I add another dose of reality to the concept of sweetheart deals with the USA. Krugman shows us graphically that it will not work. But as long as Trump is President, no such special deals will be offered. He would much prefer a trade war. Remember, trade wars are fun. They're good. And they're easy to win. So says Trump.
44
"So what was the point of Brexit in the first place?"
Above all, it was about immigration. But it was also about a myriad of petty regulations on every aspect of life emanating from Brussels. And a generalized feeling that Brits were living under the thumb of the German finance minister. They simply wanted their country back, just as Trump voters wanted their country back, at least the country they knew.
That Krugman needs to ask that question speaks volumes about how we got where we are, and how we might get out of it. The white working class, on both sides of the Atlantic, want their government, and society generally, to support them in their hour of need. Barring that, we will continue to see the break-up of the liberal order, and ever more authoritarianism.
10
Petty regulations emanating from Brussels affecting daily life?
Name two. Well, maybe that's unfair. Name one.
50
Because the voices of women and minorities are increasing in power, the country that Trump voters knew is never coming back.
If they want someone to support them in their hour of need, they should look to Democrats, who have given them Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare, along with numerous other benefits.
3
Reply to Maggie,
They should look to the Democrats, who have disdained them and spit on them?
Even allowing for the racism of Brits and Americans, both Brexit and Trumpism were also sold on the basis of economic promises which have no basis in reality. Without this icing on the cake I doubt either Trump or Brexit would have passed. In the US there was little to fear from the "wave "immigrants who were already on the decline before Trump arrived on the scene. In fact arguably we could use more given the current full employment situation. The European immigrant problem however is real as Friedman noted a week or so back. However the answer was to develop a Europe-wide response and include efforts to end the destabilizing wars which are largely to blame for the flood of immigrants to Europe.
35
Brexit is NOT primarily about economics
It is primarily about national identity
A soft Brexit would require Ms. May to accept the European condition for access the European Economic : free movement of people - sans losing her job.
We shall see.
8
As anyone who isn’t an economist could have told you, the point of Brexit was to keep out immigrants: Poles and anyone else from Eastern Europe, and Syrians and anyone else with darker skin. Outside of London, no one expects to hear a foreign accent, let alone a foreign language, and the Brits are willing to make economic sacrifices to keep things that way.
The false economic arguments that were made during the Brexit referendum only provided cover for the real issue of immigration. Whether it’s Poland, Hungary, Britain, or West Virginia, social issues rule. Money, economics, and the opinions of economists count for zilch.
117
I think this is correct. Arguments are made that Japan must pivot and accept immigration to combat declining birth rates and population. This framing is likely to have very predictable results...
3
Sorry, but you can't have free movement of products (free trade) without free movement of people (immigration.) That is just the way the EU works. So you'll get your immigration control, and your economy will fall in the toilet.
Yes, in times of relative prosperity. Wait until the next global recession, which will strike the white working classes of the countries you listed, and see what if economics suddenly matter.
Do you think that those who supported Brexit anticipated the dissolution of the United Kingdom? Scottish voters are strongly in favor of staying in the EU, as are voters in Northern Ireland. A "hard border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would be reversal of years of economic and political progress for Northern Ireland.
I don't know if the Brexit supporters thought this through. Maybe they just want to go back to little England, you know, the "good old days."
112
Good points. A Hard Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would violate, very significantly, the peace accords that ended the troubles. The Republic of Ireland has promised to veto any Brexit with such a Hard Border. Several other countries will veto any agreement allowing a Soft Border there but not elsewhere. And only one veto sinks any deal.
England literally can only avoid a hard Brexit by ceding Northern Ireland, which I doubt will happen. Scotland and Wales and the Channel Islands also would very much prefer to stay in the EU.
13
Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is a bit of a hard sell for the Republic. They’d be a sudden and quite economically demanding neighbour, with a political fondness for groups like the DUP, and a socially conservative bent that Ireland has done a great deal of work to move away from, if cautiously. Erasing that border and insisting NI suddenly ditch the monarchy and become ‘joiners’ in the Catholic republic would upset deep rooted identity politics and likely lead to turmoil. The conflict that led to the Troubles was hundreds of years in the making. 20 years of being neighbours who both get their own political leadership and all that entails, while still being able to cross the border without fear of violence hardly means it’s all been washed away.
4
Also: Wales voted, bafflingly, to leave. They were overwhelmingly the largest beneficiaries of European subsidy within GB.
6
The Brexit vote in Britain encouraged Trump's win.
Perhaps Brexit failure would encourage Trump''s downfall.
I would appreciate any comments on this from Prof. Krugman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
I seriosly doubt that Trump voters cared about Brexit, or even that they follow news from beyond their belly buttons.
Jenifer, You have a point.
But I think that some political analysts see a direct connection between the Brexit campaign and the Trump campaign.
Again, I wonder if Prof.Krugman has thought about the link between Brexit and Trumpism...THANKS
"Too bad more people didn’t ask it before the referendum." In those areas that voted most heavily for Brexit, the most asked question on the internet after the vote was, "What is the European Union?" The British people were sold a pile of lies, and does that remind you of what's happening in the US?
