> 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.
> 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.
> You don't even consider that maybe the EU could just ... not do anything.
"Not do anything" means the UK is not part of the EU hence the UK has no trade deal with the EU. The defaults are WTO rules, which is TARIFFS and no passporting just to be over-simplistic. The WORST deal for everyone.
> There is no problem with euro-related transactions being handled in London.
There is. The EU would actually need to change the law to allow London to keep operating while not being part of the EU.
It is the UK who's leaving. Why do you try to paint it as retaliation?
> The vote was not a decision that you weren't "worth it".
Yes, it was. EU immigration was a big part of the vote and the other, namely what you wrote --> "It was a decision that the EU is a problem and needs to be got rid of." is the "not worth it" part. For you, it's not worth to keep us around. I respect your opinion, but please also respect my distaste for it.
> But in a classic show of why the decision was correct, instead of blaming the EU for imposing trade sanctions on your industry, you blame the UK for voting to leave even though it's entirely the EU's retaliation that is to blame for your predicament.
It's not trade sanctions, it's the lack of a trade deal. You must have been supermad at Makro when you stopped paying for your membership and lost your right to buy there, right? Those filthy revengeful Makro workers, imposing trading sanctions on YOU nonetheless!
> The EU's actions are not inevitable.
Agreed. The UK just has to reach an agreement that satisfies both parts.
> They are deliberate, spiteful and driven by the fear of a loss of political power.
No, they're not. The UK's decision to eat their cake and have (which you don't seem to be able to grasp - where does this delusion come from?) is the only deliberate and spiteful action here.
> Take your anger to Brussels.
Good luck for the future. You're going to need (and what's even worse - I'll need it because of delusional people like you as I live in the UK too).
> 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.
> Both outcomes are fine by them because it establishes for good the principle that leaving the EU should be as impossible as an American State seceding from the Union, which is what they want.
Leaving the EU is pretty easy. There's a raft of existing models to base the new relationship on - Norway, Switzerland etc. Pick one, maybe tweak it slightly to make sure you don't start a war in NI, done.
The problem is that the entire process is being run by isolationist extremists who see the UK's largest trading partner as Beelzebub and reject any form of broad agreement with the EU.
> 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.
> 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.
> From what I remember the terms set by the EU would've put the UK in a worse position than what caused Brexit in the first place
They don't have to be better than what caused the Brexit, they have to be better than a no-deal Brexit. Why would they expect to get better treatment by leaving than by staying?
> 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.
> 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.
I can't believe anyone would make such an assumption. I know some people who 1) voted leave 2) are perfectly aware that under WTO rules their businesses would literally have to close because they trade with EU and their European partners won't accept a ~20% hike on the price of British products due to non-EU custom duties. They all wanted out of EU because they don't like the immigrants, because they think Brussels has too much power, but they all wanted easy trade with the EU. WTO trade is not what they voted for.
>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.
> 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 UK already picked and chose the parts of EU membership they wanted. They opted out of the Euro, they opted out of Schengen, they opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights--all of this, and more, on the threat of leaving the EU.
> Freedom of movement is actually a fairly good thing, though.
It's one of the parts of the EU I like better, but isn't it one of the things the people voting Leave most disliked? Leaving the EU only to still have unrestricted immigration from eastern Europe seems like an outcome UKIP would consider a hollow victory.
> Had we been voting for the 1970s era EEC, I'd have gladly voted Remain.
The UK was not a signatory of any relevant treaty post-EEC. It opted out of the Schengen Area, of the Euro zone and even of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The idea that the UK was being controlled by a distant bureaucracy in Brussels is one of the many lies told by tabloids. The EU is far from perfect, but the UK was never in it in any meaningful sense. It was mostly being oppressed by tomato size regulations and things of that sort. Ironically, they will probably still have to comply to all that if they wish to maintain trade agreements with Europe. This entire thing was based on lies and disgust at "experts". And a good dose of xenophobia.
I have lived in the UK and I have never seen a EU flag being flown anywhere (unlike what you see in any other EU country). It was always more likely to see an American of Commonwealth-country flag than an EU one.
There is no EU constitution, by the way. It was rejected by referendum in several member states and the project died.
The UK already enjoyed access to EU markets while giving almost nothing in return to the common project. In fact, many people in Europe felt that the UK was participating mostly to prevent further integration. Even British comedy thought so:
I think younger people see things differently, are less xenophobic and less attached to nationalist ideas, borders and walls. The next generation might have brought real participation of the UK in the EU (i.e. real skin in the game). Unfortunately, Baby Boomers still had another social contract to wipe their asses with before they checked out. So here we are.
> 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.
> The EU is now trying to make the UK pay an extraordinary price in order to warn the other countries that leaving the EU is not a choice to be taken lightly.
No, the EU is showing the UK that it can't cherry pick all the advantages without shouldering any of the responsibilities.
> It certainly has not delivered on its promises and now it faces a backlash from its citizens.
It absolutely delivered on a great amount of promises and did an excellent job of unifying the bargaining power of its individual states on a world scale. Not saying that there aren't any issues, but we'd be so much worse off without the union. Using some parts that didn't work out well as a reason to shun the EU is like shooting yourself in the foot because your toe hurts.
> Many countries are already demanding to control their borders.
Yes but that won't happen.
> the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose.
Nope. It's not just about immigration. It's actually being able to run one's own country. When you sign up to the EU, you are effectively giving up your country.
Ok, that attitude is fine. If I thought the EU was doing that, I would‘ve moved to Canada.
Trouble if, the only thing the EU has the power to do is to remove U.K. access to EU membership benefits. That’s not “vindictive”, it’s what the UK voted for after being repeatedly told this would happen.
That's a nice strawman you're building...
> EU dictates terms that are essentially the same as not leaving, or actually even worse.
Yes. I mean, what else would you expect? They're not going to treat a random country better than EU partners.
> working in the real economy, like port operators, saying they're prepared for no deal and there'd be no disruption at all
Real people already have to apply for residency and not everybody gets it. Disruption has already happened.
reply