Well argued POV. However, the article overlooks the role of the Profumo Affair in ending the MacMillan govt. Another relevant precedent is the EZ negotiations with the Greek Govt over the sovereign debt crisis.
> "Another relevant precedent is the EZ negotiations with the Greek Govt over the sovereign debt crisis."
How is that relevant here? The Greek government wanted to declare bankrupcy, but after some initial resistance their own ministers bottled it. They had the power to walk away if they wished.
The Greek Govt wanted to negotiate a restructuring of the debt. That outcome would have yielded economic growth, and real servicing of the restructured debt. But that rational and realistic outcome was ruled out by the political requirement for EZ unity, the need to make good FR & DE banks holding GGBs, and the will to impose Schauble & Djisselbloen's economic views. The parallel is the misguided hope of the weaker negotiating partner hoped that pragmatic realism would prevail over the stronger partners politico-economic agenda.
The negotiations are mostly the UK trying to maintain some of the trade and immigration agreements they had while in the EU. They're welcome to just go "fuck you" and leave, but they will be absolutely destroyed by doing so.
So what happens if the EU and UK don't reach an agreement before the article 50 time limit expires? It doesn't make sense that the UK just gets to do what they like, otherwise they wouldn't need to negotiate at all.
As I say in other comments, WTO rules automatically apply - to both sides. The EU is fully bound by its own laws. It cannot unilaterally decide to reject WTO rules.
Article 50 means that no deal happens without unanimity in the EU. The only way that binds the EU is in limiting the ability to make a deal, not obligating them to accept a unilateral UK demand.
Article 50 doesn't require a free trade deal to exist after the Brexit, the "no deal" scenario is what happens if Britain exits without a replacement deal, and it's considered (by both sides) an outcome that's bad for UK.
Because _everything_ that happens between countries (and between the UK an the EU) is driven by treaties and agreements.
Simple example: if UK leaves without agreements and treaties then there can be no flights from the UK to the EU. This sounds crazy but we have tens of thousands of bilateral agreements that drive even the most fundamental things, and they can be (and are) affected by e.g. the EU membership.
Or UK citizens would not be able to buy products from the EU because there would be no agreements in place that'd allow companies in the EU to export goods. Yeah, as soon as you BMW breaks down that's it, because no spare parts would be available.
Look at the context in which the comments were made. The point sz4kerto made was about issues surrounding the import of BMWs and BMW parts. tzahola followed up with a comment about Jaguars. Jaguar is known for being a British car brand. The suggestion of importing from non-EU countries was not made clear, the implication I took from it was that British people could buy British goods, so I made the comment about who now owns Jaguar. Make more sense?
> Or UK citizens would not be able to buy products from the EU because there would be no agreements in place that'd allow companies in the EU to export goods.
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about how trade works.
If I want to trade with a person in a foreign country, I don't see why our governments need to even know, let alone come up with some agreement. If the foreign person and I can agree a deal, why can't we trade without asking permission from our governments?
Because you have agreed, implicitly and in concert with your fellow citizens, to live in a polity with rules around how members of that polity interact with members of other polities in order to collectively wield the power of your polity for the aims of that polity.
You can try to change the direction your polity takes with its stances towards others. You can leave if you don't approve of those stances and see no signs of changing them. But the question belies a fundamental misunderstanding of...yanno...why polities, why politics, exist.
What if I'm buying non-slaves from a foreign person? What if I tried to buy slaves from a non-foreign person?
I'd argue the former is fine and the latter is still not fine. So international trade agreements are surplus to requirements, since basic decency is enforced anyway.
You're absolutely right. There's no such things as tariffs, customs, border inspections, fines, fees or other such leverage a country can exact upon it's citizens and businesses to enforce foreign trade rules...
It works on reciprocity. If you never consider disallowing trade with some countries, you cannot use it as an argument when negotiating access to other country markets; and so you open yourself to exploitation via dues etc. And maybe if no one hindered trade in any way, everyone would be better; but you have no ability to decide what everyone does - only what you do yourself.
Plus, there's actual reasons to think completely open, unhindered, and uninspected trade is not desirable. Think human trafficking, etc.
