Part of me wants to be proven wrong on how strong the EU will negotiate but I understand the reason and need for them to do so and I expect they will. I hate that it is likely that remain supporters will get to say "I told you so' in about 2 years time.
If the EU really wanted to hurt the UK they'd declare the following things, in increasing order of nastiness:
1. Britain can swap immigrants for retirees. The residency rights of all Britons in Europe are contingent on residency rights of Europeans in Britain. If Europeans are made to apply for visas, so will every one of the millions of Britons in Spain.
2. Drain the country of talent. Recognizing that millions of British are being unilaterally stripped of their EU citizenship, create a new category of general EU citizens, and allow talented British to apply for instant and permanent residence, conditional on (1) giving up British citizenship and (2) learning the language of their continental locale within the next five years.
3. Tell Scotland that it would accept their continuing as a member of the EU if and only if they applied, as an independent state, while the UK was a member state of the EU.
4. Tell the UK that Article 50 is considered to have been invoked as of now, and they have two years to leave.
I take it 4 can't happen because the article has to be invoked by the leaving country. However surely there is another article for just kicking a country out of the union?
Presumably. However it is not in the interests of the other nations or the beaurocracy to have the UK leave.
The UK is a net contributor to the EU. If the funds it provides are pulled then the other contributors must contribute more or achieve less. The recipients will receive less either way.
The UK leaving weakens the EU significantly. It will also weaken the UK, but make no mistake the best interests of most in power are served by drawing this process out.
On top of that you have to remember that many other nations have severe EU doubts. Key amongst them are France and the Netherlands, two large contributors. An EU collapse could occur if either or both of these leave.
Why would they leave if the UK is kicked out? It's an overtly aggressive move against EU skeptics. Aggressive moves have a long history of causing increased support for the target. Refusing to offer good deals once the UK has left will not be viewed as aggressive.
3 would cause remarkably high migration north of the border, some would probably try living in tents. Scots would be complaining of all the bloody English. I know they do that already. :)
4 Fairly sure they can't, or would have by now, just because.
since we're into the absurd (3 and 4 are Treaty breaches), here's a satirical list of how the UK could respond to the above, in increasing order of nastiness:
1. The residency rights of all EU citizens in Britain are contingent on residency rights of Britons in the EU.
2. Cut corporation tax to 0% and freeze all contributions to the EU budget with immediate effect
3. Veto everything possible in the Council until exit, and voting against where QMV applies
4. Send half the Royal Navy to the Mediterranean and offer to transport anyone from Northern Africa to the south of Europe, and use the rest to exclude EU ships from British waters
of course once you're at 4 you're basically at war, and then maybe May will press the red button and launch Trident at Brussels
I don't see why Britain would want French or Germans to apply for visas. Hardly a negotiation point.
Regarding point 3, to allow Scotland to join, EU would have to renegotiate the 1998 SGP treaty among all member countries, because Scottish budget deficit is worse than what it has ever been in e.g. Greece. That'd be nowadays probably a harder thing than Brexit itself.
a crucial point that many have missed is that independence after a hard brexit would likely result in Scots no longer having the automatic right to work in England.
in the previous referendum this wasn't an issue, as the UK and an independent Scotland would both be in the EU together, with the freedom of movement of workers.
your average Scot values the ability to work in England much more highly than the ability to work in the EU, so this makes Scottish independence less likely, not more, which explains Sturgeon's recent behaviour.
Expect it to be a major feature in any second independence referendum campaign.
I suspect if Scotland ever seceded they'd fudge automatic rights to work in England and open borders (in return for border checks at Scottish airports and a customs union) in a similar manner as needs to be negotiated for Northern Ireland. Those negotiations aren't going to be fun...
Still doesn't guarantee an actual Brexit. My guess is when all is said in done there either is no Brexit or there's a deal that is very close to staying in the Union with a few adjustments. The vote was critical to obtain a negotiating position. I don't see it as the end of the world.
I approve of this plan. Work something out where there's no Brexit, but there are a couple of token, hot-air actions on immigration to convince the Leave voters that Something Is Being Done. That's all they ever wanted anyway; if the options on the referendum had been "Remain", "Leave" and "I don't care, I just want fewer immigrants", Leave would have lost in a landslide.
FYI, that's probably not true. We don't know why people voted the way they did, on either side. However, some of the more credible polling suggests that sovereignty was actually the biggest single issue for leave voters (with immigration second).
Well, this explains the 3.2 pence drop of GBP vs USD today.
I'm glad that they are going through with it, even though I voted to stay. Backing down would have been a big signal to the public that it has no voice. At least we can say that democracy is still functioning (partially).
The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today? The timing of referendums is a political game played by the elites to manipulate the results. But you couldn't run the country if there were periodic votes and the public changed their minds back and forth repeatedly. Direct democracy doesn't work for long term planning which is why representative democracy with slow changes in government is the only way to make a modern democracy work.
A game played by Cameron expecting a coalition government and bugger all chance of needing to call a referendum. Probably going to hasten Scots secession too. A game Cameron wasn't very good at.
He now gets the place in history he deserves. Shame everyone outside Westminster suffers though.
I don't think you can blame it on just a game by Cameron. There definitely was a strong movement among the voters that wanted the Brexit referendum to take place.
You know, in fact so strong that Brexit got a majority of votes.
He boxed himself into a stupid position by betting all on renegotiating UK's place then bringing home none of the things that mattered to their party policies, finishing by tellng the country what a great job he'd done. It was a play to diffuse UKIP and the EU sceptic segment of the party which has been a varying problem for decades. Certainly since Maastricht almost split the party. Referendum wasn't necessary, there was no new treaty, no change in our terms. That's when a referendum may make sense, like fter Lisbon or Maastricht perhaps.
Wilson gave us the 1975 referendum on the EEC (Britain's first referendum). That was called because euro sceptics were threatening to split the Labour party. Plus ça change.
The 75 campaign had nearly everyone for remain. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were the main proponents of out - for remarkably similar reasons. Thatcher campaigned hard for remain! All long before anyone aside from Heath and a few FO wonks knew anything about ever closer union and so on, it's just the Common Market. As we've learned since, Heath knew full well what he signed up to.
Post Maastricht when realisation of union hit, UKIP and Tory Euro skeptics became more visible, and started to lead to some vote fragmentation. Some of the calls for referendum were actually audible now, and as we went through the Blair years we learned new government by pager and soundbite. This fed the rise of LibDems, Greens and UKIP (probably SNP too), as the electorate became disillusioned with media centric government.
Of course many were attracted to the various policies, but a time of plummeting turnouts, and politicians no one trusts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with our electoral system. Remarkably we end up with our only coalition since the war.
In an age of government by ideology and Overton Windows, even on scientific and factual matters, the voters wanting a referendum was irrelevant, unless there's rioting in the streets. They sure as heck didn't listen.