318
It’s not at all evident that America was sold a pile of lies. Trump is doing pretty much what he promised in his campaign. Some may not agree with what he’s doing but he’s sticking to his promises far more than his predecessor.
2
Yes, Trump has "delivered" on his campaign promises, thanks to the spineless, sycophantic support he is receiving from the GOP, who control both houses of Congress.
Obama tried, time and again, to deliver on his campaign promises during his entire term in office, but was faced with the GOP's "party of NO!" that decided on the night of his election they would do all in their power to stop him.
No comparison there!
The areas that voted most heavily for Brexit were also the areas with the fewest immigrants. Kind of like Iowa or Kansas.
1
The Brexit phenomenon is similar to the tribal division developing so rapidly - and frighteningly - in the U.S. Brexit supporters were told that the UK didn't need to be "bossed around" by EU regulations, that the UK could and should stand alone. The Brexit people were assured that bilateral trade agreements would be better than multilateral ones, and all would be well. It's not and it won't. As a workshop economy, the UK - much more than most - depends on the rapid and efficient flow of goods - elements for assembly and refashioning - from all over the world. Such an economy works much more efficiently within multilateral agreements such as within the EU. As a confirmed Anglophile, I think it's really too bad - awfully bad - that the Brexit folks fell for a pig in a poke. But we should know all about that, now shouldn't we?
204
“Can we have the colonies back, please?”
The public wase also told that Britain would get to keep the money they were spending on EU infrastructure (OK, bureaucracy) and that that money would go to shore up the NHS. And I've got a bridge for them..........
With apologies to Johnny Marr and Morrissey:
Boris is nice, and
Boris can stop you
From doing all the things in life
You'd like to
So, if it's Brexit you'd like to try
If it's Brexit you'd like to try
Ask me, I won't say no, how could I?
Dumbness is nice, and
Dumbness can stop you
From believing all the things in
Life you'd like to
So, if it's Brexit you'd like to try
If it's Brexit you'd like to try
Ask me, I won't say no, how could I?
Spending warm summer days indoors
Sending remorseful verse
To former friends in the Euro Zone
Ask me, ask me, ask me
Ask me, ask me, ask me
Because if it's not love
Then it's the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade
That will bring us together
Econ is a language, can't you read?
Econ is a language can't you read?
So ask me, ask me, ask me
Ask me, ask me, ask me
Because if it's not love
Then it's the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade, the trade
That will bring us together
If it's not love
Then it's the trade
Then it's the trade
That will bring us together
So ask me, ask me, ask me
Ask me, ask me, ask me
We didn't know what we were doing, did we?
17
this is lovely!
2
Thank you Paul Krugman for your clear, insightful comments on this crazy world in which we now live. I think the Brexiters and the Trumpies suffer from what is called "aggressive ignorance". I suspect there is no cure for it. Your columns/tweets brighten my day.
193
Are "aggressive ignorance" and "truthful hyperbole" opposite sides of the same coin?
allow me to add one word... willful Aggressive Willful Ignorance
This song is about why people voted for Brexit. Some of the British words might not make too much sense to Americans.
'local' = local bar
'kippers'= smoked fish
'Tesco's = supermarket chain
'blitz' = world war 2 bombing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07X_yk1v8S4
2
The key line of the song is in the middle:
"Once we ruled over an empire"
And from those words could -- but won't -- hang an enormously long comment that would cover, at least, Great Britain, France and the US, all starting in the 17th century and coming to a head (in each country in its own ways) in our own times.
5
Angstrom Unit,
This is probably the best short comment I've read about the Brexit vote since it happened.
Let's not forget the other reason a deal with the US is a bad idea for UK:
Trump.
He's a back stabber and can't be trusted.
The US in fact, is now considered untrustworthy by the rest of the free world.
I think EU and NATO need to simply get on with it and go it alone without the US.
Trump is a completely unreliable force.
232
Either untrustworthy or willing no longer. I tend to think it’s more the latter.
So its a custom union not a free trade agreement? Brexit was never about trade of any form any way so what's the point of your snarky question? There is a real refugee crisis in Europe and the people said no to allowing their cheaper, quieter replacements. Krugman still has no feel for what is going on around the globe. But his article is cutesy, so he has that. Changes are going to keep on coming, so strap in(and jimminy Christmas this paper needs some new voices).
7
Well, your response doesn't make any sense. He was talking about Brexit and you are talking about refugees which is completely unrelated. I thought his article was on point explaining the complexities faced by Britain because the leave campaign nurtured fears rather than truth.
16
If you think Brexit isn't about immigrants you should randomly ask ten Britons who voted for it. All ten will tell you it was about immigrants. Blimey!
12
I think that Boris and others used immigration as a scare tactic to get the British to vote for Brexit.
Let's see, someone using immigration as a scare tactic...that sounds familiar.
1
Thanks for yet another clear discussion of what could have been a difficult to understand issue.
Woof is right on the data, I 'm sure, and as a fellow data nerd, I appreciate that. However, he fails to take into account both parts of gravity analysis: Both size and distance. The enormous size of the US economy vis-à-vis any of the European countries means that our market attracts a lot of trade.