But we have open unhindered and uninspected trade within countries, and we don't have out-of-control human trafficking within countries. Why is it different just because it crosses an imaginary line drawn on a map?
If you really believe that trade within your country is unhindered and uninspected, then I fear that you are one of the deluded. There are quality controls in every aspect of your life, even if they're mostly invisible to you.
Although, if the British public really want the 2013 horse meat scandal and the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster to become the norm rather than the exception, I guess now is the time to seize the opportunity.
Because countries are the units that humans organise themselves. Why do laws differ between countries? Why is international policing difficult? Because within a country you have a fairly (not very, but to a functional degree) unified mode of operation; you have laws, organisations, policies. But coordinating those between countries is hard.
WTO deals can take years to negotiate. The U.K's land of heaven is lobbying in Brussels so they can get a fair to everyone deal. As my British friends say, can't have your cake and eat it.
„WTO rules“ are just a framework for trading rules. Those rules itself still need to be negotiated.
For example, „which form do you have to fill with which information in how many copies, in order to export pastry?“.
That‘s much faster than a real trade deal, because it‘s mostly administrative, but it is still a hurdle to clear before you can trade under „WTO rules“.
And now do that for a gazillion sectors and special cases. With every trading partner.
For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill.
There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
You say to your friends, "Let's share the cost of dinner". Then when you decide you don't like the dinner, walk out halfway through, leaving your friends to pick up the bill for what you ordered.
Once word gets round, not only your friends but nobody is going to go out to dinner with you ever again.
Yes, I agree to "share the cost of dinner". But I don't get the food that I ordered, and eat very little of it. And I watch others eat a lot of food without contributing to the tab. I then want to leave the dinner which is only right
Well, the dinner metaphor breaks down here. It's almost certain that the access to the EU workforce and trade markets have benefited the UK much more than the pocket change it pays into the EU; but it's hard to put an exact number on those things.
The difference here is between how children react and how grown ups react. In the grown up world your words along with the SPIRIT of their meaning underpins your actions. in this case all the parties agreed on splitting the costs, not retro actively changing the rules to suit themselves.
No, you would state that you don't like the fact that you don't like what you're having for dinner before going, like a fucking adult.
If we expand on your analogy a little bit: its more like families going to dinner. The British family agreed with the dinner at first but due to some internal changes in the family, now says they didn't like what they ate before, don't like what they will eat in the future, and want to negotiate a different plan for dinner henceforth.
Reality would be closer to this: imagine you participated to the choice of the menu in the past, ate it, participate of the choice of the next menus in the future and commited to pay your share. You even eat some of the first courses in each menus, but before the end of the meal, you decide to get out and pay what you want of what you have started to eat and none of what you ordered next.
Brexiters wanted to continue to eat without paying : that's not even close to what's needed to negociate with the EU.
1. UK has obligations to the EU for the 2020 (already have deals & contracts), other than that they're free to leave. Of course you can just leave and end up with a chaotic situation where nobody knows how trading works, there are tariffs.
Opinion : UK is going toward vassal state status to the
EU by not having a say but still having to follow their rules.
Similar to the other "vassal states" such as Norway and Switzerland.
I'm not sure that the debate here is very sensible or measured.
I think that Brexit is a tragedy, and dearly hope it doesn't actually happen. That is my opinion. But it seems difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned argument about any aspect of it; people are entrenched in their corners.
Well, that depends on what Britain wants. Norway and Switzerland still have to abide by the free movement rules of the EU (which also includes air space regulations btw), and I though that Britain didn't want that? Maybe read up on the EEA's Guillotine Clause [0] to understand the negotiation room that Britain will have when trying to curb free movement.
Because the U.K. is not self-sufficient. Actually, I'm fairly certain that no country in today's world is self-sufficient. That means that for people to get by, day-to-day, the U.K. will need to import "stuff". If they were to simply up-and-leave the EU, chances are that the EU would retaliate by:
* closing borders with the U.K.
* embargoing or imposing severe tariffs on U.K. exports
* raise prices on U.K. imports to cover the monies not paid by the U.K.