After Brexit both Johnson and Gove looked ashen. Neither believed they'd win. They had no clue what next. A depressing amount of Brexit voters seemed to regret the morning after or just wanted to make an anti-govt protest.
A game good sir. Very badly played as it goes. Just another knee jerk idea so beloved of Cameron.
No wonder May made Boris Foreign Secretary - "you broke it, you bloody fix it".
So it's just a "bad play of game" if a politician allows a referendum about something where a very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum?
This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters.
And I think that contempt, quite visible in the campaign at least in British media, is precisely what turned the tide in the referendum.
If the timing of referendums is a political game (actually I don't agree) played by the elites to manipulate the results then it didn't work out too well for them did it? They lost and the previously labelled fruit cakes and loonies (to quote David Cameron) won. The animus expressed by most of the elite against Leave was intense.
Indeed. For better or worse, the polling data so far doesn't show any great sign of "regrexit", and I've seen nothing so far to suggest that we'd collectively make a different decision if we voted again tomorrow.
The timing is probably surprisingly insignificant. The more relevant issue is that the public were asked to vote against something actual and flawed, versus an alternative of projecting their wishes about Britain's future status in the world, access to trade, levels of immigration etc.
c.f. the referendum on voting systems, where the public was asked if they wanted to vote in favour of an actual, flawed replacement system and decided to accept the (in many respects at least as flawed) status quo.
Ironically, I think what would have produced the reverse result in the Brexit referendum would have been a genuinely Eurosceptic government painfully awkwardly negotiating an alternative arrangement outside the EU and asking for the public to ratify it. The other irony being that - on account of the EU needing to be seen to be reasonable in their negotiations - the deal on offer would probably have been better than what we get.
You can say that about any vote. Hindsight is 20/20. I didn't think the referendum was a good idea either, but it happened, and for better or worse it must be seen through to hold at least some standard of democracy.
>The thing about referendum democracy is, if they voted again today the result would probably be different. Why is the public's desire from the past more binding than the public's desire today?
Except you could say that about any election ever. Why is the public's desire to have Party X in power three weeks ago more binding than the public's desire to have Party X in power today?
Backing down would also give the critics even more ammunition for the next EU crisis. The European politicians are exceedingly good that keeping having new referendums until the people vote in a pro-EU direction, but the anti-EU side never get "do-overs".
I'm sorry, I differ. 17 million people voted to leave. 16 million voted to remain. There are 64 million people in the UK. 2 major regions voted to remain. This is the best example I have seen thus of the 'Tyranny of the minority', and this is not democracy in action.
This is just how voting tends to end up in many countries. First, not everyone is eligible to vote. Second, not everyone who is eligible to vote does so.
In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively.
A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.
Okay, first, why the downvote? My points are valid, and they add to conversation: Quorum is an important question. 26% of the population voted to leave, a great many of whom won't be alive in the next 10 years. 25% voted to remain, most of whom will be alive in the next 30-40 years.
And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because
Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
I didn't downvote but I found your point utterly specious. Meetings have quorum rules to prevent skulduggery, a minority group colluding to pack a low-attendance meeting and vote on momentous issues. A national referendum is open to anyone eligible who cares to vote.
Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote.
As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person?
p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.
The Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, had to have a minimum threshold of 40% of the population voting yes. Furthermore, the Clarity Act of Canada implying some sort of 'quorum' by stating "Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success" for the independance of a province of Canada, but generally thought of as Quebec.
There is the legal principle of maintaining the 'status quo' and the preponderance of maintaining the status quo to maintaining a stable and governable society. My contention is that if 26% of the populace can decide the destiny of the wider society, and by a very slim margin, then democracy has not been served. If it was 26% to 10% that would be a different story, but it was not, it was 26% to 25% and that is a very slim margin indeed.
Note that the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 had a minimum threshold of 40% of the electorate. This meant registered voters. If you want to make a fair comparison to brexit, 37% of the electorate voted to leave.
I downvoted for "not democracy" and "tyranny of the minority". They are hyperbolic statements you would likely not be making if your side won, especially given what you based these statements on are present in every open, contentious vote ever, would still be true even if your side won, and only serves to inflame the conversation.
I think they would only be 'hyperbolic' if the corollary wouldn't be true. As in, if there was a second referendum held now, the 'join' side would likely win.
If 'my side had won' then that would have meant that the status quo would have 'remained'. It is a shockingly low threshold that 25-26% of the population could make such a large decision. That is my point. The threshold should have been higher.
So, in my view, 'tyranny of the minority' holds true. 26% of the UK polulation is a minority of that population.
"Tyranny of the minority"? I want to reply to your comment but before I do I want to make sure that was a typo (as in, you meant to type "majority"), and not my misunderstanding what you are saying.
Sure, but it's not uncommon to set higher thresholds for major, breaking changes to the status quo than a simple plurality of votes.
Brexit is also unusual, as others have alluded to, in how skewed the demographics were by age, which is pretty significant if the repercussions are expected to last for a decade and affect the proportion of the public too young to vote significantly more than the proportion of the public most significantly in favour of Brexit.
The other side of that argument is that the referendum saw an unusually high turnout for a UK election and the margin as wide as those which have produced comfortable Parliamentary majorities. On the other hand, more people voted against Brexit than for any party that ever governed the UK by itself.
I don't disagree, but that's every vote. Every law affects young people more than dead people. And every time somebody like Al Franken gets elected there's a loud chorus of "It's not fair; I would have voted if I knew it would be close." What else are we going to do? Have a pre-vote to see whose vote counts double?
And: you don't need a doctorate in game theory to realise that a pre-vote wouldn't make the problem do away, it would just make it more complex to predict and speculate.
Not every vote is expected to be a one-off setting the policy direction for a generation or three. And whilst it's normal for older people to be more conservative and more reliable voters, the skew by age was unusually strong in this one (56% of 25-49 year olds voted Remain, 75% of the under 25s that actually voted voted Remain, but 56% of over 50s and 61% of those over 65 swung it in favour of Leave)
As for alternatives, I mentioned higher quorums ("If 50% of the entire electorate vote Leave, we'll leave" would have seen no change happen, at least until Cameron was undermined by his own party) which are actually pretty common for major changes in democratic votes within organizations. There were also calls for 16/17 year olds to vote although this certainly wouldn't have affected the end result.
Tangential point for futile rhetorical arguments: the split between net taxpayers vs net recipients of state benefits/pensions which I don't think any pollster has been bold enough to evaluate. Usually pensioners are strongly conservative and the unemployed and unskilled part-time workers strongly left-wing which makes "our voters are the ones paying for it" arguments redundant, but Brexit is one cause that almost certainly united the votes of pensioners and the unemployed and underemployed, and depended on them to prevail
The original vote to join the EU didn't have a 50% of the electorate quorum, so by that measure, leaving the EU is merely righting a historical mistake. :)
The vote wasn't to join the EU (EEC), it was to allow the public to leave the EU (EEC) they'd recently joined, if they weren't very disinterested in doing so at the time :)
Sure, but it's not uncommon to set higher thresholds for major, breaking changes to the status quo than a simple plurality of votes.
