The Friendly Monster
Member
The EU doesn't care if the UK agrees or not, they can do those things once the UK leave.I am saying something else - that the UK will agree to some of the things the EU tried to do but couldn't because the UK disagreed.
The EU doesn't care if the UK agrees or not, they can do those things once the UK leave.I am saying something else - that the UK will agree to some of the things the EU tried to do but couldn't because the UK disagreed.
That's true, but UK could say: "look, banking passports are important for us, and we were prepared to negotiate hard & fight for it to the last negotiator standing, but... we'll forget about it, if you allow us to close the borders - just a tiny, tiny bit - 'cause that's what the public wants, mkay?"
That's true, but UK could say: "look, banking passports are important for us, and we were prepared to negotiate hard & fight for it to the last negotiator standing, but... we'll forget about it, if you allow us to close the borders - just a tiny, tiny bit - 'cause that's what the public wants, mkay?"
I am saying something else - that the UK will agree to some of the things the EU tried to do but couldn't because the UK disagreed.
FTA (even portions of it).
It's not a good example with respect to exiting, but it is the right scale.
No, I can not give you five concrete examples on the spot. I mentioned "finances" and "agriculture", which are two areas where we managed to exert some pressure on the EU, that's as far as I will go now because I know that otherwise it will blow up to twenty more pages yet will be largely fruitless in that you will still be of an opinion that I didn't give anything "concrete" enough and I will be just exhausted.
Various kinds, things, options...Lmao, spoken like a true leaver politician. No substance, just empty words.
Things and stuff and options and "insert random meaningless word here".
"We will not ask you to give us something we want, so please do this other thing we want?" I don't see the EU getting anything out of this.
Well, that's the only thing that comes to my mind.
Of course unless UK negotiators decide to use the "nuclear" option of EU citizens deportation [for the sake of argument let's forget about ethics of this issue]. But even with this bit of blackmailing it's a gamble - the whole deal could be off the table, as it might be unacceptable for the EU "to deal with a terrorist", so to speak.
That's true, but UK could say: "look, banking passports are important for us, and we were prepared to negotiate hard & fight for it to the last negotiator standing, but... we'll forget about it, if you allow us to close the borders - just a tiny, tiny bit - 'cause that's what the public wants, mkay?"
As far as agriculture goes, the UK is pretty dependent on Europe for food. Considering how farmers are getting driven out of business by the combination of supermarkets/big producers fucking them over and cheaper imports, I could see why they might vote leave.
Not to mention that deporting healthy young workers would cripple the UK economy even more. Also to suggest such a thing would severely damage any international relationships in the future.Problem with that nuclear option is that the nuclear weapon in question is pointed at Britain itself. Even beyond the pure economic aspects, are British voters going to accept that their friends, their neighbours, their colleagues are being deported? I'm sure some would be cheerful, but I think most people wouldn't be.
I don't think it's a credible threat, and as such do not believe it has value during negotiations.
It would collapse the economy AND the NHS. I know plenty of Spanish nurses working in the UK. They have become an integral part of it.Deportation of EU nationals already here actually is one of the things that would see people on the left riot, including me... ;-)
It's absolutely not a credible threat in any way. It would utterly destroy the UK on the international stage, at the same time as it also crippled us economically. It shouldn't even be on the table.
You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.That's true, but UK could say: "look, banking passports are important for us, and we were prepared to negotiate hard & fight for it to the last negotiator standing, but... we'll forget about it, if you allow us to close the borders - just a tiny, tiny bit - 'cause that's what the public wants, mkay?"
It's the receiving partner position.You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.
Yeah, your bargaining position isn't usually strong when you try and use leverage that you wilfully elected to give up.You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.
Quite the precedent for a common law country you guys are proposing: economy trumps democracy.
And what would be the incentive for the EU to agree with this? The baseline deal is a standard EEA agreement that does not come with the banking passport and does come with freedom of movement. If the UK wants concessions in two important areas from the EU, it will have to offer something in return. I would like to learn what these potential concessions are, particularly since they would have to be highly significant given the importance of the two concessions they would ask of the EU. As I posted before, the only thing that comes to mind is for the UK to pay vastly more into the EU budget in exchange for EEA membership than it does now for EU membership.
That's quite unfortunate. I also think I was entirely reasonable to ask for some concrete examples when you said there were many options for the UK to choose from, and don't think the tone of this response is warranted.
It's time for Leavers to realise that they literally lost all rights and entitlements that came with being an EU member and now will have to *concede* something in order to get a fraction of what the UK used to enjoy.
The UK's negotiation strategy could be summed up as "If I die here I will stink the place with my rotting corpse". Regardless of your views on the EU, this is not a good starting position.
If you want to join the EEA, the baseline is the standard EEA agreement. Why would it be any different?The baseline deal is not a standard EEA agreement, there is no baseline deal.
Still the EU, because they didn't give the UK what it wanted when leaving.I'm pretty sure most leave voters don't give a shit about any of that stuff. Or at least are unable to understand it. They just want the foreigners gone.
If they did get rid of Johnny foreigner, I wonder who they'd blame next for their own inadequacies?
That's not for me to answer, there are too many options. Guarantees of various kinds, acceptance of things that benefit the EU more than the UK
You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.
The Franklin expedition diet is starting to look quite nutritious.1 UK£ =
1.29505 US$
Would you like that shoe burn to a crisp, or soft inside?
Got a chuckle out of thisThe only leverage the UK has at this point is threatening to not leave.
The UK will be bound by WTO GATT, even without any deal, if it wants to you know trade and stuff.