So the U.K.'s choices are to:
* pay, in effect, what they owe (in the forms of tariffs and penalties) with zero bargaining position
* find enough other countries to trade with (who are willing to also thumb their nose at the EU) to make up for the goods and services they had been getting from the EU
The European Union wants to maintain centralized power. A Country like the UK leaving weakens their authority. Meanwhile the uk wants to remain sovereign, but doesn't want to lose the benefits of the EU. Its essentially a power play. Freedom is the better choice imo
Actually, the other way around. Without the UK blocking many integration policies, the EU will have an easier road ahead to approve them, like military, legal and tax integration.
The UK can do that. The most likely consequence will be the EU not accepting those trade terms. As a consequence, almost all trade with the UK will stop and trade with the UK will effectively be under near embargo due to the high tarrifs from parts of the world (the EU and areas it has trade agreements with).
You could say this about any treaty, any agreement. And technically, a Sovereign Nation, by its very definition, is allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants.
Before 20th century, breaches of treaties were grounds for war. Now we don't do that anymore, we simply cut off trade.
So the U.K would be ostracized, International companies would move out, it would probably face high tariffs on goods (or outright ban) etc.
> Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms?
The UK can just leave—that’s what happens automatically with no deal, it leaves the E.U. and is in the same position as any other non-member country with no trade agreement with the E.U.
A lot of business in the UK has been dependent on its trade position in Europe, and there are even political stability issues tied in with that (the Irish border and it's relation to the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly.) So the UK can't afford to walk away, though they are perfectly free to do so.
> Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money
They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else, the powder keg of NI starts heating back up, you've got a bunch of britons illegally present in mainland EU and likewise mainland residents in the UK, …
Oh and the UK becomes known for having no respect for international deals, which makes their positions weaker in every future international agreement.
> and unilaterally state a position on trade terms?
And the EU unilaterally states "no" and then what?
> They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else
Reverting to WTO rules and hard (but not closed) borders isn't trade and travel being illegal, but it is a lot less free than the state when the UK was in the EU.
> "They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else"
That's bullshit. WTO trade rules would still apply if the UK left the EU without a deal, and freedom to come and go outside the EU could still remain unchanged regardless of what Brussels wants to impose.
Now, lets say the five times larger economy doesn't accept your unilateral trade position, who just happens to be by far your largest and closest trading partner, what do you think happens then to your companies who are reliant on the EU market? Even if you don't work for such a company, what do you think would happen to your employer's clients? And if you work in the public sector, what do you think will happen to the tax revenue from those companies?
More than 20% of the UK's GDP is made up of exports to the EU. What do you think will happen to the government that cost the country millions of jobs because of one stupid decision to appease populists come election year? That's why the government can't just leave because it would be extremely popular in the short term but within a few years bring about very dire consequences.
Details. So for starters, the EU currently regulates a lot of what may be sold as food, regulations that just no longer apply if UK leaves. So they have to go through all the EU regulations first just to determine which are necessary to keep safe food in British supermarkets.
Then you get the international problems directly connected to that, what can you import into Britain and at which tariffs. Plus, how do you cooperate between air traffic control across the channel and across the Irish sea. (While we are at it, is British Airways allowed to fly over France, without EU law?)
And that is just the things Britain has to figure out on their own. Ireland, France and the rest of the EU have interest in British tariffs and if Britain sets tariffs unilaterally they will respond in kind, a situation sometimes known as trade war.
So yes, in principle Britain could just state a position on terms of trade, a hard Brexit, but that would mean that the EU responds in kind. Neither the EU nor Britain wants to do that, but the thing is the EU is something like 10 times as big as Britain and so the EU can very comfortably wait for Britain, because Brexit only affects something less than 10% of the EU trade, not over half of all trade as for Britain.
Delusions are hard to get rid of. Leave campaigned on lies, voters swallowed them, and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.
Like all delusions, this will continue to entrench itself against reason. When the negotiators fail to reach their delusional goal, the deluded will formulate a conspiracy narrative to protect their delusion.
Is this really a new norm, where troll accounts are created to push bigoted talking points? This account is 9 minutes old. The other day I had a similar “interaction” with a 30 minute old account. Who is paying for this campaign?