Although that immediately raises the question of whether a vote to remain was really a vote for the status quo in any meaningful sense. What if it was interpreted as, for example, giving an active mandate for the "ever closer union" advocated by many European politicians? What if the UK found its negotiating position within the EU weakened once the long-standing threat of leaving had passed?
As we're now seeing, the in/out status alone is only a very small part of the story.
This shouldn't be downvoted/ignored -- there was a significant campaign to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the EU referendum, as was done for the Scottish independence referendum. It had backing from several political parties, but didn't happen.
It demonstrates that even putting this to a referendum in the first place was an utter farce. People voted to be free of EU regulation, but the UK depends upon the EU market, so now we'll still have to conform to the same regulations, but with the added benefit that we'll have no way to influence changing them.
No one - leave or remain - is going to get what they voted for from this.
EU just can't afford to give the UK a good deal since this will start a chain reaction with other dissatisfied countries. Sadly this will only end up being a lose/lose situation.
Its a bit deeper than that, freedom of movement of people/goods/services/capital lies at the very root of why the EU was founded
Even Norway and Switzerland and Iceland had to compromise to gain access to this market.
It would be absolutely hilarious (from a political point of view) if the UK endsup in same position of having to pay into the EU and implement most of the laws without having any say in how its run.
Satisfying everyone is not possible. Giving everyone the most fair outcome... well, they're politicians, so that's an unlikely scenario too, and even if it was all fair, some would be unhappy.
Take the Netherlands. From what I know, we pay more to the EU than we receive in subsidies and stuff, and hopefully trade is making up for that (who knows).
Take Spain. If I remember correctly, they're getting more from the EU than they pay, so for them it's a definite win.
So if the leaders from these countries go and negotiate, what's fair? Should we share all our wealth next month with the rest of Europe? Sounds unfair towards us. Should we keep it all and not invest in the EU? Also not a great idea.
Every penny we pay will make us more unhappy; yet every penny we don't share will make the other party more unhappy. I'm not sure there always are good outcomes. (This is probably one of the reasons why governments and politicians are fairly universally hated.)
A similar example could be constructed with the refugees issue. Some countries are being overrun; others only receive as many as those front-line countries send through. The front-line countries want to send as many as possible; we want to get as few as possible. Every extra refugee makes our representatives less happy about the deal and every refugee less makes them less happy about the deal.
> Take the Netherlands. From what I know, we pay more to the EU than we receive in subsidies and stuff, and hopefully trade is making up for that (who knows).
I'd bet that especially for a country that thrives on trade that a definite win. Just think about the ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam which serve as huge gateways for goods into the EU. They'd loose large amounts of trade if those goods could not be forwarded tax and border-control free to Germany and France.
Alright for a small country, perhaps a bad example. As a Dutchman it was the best example I knew, but I'm sure there is more countries that pay more money to the EU than they directly receive.
The largest net payer for the EU budget are Germany, France and the UK. The list is actually relatively short (a bit less than half the countries are net payers, among then the Netherlands).
I guess it's hard to estimate how much Germany gains from being in the EU. We're an extremely export oriented country and a substantial chunk of our exports go to the EU. Those certainly benefit - and those certainly benefit if the rest of the EU does better, so we could consider at least parts of the net payments as an investment. There are also other gains that are possible only because of the european integration: We're actually starting to share military assets with you: Germany provides the armored component of your 43rd mechanized brigade, the 11 Luchtmobielen Brigade is partially integrated into the Division Schnelle Kräfte, the german Seebataillon is partially being integrated into the duch Korps Mariniers and there's a LOI that the two navies want to share your most beautiful JSS, the Karel Doorman. Even from a purely financial perspective, not having to keep watch on the pesky Dutch seems to be paying of ;).
A lot of staff for trade negotiations has been cut, a lot of special rules and regulations from bilateral agreements were folded into common EU regulations. Joint research gets much easier, a lot of student travel/study agreements are governed by EU law.
Jokes aside: I think that a lot of the benefits that the EU offers go beyond the pure monetary part. Being able to travel freely, being able to work where you want without begging for a work visa. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland that basically upholds the fiction of two separate states on Irish soil while still having common cross border agreements is mainly possible because the relevant rules are done at a supernational level. I consider the money that Germany - and by extension me - pays a solid investment - despite all the numerous flaws that the EU currently has.
Germany gets stable Euro, otherwise with high export surplus DM exchange rate would skyrocket long time ago and decrease German industry competitiveness.
this isn't the case though, the agreement as a result of Article 50[1] only has to pass through QMV in the Council and through a majority in the Parliament:
"That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
That's not what I'm referring to - I meant improving the EU as a whole would be difficult if every conflicted party had their finger on the trigger of Article 50 if things don't go their way.
I don't know. I assume since the fear is that other countries will bolt that someone would know why they would bolt and maybe have an idea what could be done.
On the other hand, countries which are dissatisfied may work hard to give the UK as good a deal as possible, knowing that it will set a precedent which might end up applying to them.
A nice thought, but I think that, in reality, those counties' leaders' overriding loyalty will be to staying in the EU. Look at David Cameron's stance throughout the run-up to the Brexit--he'd never have undermined the EU project to secure an advantage for Britain post-exit.
Er, the UK has a good deal in the EU. The EU is a good thing and it gets an awful lot of blame unfairly. The EU is meant to harmonise regulation among member nations, and yet the many in the UK would blame the EU for regulation that would be in place anyway.
Things like working time regulations, so that employers across the EU have to abide by the same technical regulations. Things like making employers only make their employees work ~40 hours per week, and yet the EU is blamed for the 'Working time directive'.
There are other things, like animal welfare with the transport of animals, where the EU gets blame for the regulation, but the reality is that there would have to be regulation for the amount of time animals spend time in transport. Because the regulation is headlined as 'EU' regulation the EU gets the blame. The point is that there would UK regulation if there wasn't a EU regulation.
Article 50 will likely never be triggered. The costs of triggering it are enormous because the UK would have to literally sit there copying EU laws and turning them into UK laws. There's zero incentive to diverge because if you want to sell into the EU you need to abide by the EU regs anyway.
There's hope at least. But we've pulled the trigger, saying the bullet might not hit home isn't going to help, if we miss then the people we were shooting at aren't going to want to be friends anymore.
Sorry if that's twisting an analogy too far.
We dun goofed.