Trade is good for all sides, but it is especially good for the long term peace of the world. That is something even an economist as good as Krugman would have a hard time estimating.
John Genereux
1
Yes, trade is good for all sides. And "Trade ... good for ...peace" sounds plausible, but a commonly stated myth prior to World War I was that a European conflict would be impossible due to the huge amount of trade between those nations. Didn't quite work out.
6
I think I follow the economic logic here. However, I think that the Brexit crowd is not going to be at all happy about still being subject to EU regulations. It might work if Britain regained control over immigration from other European countries, but the EU seems unwilling to permit that.
I think the chance of a disorderly and costly no-deal Brexit is quite high at this point.
6
I think Schrodinger is right, but Krugman's point is the they will be fully in charge of a much smaller pie this way, rather than having limited influence over a much larger one.
4
I hope sanity retains and the Brexit does not happen. The Euro was an ill thought out plan, combining apples and oranges arriving at fruit cocktail. What do you do when Germany's bonds are good and Italy's are bad?
On the other hand, the EU seems to work fine. Dump the Euro and keep the EU in tact.
6
Thanks for yet another clear discussion of what could have been a difficult to understand issue.
Trade is good for all sides, but it is especially good for the long term peace of the world. That is something even an economist as good as Krugman would have a hard time estimating.
John Genereux
13
As Stephen Marmon pointed out this is about migration and not trade. Paul, bless his heart, always treats these arguments as if they are really talking about what they seem to be talking about. Like Freud with the dream there is a manifest and a latent content, In the manifest it's about trade but in the latent content -- which is where the action is -- its about migration. The older folks in the UK are overcome with nostalgia for the days of the Empire. The grand old days when the UK possessed itself. But as global trade networks dissolve quaint historical artefacts like discrete countries and their borders the older folks in the UK felt their national identity slipping away.
Hence the desire of the old folks to leave the EU. However as this economic narrative unfolds -- right in Dr. Krugman's wheelhouse --, the even more devastating development for liberal democracies built on compassion and empathy and open borders has been the flood on immigrants from the middle east. The single solitary thing that Trump has working for him is that no bleeding heart liberal plan to take the escapees from the civil wars of the MIddle East will work. It's only his being a dunce that has prevented Trump from making the deal to create a refugee camp in Syria and Saudi Arabia and keeping all their people at home and making them responsible for their own people. The UK can't assimilate these folks. Until the left figures this out, riff raff like Trump will bludgeon them with it.
11
A brilliant comment. Agree 100%
3
Wrong.
Brits are talking about Eastern Europeans that have come to work there. Go to London, and you'll see what I mean.
7
Immigration played a role in the Brexit vote but not refugees. Britain has received very few refugees. Some were trying to get there but France held them back in an infamous tent city in Calais (the "jungle").
There was a big ruckus about Eastern Europeans who supposedly have come and taken jobs but that story like so many others about job-stealing immigrants doesn't make any sense. The Eastern Europeans that have come have almost exclusively moved to the cities and the cities didn't vote for Brexit.
That is a common phenomenon. Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is most popular in states like West Virginia that don't have many immigrants.
Mostly old folks and rural voters voted for Brexit. Not because of some rational reason but mostly just to throw a spanner in the gears of the country. Not unlike the US, again.
There is a strange mix of self-pity of not being taken serious enough on the countryside, ignorance about the consequences and yes, also manipulation by interested parties. They didn't listen to us now they will pay! Not exactly smart since the cities can weather the storm more easily and since the countryside with its structural weaknesses relies much more on help from the government.
But this is no age for thoughtful decisions. It's an age of revenge for perceived slights and spiteful destruction. Many people really have no clue what we have to lose and what it took to have those past 70 years of peace. They'll find out soon.
14
London's version of Trump trashes the current system then runs like a coward when it is time to replace it with something. Maybe instead of a trans-Atlantic customs union we could form a support group?
7
What options do the British have to rethink and re-vote this Break-It decision?
6
(1) Follow through with Brexit, and leave the economy in a shambles for 20 years
(2) Have desperate and uninformed voters fall prey to an even more hairbrained craven scheme from the same group.
4
The Brexit fiasco has revealed itself to be a gang war between two factions of the British ruling class, as represented by the Tories, Britain's economy be damned.
Brexit is a desperate, last ditch attempt by certain segments of a senile ruling class to hang on to power, all at the expense of the nation, having safely tucked their money away offshore, just like Trump's backers, including the Ruskies. The Brexit branch of the Tory party is trying to pull off a colonial withdrawal, the finale this time, from the 'home' land, just another colony to be plundered, free of oversight from Brussels with its anti-tax avoidance stance. They've found enough credulous dotards among the electorate who'll buy the racism and xenophobia they're selling, and plenty of offshore scavengers stand by to pick the carcass clean.
When is it going to sink in that it won't be the Tory ruling establishment that is going to pay for the Brexit delusion? Life will go on dreamily in offshore investment land with plenty of disaster capital opportunities.
Meanwhile, rather than riding this compelling narrative into government, Corbyn has displayed the strategic sense of a gormless tapeworm content to dwell in the downpipe of British leftist fantasy and he just won't come out of there. The Panama Papers and Remain handed him the keys to power and he's blowing it in order to exercise his own anti-European stance. Dump him before it's too late, Labour supporters, or the goose is cooked!