This comment in particular wasn't super bigoted, but it could bet taken as "the UK needed to leave the EU because of immigration." On the other hand, a comment down the page by the same account seemed to suggest at least they were engaging in conversation not just using a throwaway account.
Mind you, when I flagged the comment I was extrapolating based on a similar interaction I had the other day, when a newly created account with no previous history posted a comment implying that rape was a problem "with a certain culture". A few other comments on that thread were nuked, and a comment from dang (a moderator) seemed to suggest that type of behavior is relatively common.
The comment didn't even mention immigration, let alone go anywhere near claiming immigration is bad. You shouldn't assume that everyone in favour of brexit is bigoted.
FWIW, I'm in favour of brexit, and I'm also in favour of freedom of movement. In fact, I advocate total freedom of movement: no passports, no visas, no checks. Let free people move freely. If I can travel to Manchester without having to justify myself, why can't I cross borders in the same way? I am in favour of brexit for totally unrelated reasons.
Just because you may have heard that some brexit supporters want to impose stricter border controls doesn't mean all brexit supporters want that.
You flagged a one sentence, polite, comment, just because you disagreed with its stance on Brexit? That’s a classic example of the pathetic intolerance of modern young lefties. Rather than engage, attempt to delegitimize and deplatform. (Spoken as an anti-brexit liberal myself).
And that would've been fine, as long as you provided some context. My comment was based (as I explain elsewhere) on newly created accounts throwing one-off propaganda comments.
You're discriminating against accounts just for being new, to the extent of flagging totally unprovocative comments, and you claim they're the bigoted ones?
Maybe now you see why people create throwaway accounts when stating these "things you can't say".
On the other hand, it wasn't a very trollish comment. Certainly not bigoted, unless it has been edited since you commented! Would you like to revise that description?
Another explanation of the young account phenomenon would be that there is nowadays a larger proportion of people who read the site without accounts and therefore that more comments are from first-time commenters. Perhaps certain types of stories attract more first time commenters. But if it is true that there are more comments from young accounts nowadays, I do agree that that's interesting. The data's available to answer that I believe; anyone know?
Regardless of how you want to label it, it wasn't a very convincing argument either. It had zero substance, didn't ask any questions, nor did it try to further the discussion.
I think I can fully represent the post with a single vocalization: "nuh-uh".
Would one of the mods mind explaining what happened in this thread? WhirlingBirdz' comment is marked as [flagged][dead] and their reply further down has now disappeared. It said something (politely and reasonably) along the lines of
"I'm not sure what is bigoted about my comment; many other explanations are more mainstream than that the working class was misled by lies."
I don't subscribe to this at all. I think that the better explanation is that the people who are negotiating with the EU are, almost to a man, convinced EU-philes (for want of a better word). And so they favour the EU position in the negociations, instead of just implementing the will of the people.
> and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.
This is a false assessment. The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16[0] specifically states:
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."
Brexit is bad for the UK. We can all agree on that?
But it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. They've lost one of their principal contributors, as well as prestige and status. This is generally not talked about.
The EU are negotiating HARD. Why? Because they are in a position of weakness. If they were in a position of strength then they would let the UK go easily.
Everyone knows this.
The complications are that the UK political establishment and business community don't actually want to leave the EU. Hence the desperate attempt by UK negotiators to keep as much of the old system as possible, to the anger of the proletariat.
This is not true. Brexit is good for the UK and the EU. Now finally clowns like Farage will be exposed for their 'rebel for good' fake ideals. The British public will either accept it's own sentence following decades of 'the bad bureaucrats in Brussels' fake news or come to realize that cooperation at both economical and political on large scale is the way to move forward.
Again, not true. Voting percentage was - 1. Majority leave in poor areas 2. Majority leave in the older population. 3. London voted remain. Reasons? We all know the reasons, and I'm not even going to go into the superiority complex that these people have.
Do we? Are you getting your information from the mainstream media? Are you aware of how much they distort the facts to suit their own narratives? Why do you think Brexit would be any different?