That's why we have a parliament, to stop us making these bad decisions, only PM May has said she's not going to let parliament operate (which sounds like it should be unlawful, certainly as Treason) just in case they decide not to follow the marginal vote in to the void. Presumably all to save face as backing down would be awkward for her now.
And that's, my grandchildren, is how one politicians pride killed Europe and destabilised World economies for decades ...
There's zero incentive to diverge because if you want to sell into the EU you need to abide by the EU regs anyway.
But that only applies to products and services that will actually be sold in other EU member states. Not everything is exported to the EU, and a lot of things are never exported at all, and diverging from the EU rules in those other cases could offer all kinds of advantages depending on the circumstances.
It'll be a pick and choose situation. The UK does not care at all for ideas like freedom of expression. An example is the fact that it is illegal to draw or posses or distribute drawings depicting fictitious children engaged in sexual situations. This isn't an old law that's just a relic of history that's been forgotten to be erased, it's a relatively new one.
With the kind of attitude this displays, I have a bad feeling about the "Bill of Rights" that the government has promised to create.
>Things like working time regulations, so that employers across the EU have to abide by the same technical regulations. //
Isn't the point that the capitalist leaders don't want things like the WTD and the ECHR getting in the way of their "right" to exploit low paid workers?
You're right, we'll still have nearly all the regulations but ours won't have to get passed by the socialist countries of the EU and so will be much more Conservative friendly.
Selling in to Europe is the main sticking point as we'll need to abide by the regulations on production in order to make goods ready for the EU market if we get access.
I don't think the EU intentionally wants to give Britain a bad deal just to make an example of it. It's absolutely sufficient that the EU has not the least bit of an incentive to give Britain a better deal than remaining in the EU. A lot of the benefits are membership benefits. Britain wants out, so it will loose those benefits - among them passporting, which is probably the worst hit for Britains economy. There's no conceivable reason the EU would want financial products on its market that it doesn't have any regulatory power over.
Couple that with the fact that Britain now needs to negotiate a deal where every member has diverging interests and everybody basically has a veto: France and Germany want the British financial sector, Poland wants free travel and work permits for all the polish expats in the UK, Ireland wants to keep the intra-irish border open. Norther Ireland wants free travel for its citizens to the Republic. Spain probably wants to retain tourism from the UK. All states with a coastal line to the Atlantic and Northern sea will squabble over fishing rights... Couple that with a British vote that runs contrary to open borders, lacking numbers of negotiation staff on the British side and no discernible goal of what should be negotiated. On top a British foreign minster that made a living as journalist bashing the EU. All of that on a timeline of 2 years and a hard deadline that needs an unanimous vote to extend.
Edit: Oh, and upcoming elections in Germany and France. /Edit
I can't see that ending well for the UK. It's likely that the EU will suffer as well as the consequence, but on the other hand the British were always dragging their heels somewhat. I consider it sad from a balance perspective: Britain could have been a good counterweight for Germany and France in the EU if they actually tried to shape it instead of making a half-assed show of being in, but not.
It's absolutely sufficient that the EU has not the least bit of an incentive to give Britain a better deal than remaining in the EU.
The negotiating difficulty for the EU is that it's only in control of part of the real deal for the UK.
One other big part is how well the UK can develop its relationships with the rest of the world if it's no longer constrained by things like the customs union.
A third part, perhaps more easily overlooked, is how well the UK can develop its internal economy without the constraints of EU regulations. Right now, EU regulations affect not just goods and services exported to the EU, and not even just goods and services exported at all, but also a lot of things that are bought and sold within the UK itself.
These other factors mean that for almost any area of importance in the coming negotiations, there will be some limit beyond which the UK is better off taking its ball and going home, and then playing with the rest of the world instead of the EU tomorrow, purely on economic grounds. Of course, it's going to be extremely difficult for either the EU or the UK to work out exactly where those limits are, which is surely going to be a fundamental difficulty in those coming negotiations.
> EU just can't afford to give the UK a good deal since this will start a chain reaction with other dissatisfied countries.
That's just the kinda of thinking which hurts all parties (much like opposition to free trade in general). An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
There was never much reason to tie so much to free trade: NAFTA does well enough without onerous multinational regulation or free movement; why did the EU insist upon destroying so much of what was essentially British?
What Europe should do is let Britain go, and then allow the free trade which is better for everyone.
> What Europe should do is let Britain go, and then allow the free trade which is better for everyone.
One of the contentious issue is passporting: Financial products (insurances, funds, ...) that are regulated in one EU country can be sold in all of them. A lot of them are registered in the UK - namely the City of London due to favorable conditions. Please explain: Why would the EU allow financial products that are regulated by a foreign jurisdiction? Is there any good reason for that? Does NAFTA include similar provisions?
Why do you need to follow US regulations and bookkeeping laws if you want to trade at the Wall Street? Why is the DB subject of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation?
There's much to be decided still. It's premature in the extreme to make assumptions that there won't be a reasonable solution just because at this point things aren't yet clear.
This kind of reasoning always makes me think: "What a childish way to deal with this. Please be an adult, and don not use revenge, punishment or scare tactics. You are affecting a lot of peoples lives !"
Most Europeans will be confused as most don't know spanish, however translating it you only need to know the reputation of the spanish for being lazy/late.
No ethnic joke, except perhaps pointed at the British who seem to like to colonise the warmer climes of Spain.
But basically, the joke is that Mañana never comes. Anyone familiar with (remote) Island life, from Islay on the west coast of Scotland to Saltspring Island on the west coast of BC will surely identify.
The Spanish and the Greeks tend to get a lot of 'lazy' flak in Europe. The origin of this has to do with the climate.
Many countries view hard workers working through the daylight and having evenings / night to themselves. However in the hotter nations the middle of the day and afternoon is often taken off, and work restarts later going into the evening/night. Thus it often appears like these countries only work half days.
The truth is now common knowledge around Europe however the traditional image of a Spaniard asleep in the middle of the day persists alongside the camp French snob and the Tea Toting and Tutting Brit.
As I see it the joke is no more racist than joking that the US brings kilotons of freedom to the world or that Canadians are sorry.
Manyana means tomorrow. But often tomorrow never comes, especially in the more laid back Latin American cultures, so it also means probably never. You have to know Spanish and have exposure to the culture to get the 'joke'
A constant feature of the past few decades is people commenting on the Mail that the UK is overrun with immigrants and therefore they've moved to Spain. The cognitive dissonance is strong with them.
It's fair to bemoan the general decline of your society with the desire to better your personal lot through immigrating. It's likely that they don't dislike foreigners but they do dislike being forced to subsidise them via taxes. It's a side effect of the welfare state.
I don't get it. I suppose Spanish is not required to get it, the question marks, "si" and "articulo 50" give most of it away, but I don't get what Maannyaaannaaa means, or what it's supposed to sound like. Or why the UK representative would speak Spanish anyway.
