> What are you referring to? Nothing is presently known about the outcome of the negotiations with the EU
We can estimate likelihoods. Take e.g. Being able to travel and work in the EU. The best case scenario is maintaining the status quo, which we will certainly have to pay for, and seems to be what a lot of people voted explicitly against. (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are all members of Schengen, and so more connected than the UK). Science and research benefit amazingly from the EU - getting more out proportionally than we put in. This also could be renegotiated, but again with a price (both literal and in implementing EU laws/directives, or freedom of movement). Meanwhile, until we know what the end state will be, who is going to want to pay large research grants or jobs to UK institutions and citizens?
Meanwhile half the east coast seems to think that leaving will magically let them fish out of the sea infinitely, and I have no idea why farming thinks it was suppressed rather than subsidised by the EU.
> I suspect the number of leave-voters who didn't think a no-deal Brexit would be possible is a lot larger than the winning margin.
A no deal must be possible to get a deal. Likewise the EU wants to sell its dairy, prosecco, and cars to the UK but wouldn't dream of accepting a terrible deal for the EU. It's possible the a punitive EU might sacrifice the EU and UK economy by refusing to provide a deal for a few months until the pain becomes too much. UK needs to plan for that.
> the BS about the NHS too.
The UK does send 300M to the EU. We get 150M back to spend as the EU desires, the rest is used by the EU outside the UK. Nobody disputes that, it depends whether you think it's OK that we get half it back, or that it's not OK the EU determines how we spend our money.
---
Edit: rate limited, but to reply to the person below:
> Apparently some people flag/down-vote me because they don't like the facts.
Complaining about moderation should be done via email to thee admins and not comments per the HN guidelines. But OK, let's go through your facts.
> It's a fact that many Leave Voters did not expect a no-deal under any circumstances.
Yep agreed. It still needs to be on the table, as it does from the EU side.
> Even the excuse that they need that option to get a deal presupposes that they don't want a no-deal and don't expect it to happen.
Yep agreed. Long term I don't think the EU or the UK wants mutually assured destruction.
> The scenario of the EU trying to "torture" the UK with a few month of third-country status is even more absurd
It's consistent with some of the angrier statements from Jean Claude Juncker and other EU leaders.
> because that presupposes that the EU has no significant disadvantages from withholding a deal
Agreed, the EU has significant disadvantages from withholding a deal. That does not mean the EU will behave rationally or put the EUs (the organisation) self interest ahead of EU member states who wish to keep selling their product in one of the world's largest markets.
> rendering the "leverage" of the no-deal option void.
That doesn't follow. The EU wouldn't agree to a deal that harmed the EU, so they'd also prefer WTO if that was all Britain offered. Likewise the opposite.
> And even then this argument is still wrong: There is no requirement for a no-deal option to have lots of leverage in the negotiation
Why? How can you negotiate a desirable outcome if you cannot walk away and must agree to any deal offered?
> and even with the no-deal on the table the UK didn't get anywhere near the deal they wanted, proving the leave-campaign to be extremely naive or outright liers.
Is that determined yet? Negotiation is still ongoing.
> And no, the leave-campaign never acknowledged or promoted, before the referendum, that the UK is getting half of it back.
Yep agreed.
> They explicitly stated, time and time again "let's put that money into the NHS". Which was impossible back then and oh, look! it's still not possible today.
It would be possible to put the entire 300M into to the NHS, as the UK would control how the money is spent. But it would not be desirable to.
> But Putin, who also financed and supported the leave campaign, likes all those options.
> In all likelihood, the UK will leave the EU, but retain access to the single market through the EEA. This will enable us to enter into free trade deals with the rest of the world, which we are not able to do as EU members. There is nothing narrow minded about that.
You realize that most of the trade deals for the UK will not be favorable at all, right? As you mentioned, the UK has a negative trade balance.
If you voted for leave, you voted for the balkanization of Europe, and possibly the UK itself. History has proven time and time again that this is a bad and short-sighted idea (India/Pakistan partition, former Yugoslavian republics, Middle East, etc). It wouldn't surprise me if Canary Wharf suddenly relocated to Germany.
> The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode.
The EU is not being asked to accept any trade deal at all (hence no deal). A no-deal outcome is actually just fine, under the standard rules, the cost of food and other commodities is likely to decrease for consumers, and the EU is not going to blockade the UK. The UK hosts a considerable number of financial institutions which are crucial to the EU, so if they know what's good for them, they won't mess around with that too much either.