You are still believing that the relationship is symmetrical. It is not. Not even remotely.The baseline deal is not a standard EEA agreement, there is no baseline deal.
Yes, you were reasonable and I apologize if my reply sounds like I am unreasonably frustrated. Let me try again.
I *think* the UK has things to give to the EU. Mostly because the trading interest is mutual --- and so the UK can add trade barriers which will harm the EU - and, yes, the EU can do that to the UK as well, but since the interest is mutual, the number and size of barriers can be negotiated and the UK can agree to some barriers from the EU which wouldn't otherwise be there in exchange for no free movement, for example. Ie, the EU defended UK's interests against Germany and France on agriculture, that can be scaled back.
I know that's not concrete. I do not have a negotiation plan with all the details worked out, perhaps I should have emphasized that I *think* there are many ways to go rather than stating that there are many ways to go.
The EU doesn't care if the UK agrees or not, they can do those things once the UK leave.
You are still thinking that the relationship is symmetrical. It is not. Not even remotely.
Banking passports are gone once UK is out. UK must offer something in exchange to get them back. And they are not part of EEA agreement. There's no EEA agreement without free movement. So if UK wants both banking passporting and limited freedom of movement UK has to offer TWO big things in exchange. And there's nothing this big that EU needs.
Nobody would quit on such terms, there're guarantees on continuity.
No, there will not be continuity of the blocking of regulations from the UK once they leave. Once the UK is gone from the EU, they have no say in those anymore.Nobody would quit on such terms, there're guarantees on continuity.
You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.
Moreover when article 50 is triggered the nation that wishes to leave is stripped of their power in the EU to prevent them from affecting the deal. They are still members of the EU but decisions are only taken by the remaining members and are treated as outsiders as they negotiate their conditions to leave. (ie timeframes where which treaties will lapse, and other technical details but not future trade relations)So what you're practically saying is that UK will threaten not to quit? Except that the exit negotiations are started once article 50 is invoked and most likely trade negotiations are not part of exit negotiations. And article 50 can't be cancelled and has a clear deadline. So UK can't say in the middle of it "I won't leave anymore".
So what you're practically saying is that UK will threaten not to quit? Except that the exit negotiations are started once article 50 is invoked and most likely trade negotiations are not part of exit negotiations. And article 50 can't be cancelled and has a clear deadline. So UK can't say in the middle of it "I won't leave anymore".
The only leverage the UK has at this point is threatening to not leave.
No, I am saying that the UK won't quit on such terms. If you ask what the UK will do if the EU says "EEA and no free movement or get out", that's just their opening sentence. As I said, the interest is mutual. (To be perfectly clear, if you now ask "but what if they insist and will keep saying EEA and no free movement or get out", then my answer is that this won't happen.)
No, I am saying that the UK won't quit on such terms. If you ask what the UK will do if the EU says "EEA and no free movement or get out", that's just their opening sentence. As I said, the interest is mutual. (To be perfectly clear, if you now ask "but what if they insist and will keep saying EEA and no free movement or get out", then my answer is that this won't happen.)
Huh? The UK wants out. Once they trigger Article 50, negotiations start. Then they have 2 years, or the period will have to be lengthened by approval of all members. So yes, once they trigger it and they don't get what they want, they will still have to leave.No, I am saying that the UK won't quit on such terms. If you ask what the UK will do if the EU says "EEA and no free movement or get out", that's just their opening sentence. As I said, the interest is mutual. (To be perfectly clear, if you now ask "but what if they insist and will keep saying EEA and no free movement or get out", then my answer is that this won't happen.)
Leaving EU is disconnected from the negotiation of trade agreements. You leave EU and make trade with EU based on WTO rules until a new trade agreement is signed. You can't negotiate the exit terms until you invoke the article 50. You're in no position to make demands. Unless you never invoke article 50.
The EU has said negotiations start once Article 50 has been triggered. So what are you preparing exactly if the other side is not even sitting at the table?It's not disconnected. The UK can not strike deals but they can prepare them.
When you leave the interests are no longer mutual. The UK wants the best deal for themselves, while that EU wants the best deal for the union. And giving you a better deal and especially backing down on freedom of movement would be worse for the union than breaking your legs off.No, I am saying that the UK won't quit on these terms, it will quit on different terms. If you ask what the UK will do if the EU says "EEA and no free movement or get out", that's just their opening sentence. As I said, the interest is mutual. (To be perfectly clear, if you now ask "but what if they insist and will keep saying EEA and no free movement or get out", then my answer is that this won't happen. Because the interest is mutual.)
The EU has said negotiations start once Article 50 has been triggered. So what are you preparing exactly if the other side is not even sitting at the table?
It's not disconnected. The UK can not strike deals but they can prepare them. There will be talks and negotiations before article 50 (as well as after, obviously).
The EU has said negotiations start once Article 50 has been triggered. So what are you preparing exactly if the other side is not even sitting at the table?
When you leave the interests are no longer mutual. The UK wants the best deal for themselves, while that EU wants the best deal for the union.
There might be some talks, but there won't be anything signed or agreed before article 50 is triggered. This is not kindergarten, really. "I leave only if I get what I want". You voted leave, not EU. Either you respect the result of the referendum or you don't, but EU has no stake in it. It's your call only. There's nothing for EU to negotiate in this.
Your whole argument comes down to "I ignore everything the EU says and think they will do something else." How does that make any sense?The EU will sit at the table, that some in the EU said they will not is their starting position, I believe the UK will find a way to get them to listen.
The EU will sit at the table, that some in the EU said they will not is their starting position, I believe the UK will find a way to get them to listen.