It matters. Immigrants have been made to feel unwelcome from the way the press have handled their coverage. Their coverage has also stifled debate by unnecessarily polarising people against each other. The damage they've done and continue to do to the UK, both during Brexit and in other matters, is pretty clear.
You're saying this as if there's an unified consensus within Britain. A bit more than half of Britain wanted to leave, and a bit less than half of Britain wanted to remain. They'll still honor the democratic process and do what the general population chose to do, but it's an overstatement to say that Britain wants to leave when it's rather that Britain was highly undecided and has(had?) a mild preference towards leaving.
Lol, this is something only the British press peddles.
Across Europe the overwhelming feeling, for people without UK interests, is of relief. Finally they got rid of a recalcitrant member, the main opponent to "ever closer union" projects, the leader of the free-trade gang that is now in ruins (also embodied in the attacks on Ireland and Luxembourg tax affairs, the harshness on Poland and Hungary and so on), an annoying magnet to EU money flows and institutions, one of the main conduit for tax evasion across the Union... And all this without having to concede on anything, because Brits just did it all themselves!
The net difference in contributions to the EU budget is minor, even without an agreement it would be easily absorbed. The insistence on the principle of paying for the agreed budget was just because they could. In fact, haggling on that was much shorter than on things like ECJ role and Irish border, which are not really settled yet. Nobody really cared about the money.
I'm not in the UK or EU, so I don't know what the mood is or have opinions about how the vote was conducted. But most economists I've read are not bullish on the EU doing better after Brexit, and it seems like "leave" parties have been coming to power over the past year.
No its not, UK leave reduce EU negociating power, and isn't good overall. On the other hand, EU does not lose a lot of specialized workers with UK leave, so it will have little impact on industries (maybe in biotech and in finance). A German leave, on the other hand, would destroy EU economy.
Grandparent is right however, in France, most people see that as a good thing (i don't).
Of course, UK leaving EU is a negative factor for EU economics. But it's not a huge factor, and for common people (e.g. except businessmen in certain industries) it will mean less impact than all kinds of random local issues.
Also, UK leaving EU is nearly a certainty now and all the discussions are between the different kinds of "deal" or "no deal" after UK leaves - and the difference between these deals is highly important for UK voters but not particularly meaningful for most EU voters (again, except some with a particular interest e.g. expat workers living in UK).
It's bad for german power in the EU, but i don't think it's a tragedy for the EU. The UK paid more to the eu than what he got back, that's a fact, but the right to trade European currency is what made the City this powerfull (compared to Paris, Franckfurt, Zurich). I'm pretty sure the taxes on income from displaced trading centers will make up for the "loss" for EU budget.
Also, the skill loss for EU is almost nil, while UK will lose europeen skilled workers (and those contribute a lot to GPD).
The EU doesn't _need_ the UK, but the UK very much needs the EU and it'll have to abide by the same regulations they would as members if they want to trade with anyone who currently trades with the EU anyway. You'll be getting the same regulations without any of the benefits of membership.
But not about its worth to the UK. The EU is by far the UK's largest market and still has a lot of growth potential (especially in the southern and eastern member states).
They're some assumption here that because of Brexit UK will not be able to export to the EU?
They'll sort it out just fine, just like the EU is trading partner with China and all kinds of countries that are not in the EU.
In fact, the UK not being in the EU could give it extra leverage (on labor laws, taxes, etc) to attract businesses in the ways the EU could not. Like Ireland that got in trouble with EU for its tax breaks.
No, they will be able to export under WTO rules just fine, with all the tariffs that entails which would favor importing from another EU member rather than the UK. That will hurt the UK a lot, especially the financial services.
the EU is rapidly turning in to a union with few willing and satisfied participants
the EU would be much better off letting disgruntled states go, even if it diminishes the size and prestige of the remaining union, unless the bureaucrats relish spending the next fifty years in endless, pointless debate and hand-wringing
the UK isn't alone. I doubt the EU will see 2030 in its current form.
It's truly ironic (and unfortunate) that the UK's tribulations to leave the EU have such close parallels to its difficulties joining its predecessor. In many ways, it demonstrates the weakness (both now and then) of the British economy and (peaceful) political force projection when pit against a united continental core -- led then by France and Germany, nowadays by Germany and France.