I guess this proves that economic suicide does not have to be rushed decision. The EU is going to make an example of the U.K. When you have interest rates at zero, a large deficit (both current account and governmental), and a political system at war with itself, then it might not be the best time to leave.
Recruiting all the necessary people to negotiate with the EU (and all deals proxied by EU toward the rest of the world, including the US) do take time, the EU have handled most of this for the UK the last 40 years or so...
So even if it was possible in theory to negotiate a decent outcome the UK won't be able to because they have no one to do the negotiation. Leaving everything up to Boris to work out does not sound like a plan.
If this supposedly gentle, peace-loving, democratic association of free and independent nations is going to vengefully "make an example" of the UK for trying to leave, then that demonstrates the Leavers are right about its true nature.
When you have interest rates at zero, a large deficit (both current account and governmental), and a political system at war with itself, then it might not be the best time to leave.
The thing is, the position across much of the remaining EU is not so different to that. If the politicians can't get their act together and reach some reasonable compromise, everyone is going to lose out for a while because of Brexit, both UK and remaining EU.
I don't see why you should. Germany has lots of foreign people living there, now even hundreds of thousands who entered illegally in the first place, and still they won't be sent away. A Brit will have no trouble there (or here, I'm in another EU country).
Getting a work permit for a non-EU national is a hassle. We just hired a canadian and I can tell you, no employer really wants to go through this. Without a work visa no job (unless your prefer illegal jobs). You might have some luck being registered in the UK and pretending to work remotely as a freelancer, but all in all, you'll have a mess at your hands. Air travel will be risky (might need to show passport, visa), air travel to non-schengen destinations quite impossible. No proper way of getting insurance coverage. Don't get stopped by the police, don't have a car accident, no speeding, ...
You certainly can sit tight and never move around - because that's what the illegals do - but I don't think you really want that.
We were talking about someone who already lives in Germany and has residence there. Whatever happens in Brexit negotiations, such people will be able to continue as if nothing happened. If they move somewhere else and then want to come back, that will make things more difficult.
If this is not the case, then EU has practically reneged on everything it was standing for and I want to leave, too.
And even in future there will be Canadians and Brits moving to Germany.
(Believe me I know the work permit bureaucracy in my country (Finland); I've been a hiring manager for various non-EU nationals).
> We were talking about someone who already lives in Germany and has residence there.
So authorities know he's a british national since you need to register your primary residence in germany. Unless an agreement is found that allows british nationals to stay legally, he'll have to apply for a visa. And the EU has never been standing for "Let all people work without permit", it's always been a club membership benefit. I can see that an agreement could be fund, but I also see that the British government and a large chunk of the leave voters seem hell-bent at kicking out EU nationals. That will make finding an agreement much much harder. Poland will want that as a bargain chip, they do have a significant population in the UK and they do sit at the table.
> And even in future there will be Canadians and Brits moving to Germany.
Certainly - it's just going to be much harder and thus much less.
Brits won't be kicking out any Polish plumbers, either. They're people who do work and make business and it will be generally recognized a useful practise to allow them to stay.
Currently, EU citizens don't need a work or residence permit, but if you actually get a job and stay longer than that, you will still need to register your right of residence. It's not really that different. And believe me, existing rights of residence will not be forfeited in case of Brexit.
Shall we make a bet? I'll offer a pint if I'm wrong.
The difference between a work/residence permit, and merely registering ones address, is very significant.
EU citizens have the right to work in other EU countries by treaty. It can only be withdrawn in exceptional cases. They can also travel to other countries to look for work, and stay for as long as they can support themselves (I think) and are looking for work.
Non-EU citizens do not have the right to work in EU countries, it is only granted in (less) exceptional cases. A work/residence permit application typically requires a job offer. It can expire or be withdrawn, is often linked to a particular employer, and usually has limitations compared to EU citizens -- for example, not getting unemployment benefits, or state healthcare.
Has anybody yet plotted the time when article 50 should be triggered against the time of the announcement? First it was immediately. Then it after a few weeks. Then it was after a new PM was found. Then it was later this year. Now it is early next year.
Actually, the current prime minister announced that Article 50 wouldn't be triggered until 2017 (at the earliest) in a Hustings about 2 weeks after the referendum.
These lose-lose scenarios make me sad. Does anyone else feel that the "we're paying 4 gold coins but are receiving only 2 platinum bracelets" style arguments are _extremely_ petty? They come from stable societies in which people who are willing to put in the effort are well rewarded and live carefree lives. I don't know if it's just because I'm living right in the middle of the tech bubble and I am empowered to pursue my interests anywhere, but I wish people would be taught that they have no right to feel they own a place just because they were born there. I believe spreading progress is essential for our peaceful survival and maintaining our way of life. The media is actively harming this.
164 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] thread1. Britain can swap immigrants for retirees. The residency rights of all Britons in Europe are contingent on residency rights of Europeans in Britain. If Europeans are made to apply for visas, so will every one of the millions of Britons in Spain.
2. Drain the country of talent. Recognizing that millions of British are being unilaterally stripped of their EU citizenship, create a new category of general EU citizens, and allow talented British to apply for instant and permanent residence, conditional on (1) giving up British citizenship and (2) learning the language of their continental locale within the next five years.
3. Tell Scotland that it would accept their continuing as a member of the EU if and only if they applied, as an independent state, while the UK was a member state of the EU.
4. Tell the UK that Article 50 is considered to have been invoked as of now, and they have two years to leave.
The last two would be especially funny.
2 would be interesting but incredibly unlikely
3 would be voted down by the many countries that have non trivial problems with internal divisions
4 can't happen
The UK is a net contributor to the EU. If the funds it provides are pulled then the other contributors must contribute more or achieve less. The recipients will receive less either way.
The UK leaving weakens the EU significantly. It will also weaken the UK, but make no mistake the best interests of most in power are served by drawing this process out.
On top of that you have to remember that many other nations have severe EU doubts. Key amongst them are France and the Netherlands, two large contributors. An EU collapse could occur if either or both of these leave.
Why would they leave if the UK is kicked out? It's an overtly aggressive move against EU skeptics. Aggressive moves have a long history of causing increased support for the target. Refusing to offer good deals once the UK has left will not be viewed as aggressive.
4 Fairly sure they can't, or would have by now, just because.
1. The residency rights of all EU citizens in Britain are contingent on residency rights of Britons in the EU.
2. Cut corporation tax to 0% and freeze all contributions to the EU budget with immediate effect
3. Veto everything possible in the Council until exit, and voting against where QMV applies
4. Send half the Royal Navy to the Mediterranean and offer to transport anyone from Northern Africa to the south of Europe, and use the rest to exclude EU ships from British waters
of course once you're at 4 you're basically at war, and then maybe May will press the red button and launch Trident at Brussels
Far too expensive; it would be much cheaper to just switch off the Eurobond clearing houses without warning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_French_Navy_shi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Italian_Navy_sh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Spanish_Navy_sh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_shi...