27
My understanding is that the real reason behind Brexit is that many Brits resented other EU members migrating to the UK because of higher government benefits. IntraUnion migration was/is the problem, not the many Middle Eastern immigrants, although they would eventually be able to migrate once naturalized.
2
Brexit is Britain version of Trumps " election ". When the "uneducated " drink the Kool-Aid and actually vote. And those that should know better stay home due to pouting, laziness or better things to do. Like pontificating on Facebook, playing video games, or cruising " dating " sites. Yeah, I'm talking to you, millennials. " When you know better, you do better ". I sincerely hope so. Please, prove me wrong in November. I dare you. Nothing would be better than a huge turnout among younger voters, increasing each year. That's real democracy in action. Seriously.
28
Where is David Cameron these days? I'm sure he could understand this as well as he could understand the advantages of governing by referendum. Besides, the Brits don't want foreigners telling them how to make sausages or tampering with their traditional foods: pizza and chicken tikka masala. What are export-related jobs and per capita GDP in the face of humiliating subsidies?
8
Amazing to see how Russia plotted with a primary Brexit backer by giving them a piece of a sweetheart biz deal in order to finance the Brexit campaign lies:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/arron-banks-nigel-farage...
laundering where the campaign financing came from. Wonder if that's a pattern (deepest sarcasm) ?
Watching the GOPers' jawdropping 4th of July Treason Trip to the Kremlin, and remembering that Russia hacked the Republican National Committee's emails:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/arron-banks-nigel-farage...
as well as state level campaigns, but didn't pass that data out to Wikileaks for broadcast, one wonders what Putin may be holding over the heads of the entire GOP - and not just His Unhinged Unraveling Unfitness ?
99
"one wonders" - yes we do. Too much circumstantial evidence that may become truth if Mueller is allowed to complete his investigation. The GOP, entire GOP, is now suspect, and complicit. I would venture that McConnell is the head of that snake.
2
This plot is misleading - selective omission of data (as Mr. Krugman is want to do)
None of the EU countries shown, France. Germany , Spain to which the UK exports, matches the UK exports to the US - that is farther away from the UK than either above
Data
UK exports to US British Pound 99.6 Billion
UK exports to Germany British Pounds 49.1 Billion
UK exports to France British Pounds 34.8 Billion
UK exports to Spain British Pounds 14.6 Billion
(Note that UK exports to Germany are more than 3 times than to Germany - Krugman's plot has at 80% which is wrong)
Nor does trade consists on exports only. Imports are the other half
The countries from which the UK imports are in decreasing order Germany, US, and Netherlands and China (tie)
Finally
The share of UK exports of goods and services going to the EU has fallen, from 54% in 2000 to 43% in 2016.
Data
Office of National Statistics, GB
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/artic...
6
Brexit was about racism, nothing more, nothing less.
55
Brexit has the same root as Trumpism: Xenophobia and Ethnocentrism.
183
Professor Krugman - If you're looking for topics to distract you from the "grim political news", how about the credit bubble?
The IIF reported global debt jumped to $247 Trillion, 318% of the world's GDP. You've written previously that at some point, debt will become an issue. Would be interested in your thoughts.
Thank you.
42
Oh lord, here we go again. I knew it was a problem but didn't know the extent. There is still no regulation (or even registration) of most credit instruments are there? I'm interested in policy that is reasonable that would reign these instruments in. Any ideas? Clinton had policies about the shadow markets. Your opinion of those?
2
Xenophobia is certainly the basis of all the global shifts to the right. For Europe and England immigration has come from 1) their ex-colonies and 2) from the civil war in Syria. The second is the primary cause of current angst where Muslim speaking cultures have born the brunt of prejudice lately. All across Europe and England there are many more communities speaking a different language than there were 40 years ago. These immigrant movements have had a significant effect. In the United States the immigrants involved Puerto Ricans and Central and South Americans. In the west, we rely heavily on an immigrant Mexican population.
I don't know if I have these observations accurate. I am not well versed on this subject. I come away from the discussion recommending in particular that the war in Syria is the reason for rightward movement in Europe and GB. If the war had been solved leaving a country that is habitable, much of the stress in Europe would recede.
I am a progressive and I believe very strongly that immigrant populations are what makes my country great. I love the differences. We miss out on so much if we restrict our world to people who look like us. So much.
But I also see the stress that heavy immigration can cause. I understand why people are turning right. But I hate that they are. There are far more sensible and compassionate ways to deal with the problem.
6
Stripped of all the trade rhetoric, what the BREXIT is all about is the same thing that the Trumpian agenda is all about. The 'soft BREXIT' will try to keep the goods flowing freely, while restricting the exchange of people... of course, the people the pro-BREXIT crowd is most concerned about are the refugees from those 'brown-skin' and 'radical Islam' countries. Keep out the refugees, the African refugees, but keep the goods flowing freely. In this country the Trump xenophobia is thinly (and wearing ever thinner)racism. "MS-13" is a code word... Trump said it right up front in his announcement - perhaps he feels he has to be more circumspect now that he's "presidential" in his speeches. Oops... May is trying to have the cake, but not pay the cost, and I hope the EU stuffs that back in the foolish faces of all the Britons who voted for exit.