The UK has much more military leverage than economic leverage. The question of the common market is an economic matter, but the free movement of peoples can go either way. There are factions in all states that would rather treat the latter issue as a matter of civil defence, but that would require the UK engaging in force projection so close to home, which it has for almost half a century closely avoided.
The UK may be one of the only European countries to take military spending seriously, but attempting to leverage that advantage in any kind of "direct" manner would probably backfire. Aside from lacking the political will to actually press the issue, they're not really that superior to their neighbors :
Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I personally would put higher stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their neighbors.
I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.
The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge the world to do something about it. One way would be to institute unilateral border restrictions not unlike the ones just passed in the US.
Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that they can throw their weight around, framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.
> Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.
I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort.
Also, the US comparison is mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore economic realities.
The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it.
A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach.
An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.
> A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain.
What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping?
> An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own
Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually can in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept.
Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.
Is undoing brexit (fully or partially) still an option? If not, is it because the UK government is still committed to brexit or is it because what has been done so far is irreversible?
I recall statements from EU that they'd accept "take-backsies" of the Article 50, so from that perspective it would be an option; however it seems politically implausible for any UK government to do so after the referendum, at least without some serious mandate from the population i.e. a landslide election victory on a Remain platform paving the way for a repeat referendum, but scenarios like that are more similar to fiction than reasonable speculation.
117 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadHow is that relevant here? The Greek government wanted to declare bankrupcy, but after some initial resistance their own ministers bottled it. They had the power to walk away if they wished.
I realize this may sound naive, but I’m just curious.
Simple example: if UK leaves without agreements and treaties then there can be no flights from the UK to the EU. This sounds crazy but we have tens of thousands of bilateral agreements that drive even the most fundamental things, and they can be (and are) affected by e.g. the EU membership.
Or UK citizens would not be able to buy products from the EU because there would be no agreements in place that'd allow companies in the EU to export goods. Yeah, as soon as you BMW breaks down that's it, because no spare parts would be available.
Yes, it's this important.
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about how trade works.
If I want to trade with a person in a foreign country, I don't see why our governments need to even know, let alone come up with some agreement. If the foreign person and I can agree a deal, why can't we trade without asking permission from our governments?
You can try to change the direction your polity takes with its stances towards others. You can leave if you don't approve of those stances and see no signs of changing them. But the question belies a fundamental misunderstanding of...yanno...why polities, why politics, exist.
Governments obviously have a real interest in what their citizen do regardless of where that activity takes place.
I'd argue the former is fine and the latter is still not fine. So international trade agreements are surplus to requirements, since basic decency is enforced anyway.
Plus, there's actual reasons to think completely open, unhindered, and uninspected trade is not desirable. Think human trafficking, etc.
Although, if the British public really want the 2013 horse meat scandal and the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster to become the norm rather than the exception, I guess now is the time to seize the opportunity.
I think most people now are assuming WTO and considering anything else to be a bonus.
For example, „which form do you have to fill with which information in how many copies, in order to export pastry?“.
That‘s much faster than a real trade deal, because it‘s mostly administrative, but it is still a hurdle to clear before you can trade under „WTO rules“.
And now do that for a gazillion sectors and special cases. With every trading partner.
There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
What about if you refuse to split the bill for the next dinner, to which you aren't invited?
What if you had very little choice on what was ordered for dinner? and ate almost nothing at dinner. You wouldn't want to pay right?
Once word gets round, not only your friends but nobody is going to go out to dinner with you ever again.
But you would at least pay for what you ordered. Anyone just upping and leaving would be considered very rude, and nobody would invite him ever again.
What would you price the reputation of the UK at? I hope more than £39bn. All the other countries of the world are watching the UK's actions.
If we expand on your analogy a little bit: its more like families going to dinner. The British family agreed with the dinner at first but due to some internal changes in the family, now says they didn't like what they ate before, don't like what they will eat in the future, and want to negotiate a different plan for dinner henceforth.