Altogether it seems that the downsides are acceptable, and the upsides are the same as they were when it was called to a vote. I don't really see what the problem is. The UK is going to do just fine, and so are the EU member states (whether they're in or out). I don't get why people have to make it out to be a catastrophe.
> Good luck trying to get the EU to give up one of its core principles to a country that cannot even get its government to agree on a consistent negotiation position.
The UK government is far more consistent than the EU currently. Name one important issue where the EU has reached a satisfactory agreement and results. Migration? Social security? EU army? Nope.
But just like the tone of your comment, the EU position on Brexit is governed by arrogance, ideological motives and fear of a chain reaction, not reason. Therefore the result will likely be bad for both sides.
> You may be right, but, the more Brexit news I hear, and the more I read, the more I get the feeling that parts of Europe and the EC are making efforts to make an example of Britain.
If a member leaves the EU they're not getting the benefits anymore of being part of the EU. It's mainly the UK who has no idea at all at what they want.
Various statements made by the EU 2 years ago still hold true. If you read UK press it seems everything is negotiable. The difference in attitude and the bad coverage by both UK press as well as UK government is pretty bad.
> What did they gain, and honestly why is this so negative. There hasn't been a particularly strong or cohesive explanation other than saying Cameron is an idiot and the world is over?
Obviously, only my two euro-cents:
There's a deep-seated feeling in the British population that laws should ultimately be sovereign and not made by the European Union - there's a firm belief that leaving the EU allows Parliament to make its own laws without outside interference. Obviously there are a range of silly restrictions of things that previously were not possible within the EU framework that now are. One example might be that the UK was unable to eliminate VAT from sanitary products within the EU.
I mostly subscribe to the more emotional and wishy-washy negativity reasons, but some more concrete negatives:
* The City of London is very important to the UK economy and there are genuine fears that large multi-nationals who headquarter in London to access the EU market will have no choice but to relocate onto the continent.
* Lots of other parts of industry genuinely rely on cheap labour from Eastern Europe (to the order of magnitude of tens of thousands per year). There's a fear that they will not be able to access this labour, driving costs up.
* Short term instability and subsequent capital flight have a non-insignificant chance of leading to recession, or at least reduced growth.
* Those of us who are lucky enough to have the opportunity enjoy the ability to travel and work freely within the EU; and EU citizens in the UK are worried about their future status.
* Many firms working within across the EU are worried about complications if the UK does not remain in a free trade zone with the EU. There are already reports of UK startups losing investments and companies who have lost contracts due to the uncertainty.
* There's lots of scientific cooperation that sees UK universities receiving considerable research grants from the EU. Even without a squeeze from a poorer economy, there's not much faith that the UK Government will have the same spending priorities.
Some of this will become more clear as we move through a negotiation process to exit, but there are a range of unknowns and no clear vision from the Government what a post-EU UK will look like. That causes uncertainty both amongst the people and markets.
I'm trying to leave aside the short and medium term domestic and social problems that the referendum has both highlighted and bought about, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they're just as pressing as the exit negotiations themselves.
> Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe.
What do you mean by "Europe" here? I guess you don't mean the Union nor the geographical continent (since the UK is obviously leaving one and staying in the other), so you must mean something else, but I'm not sure what.
> Anyway it just strikes me as mean-spirited. I doubt the EU leaders really care about immigration that strongly.
Freedom of movement of trade, people/labour, capital and services is the core founding principle of the EU - they care about it a lot.
> Regardless, I suspect they won't do it because it would be irrational.
If Britain is given a deal that allows them all of the benefits of EU membership without any of the perceived downsides, all other EU member states will want this better deal too. Giving the UK such a deal would cause a number of additional countries to leave the EU. Thus, it would be irrational for the EU to give the UK a deal which would lead to the eventual breakup of the EU.
> I believe the EU has free trade deals with Australia and Canada, without unrestricted immigration.
There are essentially three ways to trade with the EU: As a member state (Britain's current position, France, Germany, etc.), as a member of the EEA (Norway), or under WTO rules (Australia).
If the UK wants one of the first two options they will need to allow freedom of movement. If Australia (somehow) applied for membership of the EU or EEA it would need to allow freedom of movement for EU citizens.