94
If only Brexit voters had bothered to care about details, and demanded them! The cynical Brexit leaders had no plan, just slogans and rhetoric and promises that evaporated like dew in the face of reality.
And ditto for Trump voters. Nobody asked what "zero tolerance" on immigration meant--Trump got away with just flinging slogans. And now we find out it means children in cages.
611
As one of the Brits who did not vote in the referendum I would like to explain my reasons. Firstly the leave advocates made much of the invasion of foreigners though a majority came from non-EU countries. They made much of the £350M per week going to the EU. This they claimed would solve the problem of financing the Health Service. What they did not say was that all but £150M per week came back to Britain is subsidies to farmers and such. The remaining £150M included our contributions to joint scientific research and similar projects.
The remain advocates did not mention the signs that the EU was failing due to the election of extreme right wing governments in Hungary and Poland and the similar changes in Austria and Italy. In Germany the right wing has not achieved power but have made reasonable government difficult.
With such a choice I decided not to vote because at age 89 I would not live to see the consequences bad or worse of either choice. .
2
Putin + native racism + ignorance = Boris & Trump.
It was never about economic/trade policy; it was about fear, expertly exploited.
This will take years and proper treatment of Putin to straighten out.
2
Cynical leaders, indeed. Cambridge Analytica teamed up with Leave.EU, the UK's largest group advocating for Brexit to help them better understand and communicate with UK voters. CA claims, "We have already helped supercharge Leave.EU's social media campaign by ensuring the RIGHT messages are getting to the RIGHT voters online, and the campaign's Facebook page is growing in support to the tune of about 3,000 people per day." CA goes on to boast "whether you are trying to reach out to a voter, change hearts and minds about Britain's EU membership, or move product, the more you know about your target audience, the better you will be able to engage, persuade, and motivate them to act." Cambridge Analytica, the best craven manipulators money can buy.https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/big-data-better-donald-trump/1383025
It's really not "too bad" that the British didn't think of all that before the referendum. It turns out that there is absolutely no bar to reversing that referendum except for politics. If somebody or party has the guts to save England, they can do so. It's just like our Democratic party. They made a choice and put up a loser last time. Now they have a choice to nominate someone left of center. If they don't, just like England that could vote out the referendum, we will continue on the path to oblivion. It could happen. I hope both countries aren't idiots twice
18
So the takeaway for a lot of our being miserable is that in most , if not all, forms of democratic governments, ONE MUST PARTICIPATE. If you leave the decisions up to your representatives, you are as likely to be up the creek without a paddle as not. That is why it is entirely BIGLY SAD that only 50% or so ever show up at the polls.
48
Ah, but when will Her Majesty's Government (or the English press) follow the money TO Brexit? I'm sure it has the same source as Trump's claimed wealth.
Indeed, the French recognized collaboration when they saw it in Marine Le Pen's "thank you" trip to Moscow prior to the presidentials. From 1940-44 they suffered under a Nazi occupation, and the collaboration of a number of French politicians and others scouted out by Nazi agents prior to 1939.
The British--and the United States--were never occupied, so this scenario was apparently unthinkable. This will come back to haunt both nations when Trump flips the bird at NATO and gets on his knees before Putin for another handout--and further instructions.
53
Actually, the Channel Islands, which are British, were occupied by Nazi Germany.
3
...and I'm reading Rupert Thomson's novel, "Never Anyone But You," that is set there and then in part.
Brexit was all about migrants. Not trade.
31
We were doing gravity models way back in the 1970s when I studied geography - not just for trade but for all interaction between two points. For instance, Tulsa is much closer to Los Angeles than New York City yet the interaction between Los Angeles and New York City is an order of magnitude larger than that of Tulsa and Los Angeles (or New York for that matter)
.
.
I think I can understand a country like Britain wanting to get better control on immigration - not just for a Europe that was a little to open and willing to allow millions of a new wave of Muslims to immigrate when they already demonstrate problems assimilating almost everywhere they go, but also floods of peoples from Eastern Europe. It’s a small country with a proud and distinctive history and culture and the desire to preserve some of that into the future seems like a reasonable aspiration.
But if I was British I would not want much of a separation from Europe. Europe simply has the best places and climates to travel and ulltimately live in the world, period. I spent three weeks in Spain a couple of years ago, and it was the best experience in my entire life, and hundreds of thousands of British citizens agree and choose to retire or settle and live there. They need to work out this stuff, but if I were British, I wouldn’t want anything coming in between me and Spain, Ireland, France and Italy.
14
Most of the Muslims in Britain do not come through the European Union but rather through the Commonwealth--Pakistan, India, Malaysia, etc. None of that will be effected by Brexit. I spend a fair amount of time in Ireland. The Irish are not nearly as upset about the presence of Polish plumbers or mechanics working at auto rental shops.
34
Our 2nd and 3rd biggest trade partners are Mexico and Canada. We share borders with both.