Opinion : UK is going toward vassal state status to the EU by not having a say but still having to follow their rules.
I'm not sure that the debate here is very sensible or measured.
I think that Brexit is a tragedy, and dearly hope it doesn't actually happen. That is my opinion. But it seems difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned argument about any aspect of it; people are entrenched in their corners.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine_clause
* closing borders with the U.K.
* embargoing or imposing severe tariffs on U.K. exports
* raise prices on U.K. imports to cover the monies not paid by the U.K.
So the U.K.'s choices are to:
* pay, in effect, what they owe (in the forms of tariffs and penalties) with zero bargaining position
* find enough other countries to trade with (who are willing to also thumb their nose at the EU) to make up for the goods and services they had been getting from the EU
* negotiate a clean exit
They don't even have to actually do anything to achieve that. WTO rules basically establish such tariffs already.
> raise prices on U.K. imports to cover the monies not paid by the U.K.
Same here. Also, additional tax revenues would likely be collected on business "redirected" from the UK towards internal companies.
I still hope we'll get another referendum before we reach a point of no return.
Before 20th century, breaches of treaties were grounds for war. Now we don't do that anymore, we simply cut off trade.
So the U.K would be ostracized, International companies would move out, it would probably face high tariffs on goods (or outright ban) etc.
The UK can just leave—that’s what happens automatically with no deal, it leaves the E.U. and is in the same position as any other non-member country with no trade agreement with the E.U.
A lot of business in the UK has been dependent on its trade position in Europe, and there are even political stability issues tied in with that (the Irish border and it's relation to the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly.) So the UK can't afford to walk away, though they are perfectly free to do so.
They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else, the powder keg of NI starts heating back up, you've got a bunch of britons illegally present in mainland EU and likewise mainland residents in the UK, …
Oh and the UK becomes known for having no respect for international deals, which makes their positions weaker in every future international agreement.
> and unilaterally state a position on trade terms?
And the EU unilaterally states "no" and then what?
Reverting to WTO rules and hard (but not closed) borders isn't trade and travel being illegal, but it is a lot less free than the state when the UK was in the EU.
That's bullshit. WTO trade rules would still apply if the UK left the EU without a deal, and freedom to come and go outside the EU could still remain unchanged regardless of what Brussels wants to impose.
Now, lets say the five times larger economy doesn't accept your unilateral trade position, who just happens to be by far your largest and closest trading partner, what do you think happens then to your companies who are reliant on the EU market? Even if you don't work for such a company, what do you think would happen to your employer's clients? And if you work in the public sector, what do you think will happen to the tax revenue from those companies?
More than 20% of the UK's GDP is made up of exports to the EU. What do you think will happen to the government that cost the country millions of jobs because of one stupid decision to appease populists come election year? That's why the government can't just leave because it would be extremely popular in the short term but within a few years bring about very dire consequences.
Then you get the international problems directly connected to that, what can you import into Britain and at which tariffs. Plus, how do you cooperate between air traffic control across the channel and across the Irish sea. (While we are at it, is British Airways allowed to fly over France, without EU law?)
And that is just the things Britain has to figure out on their own. Ireland, France and the rest of the EU have interest in British tariffs and if Britain sets tariffs unilaterally they will respond in kind, a situation sometimes known as trade war.
So yes, in principle Britain could just state a position on terms of trade, a hard Brexit, but that would mean that the EU responds in kind. Neither the EU nor Britain wants to do that, but the thing is the EU is something like 10 times as big as Britain and so the EU can very comfortably wait for Britain, because Brexit only affects something less than 10% of the EU trade, not over half of all trade as for Britain.
Like all delusions, this will continue to entrench itself against reason. When the negotiators fail to reach their delusional goal, the deluded will formulate a conspiracy narrative to protect their delusion.
Mind you, when I flagged the comment I was extrapolating based on a similar interaction I had the other day, when a newly created account with no previous history posted a comment implying that rape was a problem "with a certain culture". A few other comments on that thread were nuked, and a comment from dang (a moderator) seemed to suggest that type of behavior is relatively common.