Regarding point 3, to allow Scotland to join, EU would have to renegotiate the 1998 SGP treaty among all member countries, because Scottish budget deficit is worse than what it has ever been in e.g. Greece. That'd be nowadays probably a harder thing than Brexit itself.
We haven't had a war yet, we're not in a recession, and the EU is forging ahead with its army, letting Turkey in, etc etc.
I very much doubt the EU will exist in 10 years. It will fall, and our friends around Europe will be free again.
I very much doubt the UK will exist in 10 years. It will fall, and Scotland will be free again :-)
in the previous referendum this wasn't an issue, as the UK and an independent Scotland would both be in the EU together, with the freedom of movement of workers.
your average Scot values the ability to work in England much more highly than the ability to work in the EU, so this makes Scottish independence less likely, not more, which explains Sturgeon's recent behaviour.
I suspect if Scotland ever seceded they'd fudge automatic rights to work in England and open borders (in return for border checks at Scottish airports and a customs union) in a similar manner as needs to be negotiated for Northern Ireland. Those negotiations aren't going to be fun...
A Polish man was killed in Essex, and there's been a huge increase in racist attacks.
> we're not in a recession,
Britain hasn't left yet. But the Bank of England base rate is at a record low.
> and the EU is forging ahead with its army,
:-)
> letting Turkey in, etc etc.
After Erdoğan's response to the failed coup, Turkey is further from joining the EU than it's been for a long time.
A Finnish man was killed by Iraqi asylum seekers a couple of days ago; are we now at war with Iraq? Hardly.
FYI, that's probably not true. We don't know why people voted the way they did, on either side. However, some of the more credible polling suggests that sovereignty was actually the biggest single issue for leave voters (with immigration second).
I'm glad that they are going through with it, even though I voted to stay. Backing down would have been a big signal to the public that it has no voice. At least we can say that democracy is still functioning (partially).
He now gets the place in history he deserves. Shame everyone outside Westminster suffers though.
You know, in fact so strong that Brexit got a majority of votes.
He boxed himself into a stupid position by betting all on renegotiating UK's place then bringing home none of the things that mattered to their party policies, finishing by tellng the country what a great job he'd done. It was a play to diffuse UKIP and the EU sceptic segment of the party which has been a varying problem for decades. Certainly since Maastricht almost split the party. Referendum wasn't necessary, there was no new treaty, no change in our terms. That's when a referendum may make sense, like fter Lisbon or Maastricht perhaps.
Wilson gave us the 1975 referendum on the EEC (Britain's first referendum). That was called because euro sceptics were threatening to split the Labour party. Plus ça change.
The 75 campaign had nearly everyone for remain. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were the main proponents of out - for remarkably similar reasons. Thatcher campaigned hard for remain! All long before anyone aside from Heath and a few FO wonks knew anything about ever closer union and so on, it's just the Common Market. As we've learned since, Heath knew full well what he signed up to.
Post Maastricht when realisation of union hit, UKIP and Tory Euro skeptics became more visible, and started to lead to some vote fragmentation. Some of the calls for referendum were actually audible now, and as we went through the Blair years we learned new government by pager and soundbite. This fed the rise of LibDems, Greens and UKIP (probably SNP too), as the electorate became disillusioned with media centric government.
Of course many were attracted to the various policies, but a time of plummeting turnouts, and politicians no one trusts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with our electoral system. Remarkably we end up with our only coalition since the war.
In an age of government by ideology and Overton Windows, even on scientific and factual matters, the voters wanting a referendum was irrelevant, unless there's rioting in the streets. They sure as heck didn't listen.
After Brexit both Johnson and Gove looked ashen. Neither believed they'd win. They had no clue what next. A depressing amount of Brexit voters seemed to regret the morning after or just wanted to make an anti-govt protest.
A game good sir. Very badly played as it goes. Just another knee jerk idea so beloved of Cameron.
No wonder May made Boris Foreign Secretary - "you broke it, you bloody fix it".
This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters.
And I think that contempt, quite visible in the campaign at least in British media, is precisely what turned the tide in the referendum.
Yes
> very large part, likely a majority, of the population wants a referendum
Not true. Noticable minority
> This looks to me a bit contemptuous towards the voters.
Politics since 1997. Hence the ever growing disconnect.
Tory majority government elected by 22.5% of the electorate - the lowest figure ever.
Of course it's contemptuous.
I don't know how you came up with that number.
Labour won a majority in 2005 with 35.2 % of votes, in an election with 61.4 % turnout. That's 21.6 % of the electorate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
In 2015, Conservatives got 36.9 % of a 66.4 % turnout. That's 24.5 % of electorate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
If the timing of referendums is a political game (actually I don't agree) played by the elites to manipulate the results then it didn't work out too well for them did it? They lost and the previously labelled fruit cakes and loonies (to quote David Cameron) won. The animus expressed by most of the elite against Leave was intense.
Indeed. For better or worse, the polling data so far doesn't show any great sign of "regrexit", and I've seen nothing so far to suggest that we'd collectively make a different decision if we voted again tomorrow.
c.f. the referendum on voting systems, where the public was asked if they wanted to vote in favour of an actual, flawed replacement system and decided to accept the (in many respects at least as flawed) status quo.
Ironically, I think what would have produced the reverse result in the Brexit referendum would have been a genuinely Eurosceptic government painfully awkwardly negotiating an alternative arrangement outside the EU and asking for the public to ratify it. The other irony being that - on account of the EU needing to be seen to be reasonable in their negotiations - the deal on offer would probably have been better than what we get.
Except you could say that about any election ever. Why is the public's desire to have Party X in power three weeks ago more binding than the public's desire to have Party X in power today?
In the 2012 US presidential election, 65 million people voted for Obama. In the 2008 election, 69 million voted for him. The population was around 314 and 306 million respectively.
A larger percentage of the population voted for brexit than the most recent US president.
And by your logic, similarly, a larger proportion of the population voted to \remain\ than in the US Election. Just because
Also, there are a very many important rights afforded to UK citizens by virtue of their treaty rights, which they will lose on actual Exit from the EU. The UK had a good in the EU, and it is shocking that we are chucking it away so frivolously.
Let's say, fantastically, only one person had turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum, and the whole thing were decided by one vote to nought. So long as the referendum had been free and fair, adequately publicised and properly counted, it would completely represent the will of the whole country. Elections are decided on the opinion of those who bother to come out and vote.
As for the regions and demographics, it's a decision for the whole United Kingdom. Are there actually any serious alternative ideas to giving one vote to each living adult person?
p.s. I voted Remain and agree with 'chucking it away so frivolously'. I just think trying to re-slice the sausage different ways based on subsets of the voting is pointless.