4
Yeah its like people see some brown people on the street and say "I'm gonna vote for Brexit."
Most people understood little of the other issues at stake, they weren't explained well enough (apparently) and the liars on the other side apparently including Russia, gave them enough sop so they dismissed the two sides as being about the same on those other issues and who wants to figure all that stuff out anyhow.
A tactic also used in Trump's being elected, same sort of stuff.
15
The Brits and Americans are putting on a clinic for the world! We're demonstrating democracy's many weaknesses Plato warned about. The masses are easily manipulated by lies and half-truths, yet the British decided to make a monumental change in their way of life based on a simple majority vote? As the supposed experts in democracy, don't we know that the misinformed greatly outnumber the well-informed in any election? And we in the U.S. elect a malignant narcissist that doesn't understand or care for facts, or the truth, attacks NATO, the FBI, his own Attorney General(!), et al. At the same time he praises the psycho running North Korea that just duped him (nuclear problem in Korea is solved!), and praises the ex KGB Colonel and presidential handler that wants to subvert NATO, and expand the glorious former Soviet Union. Nobody in Hollywood could have pitched a movie with this theme because it's too ridiculous, but we're living it in two of the great democracies.
1006
The movie to pitch is a remake of The Manchurian Candidate.
10
However, just to be factual, Trump did not win the popular vote. He only won the electoral college votes, but actually lost in the popular votes. So simple majority democracy would have worked except for this antiquated electoral college system whose sole purpose was to give slave-holding states more value for each white man's vote.
490
I once read a political novel titled "The Fools In Town Are On Our Side. - And Ain't That A Majority In Any Town?" How true.
2
The referendum was an act of cowardice and cynicism on the part of David Cameron. Faced with an anti-Europe faction in his own party he chose to punt the question to the voters instead of dealing with it through his own (lack of) leadership. So, they got the lowest common denominator result. That the referendum was binding on a topic so complex is so far beyond comprehension it suggests the depth of his, and Brexiters in general, delusion.
Politicians are elected to make tough decisions. Staying a part of the EU or not was a tough decision. They could have interpreted the results differently, such as a mandate to get a better deal, which actually seems like May's strategy, but it was presented as an all or nothing proposition and that's what they're stuck with.
I wonder what all the bureaucracy that Brexit has required has cost the UK taxpayer. Billions. That's a big investment for a negative rate of return!
367
I distinctly recall Cameron campaigning on a vote for Labor as creating an existential risk for Britain. Oh the irony!
He put Britain on the road to ruin: they separate from Europe, then Scotland will want to separate from them and stay in Europe. Business and Industry moves to Ireland and Scotland and the economy goes in the toilet. Just nuts
History ain’t gonna be kind to Cameron.
140
Funky:
There was supposed to be a re-set in 2004 and it didn’t happen. The policies of Bush did enormous damage. The onset of the Great Recession only one aspect.
8
Just a clarification: the referendum was non-binding, contrary to what you stated. The referendum also did not say anything about whether or not the UK should stay in the Single Market (a la Norway) or if they should stay the custom union. Afterwards, the government decided that the 52% majority in a non-binding referendum was a popular mandate to abandon both Single Market and custom union. Insanity...
1
"Too bad more people didn’t ask it before the referendum."
==========================================
They may have. But the lies and phony photos of uncontrolled swarms of refugees scared the heck out of them.
After the vote and after the truth came out, many who voted for Brexit joined the minority in demanding a new referendum.
But the government, delighted with the original outcome, stuck fast to its victory based on lies.
Now May is faced with trying to make the unworkable work. Corrupt government and gullible voters.
Sound familiar, Americans?
492
The May branch of the Tories was totally against Brexit, so I would hardly characterize the government as being delighted with the original outcome. In face, they were so un-delighted the Prime Minister resigned.
2
The Brexit vote was originally driven by cheap labor from Poland and other Eastern EU members putting British plumbers and the like out of work.
At least May is sane. Perhaps if the role of Russia were more clearly substantiated, there could be a mulligan even at this late date. But vanishingly small likelihood. She could always send @babytrump to terrorize Helsinki and later Moscow when trump goes to return Alaska to Russia.
2
Americans shot themselves in the foot with Trump and his tariffs. The British with Brexit shot both legs off. I would feel sorry for them but they fell for the same nationalist bilateral garbage that America did when Trump was elected. That is, the Americans that fell for it less those that just hated Hillary, or voted for Stein, or didn't even bother to vote.
The lesson here is that there is strength in numbers. A collective is inherently stronger than everyone tearing at each others throats. To gain the security of the collective, one has to sacrifice some profits, but the gained stability is more than worth it. Trump voters who are about to lose their jobs in the coming months will soon find that out.
But guess what? The best way to eliminate hostilities is to prosper together. Making money together keeps the peace. Making money at the expense of others breeds contempt. Sort of like the contempt blue collar voters have for the wealthy elite so they elected a wealthy Manhattan elitist who sold them down the river by giving huge tax breaks to the super rich that they will have to pay for with future taxes and higher interest rates on their credit cards and bank loans.