FWIW, I'm in favour of brexit, and I'm also in favour of freedom of movement. In fact, I advocate total freedom of movement: no passports, no visas, no checks. Let free people move freely. If I can travel to Manchester without having to justify myself, why can't I cross borders in the same way? I am in favour of brexit for totally unrelated reasons.
Just because you may have heard that some brexit supporters want to impose stricter border controls doesn't mean all brexit supporters want that.
Maybe now you see why people create throwaway accounts when stating these "things you can't say".
Another explanation of the young account phenomenon would be that there is nowadays a larger proportion of people who read the site without accounts and therefore that more comments are from first-time commenters. Perhaps certain types of stories attract more first time commenters. But if it is true that there are more comments from young accounts nowadays, I do agree that that's interesting. The data's available to answer that I believe; anyone know?
I think I can fully represent the post with a single vocalization: "nuh-uh".
"I'm not sure what is bigoted about my comment; many other explanations are more mainstream than that the working class was misled by lies."
This is a false assessment. The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16[0] specifically states:
"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."
[0] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
But it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. They've lost one of their principal contributors, as well as prestige and status. This is generally not talked about.
The EU are negotiating HARD. Why? Because they are in a position of weakness. If they were in a position of strength then they would let the UK go easily.
Everyone knows this.
The complications are that the UK political establishment and business community don't actually want to leave the EU. Hence the desperate attempt by UK negotiators to keep as much of the old system as possible, to the anger of the proletariat.
Brexit was about the working-class of the UK who voted to leave the EU, and their reasons for doing that.
Do we? Are you getting your information from the mainstream media? Are you aware of how much they distort the facts to suit their own narratives? Why do you think Brexit would be any different?
Aside from that, what does the EU mean to you?
EU sells the single market at the cost of sovereignty, UK decided to go shop around.
Lol, this is something only the British press peddles.
Across Europe the overwhelming feeling, for people without UK interests, is of relief. Finally they got rid of a recalcitrant member, the main opponent to "ever closer union" projects, the leader of the free-trade gang that is now in ruins (also embodied in the attacks on Ireland and Luxembourg tax affairs, the harshness on Poland and Hungary and so on), an annoying magnet to EU money flows and institutions, one of the main conduit for tax evasion across the Union... And all this without having to concede on anything, because Brits just did it all themselves!
The net difference in contributions to the EU budget is minor, even without an agreement it would be easily absorbed. The insistence on the principle of paying for the agreed budget was just because they could. In fact, haggling on that was much shorter than on things like ECJ role and Irish border, which are not really settled yet. Nobody really cared about the money.
> This is generally not talked about
Guess why? Because it's not really the case.
Is that view so incorrect?
Grandparent is right however, in France, most people see that as a good thing (i don't).
Also, UK leaving EU is nearly a certainty now and all the discussions are between the different kinds of "deal" or "no deal" after UK leaves - and the difference between these deals is highly important for UK voters but not particularly meaningful for most EU voters (again, except some with a particular interest e.g. expat workers living in UK).
Also, the skill loss for EU is almost nil, while UK will lose europeen skilled workers (and those contribute a lot to GPD).
They'll sort it out just fine, just like the EU is trading partner with China and all kinds of countries that are not in the EU.
In fact, the UK not being in the EU could give it extra leverage (on labor laws, taxes, etc) to attract businesses in the ways the EU could not. Like Ireland that got in trouble with EU for its tax breaks.
the EU would be much better off letting disgruntled states go, even if it diminishes the size and prestige of the remaining union, unless the bureaucrats relish spending the next fifty years in endless, pointless debate and hand-wringing
the UK isn't alone. I doubt the EU will see 2030 in its current form.
The UK has much more military leverage than economic leverage. The question of the common market is an economic matter, but the free movement of peoples can go either way. There are factions in all states that would rather treat the latter issue as a matter of civil defence, but that would require the UK engaging in force projection so close to home, which it has for almost half a century closely avoided.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I personally would put higher stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their neighbors.
I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.
Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that they can throw their weight around, framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.
I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort.
Also, the US comparison is mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore economic realities.
A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach.
An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.
What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping?
> An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own
Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually can in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept.
Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.