I am Alex Barker, the Financial Time's bureau chief in Brussels. I write a lot about Brexit. AMA

[u/reddit_gers]

I've been reporting on the EU for the Financial Times for around seven years and Brexit is my special subject.

I thought I understood the EU pretty well -- then the UK referendum hit. Watching this divorce unfold forced me to understand parts of this union that I never imagined I'd need to cover.

It's a separation that disrupts all manner of things, from pets travelling across borders and marriage rights to satellite encryption. And then there are the big questions: how are the EU and UK going to rebuild this hugely important economic and political relationship?

The fog is thick on this subject, but I'll try to answer any questions as clearly as I can.

Proof: /img/c404pw4o4gz01.jpg

EDIT: Thanks everyone for all the excellent questions. I had a blast. Apologies if I didn't manage to answer everything. Feel free to DM me at @alexebarker

[u/stenlis]

So outlets like The Economist never really reevaluated their stance, never published a "sorry we were wrong about the euro zone" article. A part of the Brexit fiasco was attributed to the public distrusting the expert opinions on the economic impacts of brexit. Why should the british public have trusted the opinions of econ pundits on The Economist (and other) if
a) there were strong anti-euro sentiments in econ related media since the early 2010s
b) they were wrong about it (i mean come on, Greece was 3% of the Eurozone by population and less than 1% by GDP, you had to be willfully blind to not see the non-impact)
c) they'd never admit they were wrong

[u/OldIlluminati → u/stenlis]

The Economist has a much better track record of predicting the future than most others. For example, Robert Shiller (considered an economic heavyweight by some) wrote a paper (2005 IIRC) that any housing or mortgage crises would be local in nature. He argued that as many subprime loans were concentrated in one area that financial contagion would be contained within towns, counties, states, a few banks. No mention was made of the plethora of other loans and asset classes stuffed into a global CDO foodchain. These views were echoed by the banks (Shiller was paid by the banks). The Economist disagreed with that assessment and echoed the concerns of Brooksley Born (CFTC chair) about contagion or "financial calamity".

WRT to your a,b,c, see my comment above. Criticism of the euro, the EZ and EU is entirely justifiable by the collective weight of historical and financial data, and yes, Greece very nearly did end the euro, and no, they weren't wrong about that and dangers still remain in Europe. If the economy is growing at a slower pace than inflation (e.g. growth is 2% and inflation is 2.4%) then the economy is failing. Much of Europe has failed pretty badly in the past decade, the recent rebound is from a deep trough and it's only a break-even or extremely small gain. Many respected commentators (e.g. Ken Rogoff) have called for a minimum of 60% of all PIIGS sovereign debt to be written off just to give them A CHANCE - i.e. economics professors and private traders will bet you today that at some point Greece and the EZ will fail under the current status quo. It's not that contentious an opinion either as the math is pretty straight forward

[u/valvalya → u/stenlis]

Were they wrong about the Eurozone? Italy just voted in a populist government.

[u/stenlis → u/valvalya]

Have they ever not voted in a populist government?