But as with Brexit, nobody thought that far ahead. They all got caught up in the hopes for a whiter America with them at the top. By the way, hows all that working out ya? Get any of that new Trump healthcare? How big was that tax cut raise? Priced soybeans lately?
793
@Bruce
I think the organizers of Brexit were thinking ahead with shorts of certain stocks/sectors and are trying to follow through on the anarchy that has ensued. There are always going to be winners and losers, however the press are looking only at the losers, and not at the winners.
The elite get more so, as money has no borders.
9
Fully for-profit TeeVee has given us a reality star President. It has zero interest in educating the Citizenry. It's just not where the Profits lie.
It's like ... WE the People don't even OWN the Airwaves.
Which is ridiculous because -- WE DO. Own them.
1
For reparations, why not, instead of disenfranchising, why not make black men's (and women's!) votes 5/3 of a Citizen's. And let the ancient Electoral College have one more go at it.
Heck, if corporations are people too my friend, a little Southern Justice might be just what the doctor ordered.
1
Krugman spends half the article going on about how various aspects of EU membership favour trade between members over trade with non-members; and then he spends the other half of the article marvelling that an EU member trades more with EU members than non-members.
If Krugman really believes that trade is substantially or entirely determined by just the two factors distance (measured from where) and GDP (what proportion is traded? How is the economy structured?...), and such questions have been the subject of a lifetime's study -- then we can only conclude that he, like so much of his profession, lacks the mental capacity to handle complexity. The Gravity Model is the trade economics version of the idea that Homo sapiens is actually Homo economics. It is so often a calling card for economic illiterates. Well that's not entirely fair -- I omitted the cranks who like the theory because it allows them to claim that economics is on par with Newtonian science.
If Krugman really believes in this theory then he has a subnormal grasp of economic development. The average person can tell you that the cluster of East Asian Tigers developed through exporting to the other side of the planet, not to each other proximate though they are. Is Krugman's blind spot here due to the way that these Tigers refused to follow neoliberal dogma? To what extent is Krugman simply scared that Brexit would lead to a Corbyn premiership that also refuses to follow neoliberalism?
3
Chris, yes please continue to educate as to how much clearer you see this than Krugman does. Your summary of Krugman's thoughts is just so enlightening, please continue, really...
16
Unlike the "Tigers", who developed their industries starting from a low base and heavily relied on foreign investment plus trade in a favourable global environment (only to later run into trouble due to the irrational ebb and flow of unrestricted money and the peculiarities of the dollar standard, remember the asian crisis of the 90ies), the UK already has been a "fully developed" nation for centuries, actually THE original industrial power on this globe and with a commensurate standard of living.
But go ahead, Chris P from London and persuade the Brits that they should accept to start over from square one, perhaps to the tune of 1.50$ (or €?) for an hours work.
6
Always happy to try to educate, Rocko. However having read your comment about how 'Brexit was just about racism, nothing more', I fear that the time commitment would be too great for me. Sorry.
The Brexit referendum posed too complex a question for the public to answer, gave the government too broad a mandate to define and was transformed into an impractical political movement.
18
Why vote for Brexit?
Why Not?
That's seem to be as much thinking into the potential dire consequences as many voters were willing to give. Just like votes for Trump. Or Jill Stein.
Even a vote in anger should be done with more consideration than a poor yelp review.
23
So Great Britain, voting for the hate (“unlimited” immigration) and the seduction of nationalism, very much like the United States, is now facing economic disaster through a trade miscalculation.
Like Donald Trump’s xenophobia and his dog-whistles about America (and Americans) losing jobs to China and Mexico and our being stiffed with astronomically high tariffs by the evil Canadians, Brexit was going to be a raging success. Marine LePen would be running France, Angela Merkel would be prized out of office by the twin pincers of immigrant crime and the renaissance of Nazisim, and right-turning Poles and Hungarians and Italians would all conspire to turn back the (black) tide of sub-Saharan refugees with their strange Muslim creed. The Brexiteers found a soul mate across the Atlantic in Donald Trump as confirmation of a growing international tide to take their countries back. Until the bill came due.
Now America has declared economic war with a cunning adversary that it cannot possibly defeat (China) in either the long run or the short. Erstwhile allies inch away, including the U.K., knowing now that they’re on their own.
Brexit and “Make America Great Again” are surprised and shocked that the rest of the world didn’t blink.
“Now what?,” they whisper to one another. In the dark.
300
@Sox
Great comment, however I would only quibble about taking on China. On the surface it seems like there is a trade war, but (over several posts I have made) I think it is coordinated to specifically deconstruct certain sectors to make winners (the President/his family/backers) and losers ( the heartland/farmers ? )
Anyways, you can see the obvious movement, as all nations (except Russia) are inching away and biding their time for the next 2 years, thinking that there will be a reset. I believe them to be correct.
9
@FunkyIrishman: Point taken. I have no problem with folks in the commentariat pulling my coat to stuff and telling me I'm all wet.
It is astounding that two of the biggest Democracies on earth who are filled with inventive, talented, intelligent people have engineered their own demise. I guess Britain has many under-educated people like in the USA who'd rather see a show instead of dealing with substance. If the people in a free Democracy allow this to happen to them, they deserve failure. Learn to speak Russian and Mandarin, because apparently, those are the countries that will be the future of the world. Britain and America are not as smart as they think they are.
