Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I agree with yummyfajitas here. A rational person would say "OK, we're not compatible, let's split up, but no point destroying the house, spending all our money on lawyers and kill each other". An irrational, emotional, greedy or terribly insecure person would say "You? Leaving me? How could you?! You FUCKER! I'LL RUIN YOU!!! AAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!!!"


view as:

You've got your roles exactly inverted here. The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door but apparently expecting the same benefits they enjoyed beforehand, as a rational person the EU would have no reason whatsoever to entertain that behaviour let alone reward it.

The EU has no rational reason to be especially sweet on the UK, and looking internally and at the future it can't even be seen as that as it would bolster eurosceptic movements inside the Union.

There's no point of view under which being soft on the UK is rational.


Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.

But hey - that's capitalism.

> Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.

You're the one who brought on the rationality argument, and while things differ across conflicts, in this specific instance yes being "mean"[0] is rational.

[0] if "not bending over to the whims of an asshole" is considered mean these days


> The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door

Huh? This is your characterization of a referendum on membership?


Well, actually it is a good characterization of the leave campaign, which won the vote and thus a valid analogy.

It's an equally good characterization of the remain campaign as well, so I'm not sure that's a good argument...

If that's a valid characterization of the internal debate, of what concern is that to the EU? So far, I don't see the UK screaming, huffing, or smashing doors with respect to the EU.

well, look at "Leave" campaign: racist party [1] spreads false information about almost every aspect - "let's fund NHS instead" was false and Farage almost instantly rejected that it was a proper promise; said that UK lost their borders, which is false - UK is not a member of Shengen zone;

there were constant phrases from "Leave" party that relationship with EU is abusive, UK is like slave.. it doesn't look for me like intelectual debate with polite arguments.

[1] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-claims-...


Noone really advocates any form of punishment.

But the UK got extraordinarily preferential treatment in the EU all those decades.

What most people actually advocate is real, tough negotiations, driven by both parties' interests.

And the outcome will --predictably-- not what the Leavers wished for. It will also not be what the EU wished for. That ship has sailed.

Britain will get a deal, based on relative strengths and things the EU and Britain have to offer and the other side wants.

And very much depending on the timeframe the Brits are shooting for. If they want something quick (one to three years) only the Norwegian EFTA model is realistic.

If ten to fifteen years are quick enough all kinds of complicated deals can be negotiated. Can Britain really wait that long?


Legal | privacy