There is the legal principle of maintaining the 'status quo' and the preponderance of maintaining the status quo to maintaining a stable and governable society. My contention is that if 26% of the populace can decide the destiny of the wider society, and by a very slim margin, then democracy has not been served. If it was 26% to 10% that would be a different story, but it was not, it was 26% to 25% and that is a very slim margin indeed.
If 'my side had won' then that would have meant that the status quo would have 'remained'. It is a shockingly low threshold that 25-26% of the population could make such a large decision. That is my point. The threshold should have been higher.
So, in my view, 'tyranny of the minority' holds true. 26% of the UK polulation is a minority of that population.
That's 52% of the turnout; 38% of the electorate; 25% of the population.
One quarter of the population is a minority.
Brexit is also unusual, as others have alluded to, in how skewed the demographics were by age, which is pretty significant if the repercussions are expected to last for a decade and affect the proportion of the public too young to vote significantly more than the proportion of the public most significantly in favour of Brexit.
The other side of that argument is that the referendum saw an unusually high turnout for a UK election and the margin as wide as those which have produced comfortable Parliamentary majorities. On the other hand, more people voted against Brexit than for any party that ever governed the UK by itself.
As for alternatives, I mentioned higher quorums ("If 50% of the entire electorate vote Leave, we'll leave" would have seen no change happen, at least until Cameron was undermined by his own party) which are actually pretty common for major changes in democratic votes within organizations. There were also calls for 16/17 year olds to vote although this certainly wouldn't have affected the end result.
Tangential point for futile rhetorical arguments: the split between net taxpayers vs net recipients of state benefits/pensions which I don't think any pollster has been bold enough to evaluate. Usually pensioners are strongly conservative and the unemployed and unskilled part-time workers strongly left-wing which makes "our voters are the ones paying for it" arguments redundant, but Brexit is one cause that almost certainly united the votes of pensioners and the unemployed and underemployed, and depended on them to prevail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...
...do you think there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty?
Although that immediately raises the question of whether a vote to remain was really a vote for the status quo in any meaningful sense. What if it was interpreted as, for example, giving an active mandate for the "ever closer union" advocated by many European politicians? What if the UK found its negotiating position within the EU weakened once the long-standing threat of leaving had passed?
As we're now seeing, the in/out status alone is only a very small part of the story.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votes-at-16
No one - leave or remain - is going to get what they voted for from this.
Even Norway and Switzerland and Iceland had to compromise to gain access to this market.
It would be absolutely hilarious (from a political point of view) if the UK endsup in same position of having to pay into the EU and implement most of the laws without having any say in how its run.
None of the alternative 'deals' we often hear proposed are grounded in any kind of reality.
Take the Netherlands. From what I know, we pay more to the EU than we receive in subsidies and stuff, and hopefully trade is making up for that (who knows).
Take Spain. If I remember correctly, they're getting more from the EU than they pay, so for them it's a definite win.
So if the leaders from these countries go and negotiate, what's fair? Should we share all our wealth next month with the rest of Europe? Sounds unfair towards us. Should we keep it all and not invest in the EU? Also not a great idea.
Every penny we pay will make us more unhappy; yet every penny we don't share will make the other party more unhappy. I'm not sure there always are good outcomes. (This is probably one of the reasons why governments and politicians are fairly universally hated.)
A similar example could be constructed with the refugees issue. Some countries are being overrun; others only receive as many as those front-line countries send through. The front-line countries want to send as many as possible; we want to get as few as possible. Every extra refugee makes our representatives less happy about the deal and every refugee less makes them less happy about the deal.
I'd bet that especially for a country that thrives on trade that a definite win. Just think about the ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam which serve as huge gateways for goods into the EU. They'd loose large amounts of trade if those goods could not be forwarded tax and border-control free to Germany and France.
I guess it's hard to estimate how much Germany gains from being in the EU. We're an extremely export oriented country and a substantial chunk of our exports go to the EU. Those certainly benefit - and those certainly benefit if the rest of the EU does better, so we could consider at least parts of the net payments as an investment. There are also other gains that are possible only because of the european integration: We're actually starting to share military assets with you: Germany provides the armored component of your 43rd mechanized brigade, the 11 Luchtmobielen Brigade is partially integrated into the Division Schnelle Kräfte, the german Seebataillon is partially being integrated into the duch Korps Mariniers and there's a LOI that the two navies want to share your most beautiful JSS, the Karel Doorman. Even from a purely financial perspective, not having to keep watch on the pesky Dutch seems to be paying of ;).
A lot of staff for trade negotiations has been cut, a lot of special rules and regulations from bilateral agreements were folded into common EU regulations. Joint research gets much easier, a lot of student travel/study agreements are governed by EU law.
Jokes aside: I think that a lot of the benefits that the EU offers go beyond the pure monetary part. Being able to travel freely, being able to work where you want without begging for a work visa. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland that basically upholds the fiction of two separate states on Irish soil while still having common cross border agreements is mainly possible because the relevant rules are done at a supernational level. I consider the money that Germany - and by extension me - pays a solid investment - despite all the numerous flaws that the EU currently has.
"That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
[1]: http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on...
(Maybe they could sabotage their own negotiation and use that as a talking point against EU, but that's a risky gamble.)
Things like working time regulations, so that employers across the EU have to abide by the same technical regulations. Things like making employers only make their employees work ~40 hours per week, and yet the EU is blamed for the 'Working time directive'.
There are other things, like animal welfare with the transport of animals, where the EU gets blame for the regulation, but the reality is that there would have to be regulation for the amount of time animals spend time in transport. Because the regulation is headlined as 'EU' regulation the EU gets the blame. The point is that there would UK regulation if there wasn't a EU regulation.
Article 50 will likely never be triggered. The costs of triggering it are enormous because the UK would have to literally sit there copying EU laws and turning them into UK laws. There's zero incentive to diverge because if you want to sell into the EU you need to abide by the EU regs anyway.
The entire thing is fucking pointless.
There's hope at least. But we've pulled the trigger, saying the bullet might not hit home isn't going to help, if we miss then the people we were shooting at aren't going to want to be friends anymore.
Sorry if that's twisting an analogy too far.
We dun goofed.
That's why we have a parliament, to stop us making these bad decisions, only PM May has said she's not going to let parliament operate (which sounds like it should be unlawful, certainly as Treason) just in case they decide not to follow the marginal vote in to the void. Presumably all to save face as backing down would be awkward for her now.
And that's, my grandchildren, is how one politicians pride killed Europe and destabilised World economies for decades ...
But that only applies to products and services that will actually be sold in other EU member states. Not everything is exported to the EU, and a lot of things are never exported at all, and diverging from the EU rules in those other cases could offer all kinds of advantages depending on the circumstances.
With the kind of attitude this displays, I have a bad feeling about the "Bill of Rights" that the government has promised to create.