Then again, it looks like UK is about to leave the union[1], so their ability to influence policy at the European level is fairly limited at the moment.
[1] I would not be surprised, though, if both sides just dragged the exit out long enough so nobody will care about it any longer and then quietly drop the issue.
>To think that the little nation-states of Europe can survive and prosper on their own... fantasy...
I'm a remainer but I think little nation states that are non EU like Switzerland or Singapore survive and prosper quite well.
I admit I don't know that much about the EU - I think of it mostly as an admin for free trade and travel between the countries mostly. Which I quite like.
One of the troubles with the 2016 leave/remain referendum was remain is clear enough but no one really knew what leave would consist of. When you clarify it none of the options are very popular for instance the polls on remain/May's deal are about 60:40 to remain. Even remain/no deal polls about 56-44 towards remain so to leave politicians will have to force it through against the wishes of the majority of the people and of their parliament. Which is kind of a mess.
> What is more plausible? That millions of British citizens don’t actually know what the European Union is
This is very plausible. Look at the terrible UK newspaper coverage of the EU (so poor that the EU needed a mythbusting page[1]).
Ask a few British people if they know what bits of the EU do what.
Add to that the misinformation coming from political parties over the past few decades, and especially from the Leave / Remain campaigns over the past couple of weeks. There are people who voted who honestly think that it would reduce the number of migrants (It won't).
> Really? You feel that strongly that the people of the UK will vote to leave? Whilst there is vocal support for leaving, there are also a lot of level headed people who understand the benefits of being part of the EU.
Or the EU might just kick out Britain for good. British "special rules" are holding the EU back everywhere - the EU doesn't have a Foreign Minister just because of British proudness, and don't get me started on how Britain evades any responsibility for the refugees.
Either Britain becomes a FULL member of the EU with ALL responsibilities and rights or GET THE FUCK OUT. Rest of EU has had enough of them.
> And actually, to me it looks like the EU is content with a no deal as a starting point. If they get anything else, nice. If not, shrug.
Sure, the EU are so completely insouciant about the UK leaving that they didn't wage a several years long guerilla war to subvert British parliamentary democracy as a desperate rearguard action to get Britain to stay.
> The massive fear mongering campaign by pro-EU forces will blow up in their face when the UK continues to do phenomenally well past the New Year.
How? Seems to me most of the predicted bad consequences were tied to leaving the EU, which (barring some mutual agreement with the EU on an alternate timetable) happens two years after Article 50 is invoked, which it has not yet been. Why would the UK continuing to do well while it is still in the EU discredit any of the predictions of problems stemming from leaving the EU?
> This comes mostly to fill up the void that UK will leave in the E.U. by exiting and ofc is not going to fly.
Alternatively, this has been in the making for a long time, but always has been kept back by the UK to support their relevance inside of the EU. Why do you state that it "[of course] is not going to fly"? Can you refer to some similar situations that provide precedent for your prediction?
> The European Union is at crossroads
Why? And why at this particular point in time? Is it because the UK is leaving, or are there any other reasons the EU cannot maintain their current course?
> Not to mention that is nearly impossible for him to achieve anything substantial against Berlin.
How so? Is the EU colluding with Germany to the detriment of the other member states? Can you provide any evidence of this?
> Everybody tries to make his best, while every action of every key-player leads inevitably to the worst possible outcome.
Do you mean for this particular endeavour or their policies in general? Because in general the results of the EU up to this point seem far from the worst possible outcome. If you mean this particular policy, why do you believe it will lead to the worst possible outcome in this specific instance?
We can estimate likelihoods. Take e.g. Being able to travel and work in the EU. The best case scenario is maintaining the status quo, which we will certainly have to pay for, and seems to be what a lot of people voted explicitly against. (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are all members of Schengen, and so more connected than the UK). Science and research benefit amazingly from the EU - getting more out proportionally than we put in. This also could be renegotiated, but again with a price (both literal and in implementing EU laws/directives, or freedom of movement). Meanwhile, until we know what the end state will be, who is going to want to pay large research grants or jobs to UK institutions and citizens?
Meanwhile half the east coast seems to think that leaving will magically let them fish out of the sea infinitely, and I have no idea why farming thinks it was suppressed rather than subsidised by the EU.
reply