1
''All of this explains why May is trying to negotiate a deal that keeps the customs union intact. '' - The ruling party is being split apart on the question alone of whether there is going to be a hard or soft border with Ireland. (let alone Scotland and Wales wanting to deal with the E.U.)
Time is money and any delay of even half an hour (compounded over thousands upon thousand of vehicles just trying to get up the road) would be devastating to the local economies, let alone trying to get goods back and forth across the channel.
The ruling party knows that not only is it a money issue, but translates to a political one with dire consequences, It speeds up calls for reunification and independence respectively.
They are looking for an exit strategy, but the only exit there is going to be is their massive losses at the polls.
11
May should schedule a do-over on the referendum.
12
Part of the problem seems to be that as civilization evolves, economic interaction becomes ever more complicated while the brains of voters and politicians are not evolving in pace. Of course British voters didn't understand what the consequences of Brexit would be.
In the U.S., this problem is further complicated because our politicians have to spend the majority of time panhandling for campaign contributions instead of boning up on the complexities of things like how the internet actually works, modern trade, banking and the complicated mechanizations of Wall St.
And to receive those contributions they often vote for legislation only beneficial to their contributors at the expense of the rest of us.
So instead of careful, proactive planning, we are left with passing of the buck and reactive, sometimes improvisational actions to deal with the disasters that our incompetence and corruption create.
111
Alan, the GOP Congress isn’t defective because it’s so busy raising money. It’s defective because it is a collection of venal lackeys doing what a few crazy billionaires tell them to do. In return they get re-elected because of a massive brainwashing campaign that has no equal in changing sentient voters into rabble.
168
Alan, the convo would be much different had gore defeated W - we wouldn't have the Roberts court, and corporations wouldn't have the right to political speech. Brought to you courtesy of Nader voters. Stein voters just made it worse.
20
John, I've written 1,000 comments to NYT detailing my interpretation of the sins of the GOP. This time I didn't identify them as the primary villains here or describe the right wing cabal that dispenses their propaganda and pays off the politicians to pass most of the legislation I detest.
Sorry for the break in my consistent partisanship. However, I believe you are wrong. Democrat and Republican politicians have to raise insane amounts of money to stay in office and both parties are worse as a result, even if the GOP is much worse.
Without serious campaign finance reform, nothing changes.
It is not just that Brussels will set UK policy. Now UK will need a bureaucracy of its own to negotiate and set policies of its own with other countries not in the EU.
6
Britain got a terribly bitter dose of self-inflicted pain when it elected Margaret Thatcher as their PM. We got ours with Ronald Reagan. Decades later, we are still chasing each other's destinies, with Trump and May. Each is his and her own brand of disaster.
Why did we get these two? For that we need to look at each nations' labor movements and their failure at resurgence, after the 80's and 90's. Both nations have a sizable precariat. Both nations, of all the Western nations, have the stingiest of social safety nets. Neither nation was able to produce leadership that can inspire voters to move away from the abyss of Ferengi economics.
But here we are. Both nations are on a very steep trajectory toward painful times. We might be able to apply the brakes if the Democrats get serious about messaging and embracing a left flank they've pushed away for far too long. For Britain, the brake pads are completely worn. Short of Labour completely booting out the Tories, I don't see a way out of the monumental catastrophe that Brexit will be. In these Trumpian times, it is Vladimir Putin who wins. He gets to survey a disunited, destabilizing Europe from his Kremlin windows.
It worries me that no Democrats are emerging in the main areas of policy wonkery to offer a contrast to the inherent stupidity and ignorance of the Trump cabinet. There is nothing, until a reaction becomes a must, like SCOTUS
---
www.rimaregas.com
195
@Rima
''Both nations, of all the Western nations, have the stingiest of social safety nets.'' - I don't need to point out that Britain has the NHS, (which is night and day in comparison to what yanks offer), but on the flip side, are far more stringent guidelines to getting onto the dole. They don't even offer a work component, but rather just say no, regardless if there are children.
Having said that, the progressive policies are there for both sides of the equation, however I believe there needs to be a dynamic young leader to exemplify them (a la Trudeau).
The tories are going to be decimated in the next election, but it will be incremental change (parliamentary logjams). In the U.S. (with all or nothing) I believe there will be super majorities for Liberals by 2020 to enact a New New Deal (a la FDR/LBJ) We shall see.
Keep on pushing and all you do.
19
Irishman,
I tried to be specific in my generalization by using "stingiest.". There is no question that having the NHS in California would be transformative. Alabama and Mississippi? Miraculous. But comparing the NHS to what the French have?
We have a huge vacuum of leadership. I'm not optimistic.
Thanks for the reply!
Regas, left flank like Col. Sanders or Nader or Stein? Pullleaze...
6
Prof Krugman
It's not about the customs union, it's about the single market. The single market is a regulatory union.
10
Just got through reading the piece and your point is staring me in the face. It's the single/internal market that Britain needs to stay in (plus c.u.). Otherwise, they will still have a hard border with Northern Ireland. So, ECA/EFTA?
4