Isn't the point that the capitalist leaders don't want things like the WTD and the ECHR getting in the way of their "right" to exploit low paid workers?
You're right, we'll still have nearly all the regulations but ours won't have to get passed by the socialist countries of the EU and so will be much more Conservative friendly.
Selling in to Europe is the main sticking point as we'll need to abide by the regulations on production in order to make goods ready for the EU market if we get access.
Couple that with the fact that Britain now needs to negotiate a deal where every member has diverging interests and everybody basically has a veto: France and Germany want the British financial sector, Poland wants free travel and work permits for all the polish expats in the UK, Ireland wants to keep the intra-irish border open. Norther Ireland wants free travel for its citizens to the Republic. Spain probably wants to retain tourism from the UK. All states with a coastal line to the Atlantic and Northern sea will squabble over fishing rights... Couple that with a British vote that runs contrary to open borders, lacking numbers of negotiation staff on the British side and no discernible goal of what should be negotiated. On top a British foreign minster that made a living as journalist bashing the EU. All of that on a timeline of 2 years and a hard deadline that needs an unanimous vote to extend.
Edit: Oh, and upcoming elections in Germany and France. /Edit
I can't see that ending well for the UK. It's likely that the EU will suffer as well as the consequence, but on the other hand the British were always dragging their heels somewhat. I consider it sad from a balance perspective: Britain could have been a good counterweight for Germany and France in the EU if they actually tried to shape it instead of making a half-assed show of being in, but not.
The negotiating difficulty for the EU is that it's only in control of part of the real deal for the UK.
One other big part is how well the UK can develop its relationships with the rest of the world if it's no longer constrained by things like the customs union.
A third part, perhaps more easily overlooked, is how well the UK can develop its internal economy without the constraints of EU regulations. Right now, EU regulations affect not just goods and services exported to the EU, and not even just goods and services exported at all, but also a lot of things that are bought and sold within the UK itself.
These other factors mean that for almost any area of importance in the coming negotiations, there will be some limit beyond which the UK is better off taking its ball and going home, and then playing with the rest of the world instead of the EU tomorrow, purely on economic grounds. Of course, it's going to be extremely difficult for either the EU or the UK to work out exactly where those limits are, which is surely going to be a fundamental difficulty in those coming negotiations.
That's just the kinda of thinking which hurts all parties (much like opposition to free trade in general). An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
There was never much reason to tie so much to free trade: NAFTA does well enough without onerous multinational regulation or free movement; why did the EU insist upon destroying so much of what was essentially British?
What Europe should do is let Britain go, and then allow the free trade which is better for everyone.
One of the contentious issue is passporting: Financial products (insurances, funds, ...) that are regulated in one EU country can be sold in all of them. A lot of them are registered in the UK - namely the City of London due to favorable conditions. Please explain: Why would the EU allow financial products that are regulated by a foreign jurisdiction? Is there any good reason for that? Does NAFTA include similar provisions?
Why would the EU prevent its citizens from purchasing the financial products they wish to purchase?
There's much to be decided still. It's premature in the extreme to make assumptions that there won't be a reasonable solution just because at this point things aren't yet clear.
UK Government: Mañana
Reporter/EU Official: ¿En Español?
UK Government: Sí, en Español.
Reportero / Oficial de la UE: ¿Cuándo va a desencadenar el artículo 50 ya?
UK Government: Mañana.
Reportero / Oficial de la UE: ¿Mañana?
UK Government: Sí, Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnyaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaa.
Reportero / Oficial de la UE: Ah, sí. Mañana.
But basically, the joke is that Mañana never comes. Anyone familiar with (remote) Island life, from Islay on the west coast of Scotland to Saltspring Island on the west coast of BC will surely identify.
Many countries view hard workers working through the daylight and having evenings / night to themselves. However in the hotter nations the middle of the day and afternoon is often taken off, and work restarts later going into the evening/night. Thus it often appears like these countries only work half days.
The truth is now common knowledge around Europe however the traditional image of a Spaniard asleep in the middle of the day persists alongside the camp French snob and the Tea Toting and Tutting Brit.
As I see it the joke is no more racist than joking that the US brings kilotons of freedom to the world or that Canadians are sorry.
Spain is a major part of the EU.
There are also a great many British Ex-pats in who retire in Spain, not to mention that Spain is a favourite holiday spot.
Milton Friedmen convers it pretty well in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE. It's an old problem :/
It's "mañana", by the way. You wrote "español" so you clearly have access to ñ.
Explain please?
If this supposedly gentle, peace-loving, democratic association of free and independent nations is going to vengefully "make an example" of the UK for trying to leave, then that demonstrates the Leavers are right about its true nature.
The thing is, the position across much of the remaining EU is not so different to that. If the politicians can't get their act together and reach some reasonable compromise, everyone is going to lose out for a while because of Brexit, both UK and remaining EU.
You certainly can sit tight and never move around - because that's what the illegals do - but I don't think you really want that.
If this is not the case, then EU has practically reneged on everything it was standing for and I want to leave, too.
And even in future there will be Canadians and Brits moving to Germany.
(Believe me I know the work permit bureaucracy in my country (Finland); I've been a hiring manager for various non-EU nationals).
So authorities know he's a british national since you need to register your primary residence in germany. Unless an agreement is found that allows british nationals to stay legally, he'll have to apply for a visa. And the EU has never been standing for "Let all people work without permit", it's always been a club membership benefit. I can see that an agreement could be fund, but I also see that the British government and a large chunk of the leave voters seem hell-bent at kicking out EU nationals. That will make finding an agreement much much harder. Poland will want that as a bargain chip, they do have a significant population in the UK and they do sit at the table.
> And even in future there will be Canadians and Brits moving to Germany.
Certainly - it's just going to be much harder and thus much less.
Currently, EU citizens don't need a work or residence permit, but if you actually get a job and stay longer than that, you will still need to register your right of residence. It's not really that different. And believe me, existing rights of residence will not be forfeited in case of Brexit.
Shall we make a bet? I'll offer a pint if I'm wrong.
Don't you mean 569 mL? Oh, wait, that is more subtle than at first glance...
Well, never mind, the health nazis will have got us by the time Brexit is clear, and the beer will be non-alcoholic.
EU citizens have the right to work in other EU countries by treaty. It can only be withdrawn in exceptional cases. They can also travel to other countries to look for work, and stay for as long as they can support themselves (I think) and are looking for work.
Non-EU citizens do not have the right to work in EU countries, it is only granted in (less) exceptional cases. A work/residence permit application typically requires a job offer. It can expire or be withdrawn, is often linked to a particular employer, and usually has limitations compared to EU citizens -- for example, not getting unemployment benefits, or state healthcare.
Send me four gold coins; I'll give you two platinum bracelets. Deal?