The Friendly Monster
Member
The EU doesn't care if the UK agrees or not, they can do those things once the UK leave.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Please don't ever go into negotiations... ;-).
Closing the borders is the one thing we get from a full leave of the EU. Banking Passport is something they have, we want.
What we want is our cake and eating it - closed borders, but access to the single market and the banking passport. Unless Europe is willing to compromise on one of the most fundamental aspects of the EU (freedom of movement) that won't happen. Furthermore, this idea "They need us to" seems to be based in a misreading of the motives. Yes, they will suffer if they don't have access to the city - for a short time being, until the city moves to Paris and Frankfurt. At that point they don't suffer and instead have a wider tax base and more jobs.
The Friendly Monster
Member
The idea that the banking passport would even be on the table seems absurd to me. France and Germany especially will be delighted that the UK are throwing it away.
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.
Do you don't understand that you have no word to say anymore on this topics? And any regulation that was opposed by UK can be put in place once UK is out? Nobody cares anymore about what UK agrees or not. You must accept any regulations in the areas you want free trade within EEA. That's it.
iz.podpolja
Neo Member
Well, that was the only thing that comes to my mind. UK negotiating position is very weak, so it's difficult to find something.
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.
As we are in the exotic options territory:
- give Gibraltar to Spanish;
- give up NI;
- allow Scottish to secede before Brexit, so they can effectively stay in the EU (oh wait... this might happen anyway)
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.
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.
Anyway, a large amount of these imports are essentials, such as fruits and vegetables. You know, the stuff that keeps a population healthy. How they hell are you going to exert pressure on the European Union when 30% of your imports are from the very same single market you want to join?
You can't just U turn and make the United Kingdom suddenly self-sufficient.
Anyway, a large amount of these imports are essentials, such as fruits and vegetables. You know, the stuff that keeps a population healthy. How they hell are you going to exert pressure on the European Union when 30% of your imports are from the very same single market you want to join?
You can't just U turn and make the United Kingdom suddenly self-sufficient.
Remember the Alamo! The brave story of 12 trade negotiators outlasting the army of 500.
That is part why the European Union subsidizes them hard.
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.
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.
The Friendly Monster
Member
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.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
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.
It's a disgusting but fortunately empty threat.
Orniletter
Banned
You have to realize how unfathomably weak this position is.
formasymphonic
Member
Literally half an hour ago just had someone say to one of my Polish work colleagues
"This is why I hate Eastern Europeans".
The woman she said this to is the type of person who would never do or wish anything bad on anyone. And to hear this happen to her just hurt me.
Don't even know what to say anymore. This shit is just making people bolder in their bigotry.
"This is why I hate Eastern Europeans".
The woman she said this to is the type of person who would never do or wish anything bad on anyone. And to hear this happen to her just hurt me.
Don't even know what to say anymore. This shit is just making people bolder in their bigotry.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's the receiving partner position.
Yeah, your bargaining position isn't usually strong when you try and use leverage that you wilfully elected to give up.
Camp Freddie
Member
That's a snarky attitude, but you're right. No government is going to overturn the referendum result unless they can find a democratic reason to do so. It would not be enough to say, "I know you want to leave, but we're going to ignore you to protect the economy".
Ignoring the referendum result would require public opinion to swing heavily against leaving in the next few months. That doesn't seem too much of a stretch, since the leave campaign promises have all turned out to be lies, whereas the remain campaign's warnings (previously denounced as "Project Fear") are all coming true.
If the public change their minds, then the politicians can follow.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
1 UK£ =
1.29505 US$
Would you like that shoe burn to a crisp, or soft inside?
1.29505 US$
Would you like that shoe burn to a crisp, or soft inside?
accel
Member
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.
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?
ClosingADoor
Member
If you want to join the EEA, the baseline is the standard EEA agreement. Why would it be any different?
Still the EU, because they didn't give the UK what it wanted when leaving.
"- You know that thing that our economy needs the most? We're giving it back to you if you give us what we want.
- But we already took it away from you, because you left EU, remember?
- Oh."
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The Franklin expedition diet is starting to look quite nutritious.
Got a chuckle out of this
shinra-bansho
Member
The UK will be bound by WTO GATT, even without any deal, if it wants to you know trade and stuff.
They will go out of WTO and UN and negotiate better deals. The best deals.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
You are still believing that the relationship is symmetrical. It is not. Not even remotely.
accel
Member
Nobody would quit on such terms, there're guarantees on continuity.
I am not thinking it is symmetrical as in both sides have equal leverage. This does not at all exclude negotiation.
Camp Freddie
Member
Two big things.
The Queen will change her name back to Saxe-Coburg and Prince Harry will buy an Audi R8.
Job done.
Keeping our banking passport is about as likely as the above.
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".
ClosingADoor
Member
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.
iz.podpolja
Neo Member
Sure, in general the UK's negotiating position is abysmally weak, so the weakness of my argument only reflects it.
If you think about it, the problem here is that while UK is leaving the EU, the negotiating goal has be "to remain" as much as possible - to put it in other words: it's fighting for things it's giving up in the first place.
Theonik
Member
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)
accel
Member
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.)
UcchedavÄda
Member
I wonder what would actually happen if the UK did not invoke A50. The UK has burned a lot of goodwill with the rest of the EU, and I doubt that most other members would be pleased if this did not have any consequences on the UK's privileged position.
So you believe that despite the obvious incentives for the EU to do exactly that, and everything said by everyone at every level of the EU on freedom of movement and single market access, that when it comes down to it they will back down?
That they will fundamentally undermine one of the main pillars of the EU to keep us in? That they would hand every right wing lunatic party in Europe the ammo they need to do their own exit program?
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.
ClosingADoor
Member
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.
accel
Member
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).
ClosingADoor
Member
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?
The stuff you seem to find obvious, really aren't. The UK is in a very, very weak position to get what they want because they already said they want to leave.
Theonik
Member
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.
The last thing France and Germany and hell every other nation wants is to give extremists back home ammunition. The damage to the UK would be regrettable if you couldn't get a deal, and would hurt the EU but not as much as a dissolution of the union.
Our side of the table doesn't even have chairs... ;-(. We don't even have any of these negotiators we would need to make these trade deals. The notion the government has of bringing in the big 4 to do them for us is slightly horrifying given my experience with them to date.
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.
accel
Member
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 above is not the case. The interest is going to be mutual for the foreseeable future, because there is trade, there are social connections, common interests, etc.
With big things, it's normal to first have talks, then agree on something, then execute that. If you want to say that once the UK presses some magic button, the EU will be able to throw away all previously agreed things into the trash bin, I believe it's more complex than that.
ClosingADoor
Member
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?
You do understand that the UK does not have the upper hand in these things do you? The EU does.
I think we have a difference in understanding of the word mutual.
Mutual yes - Germany and FRance would like access to the UK markets, and would like the ability to buy UK products, and visa versa.
Equal - absolutely not. It's far harder for us to give something up than for them, and we want a huge amount more.
It's a completely, wildly unequal trade right from the start, and will only get worse as the £ continues to drop and "the risks crystallise". The wider incentives clearly point to the EU screwing us to the ground in any discussions - and rightly so, that's what they should do to protect their citizens and the EU. Try as we might, we have nothing to bring to the table that compares to what they have and what we want.
Mutual yes - Germany and FRance would like access to the UK markets, and would like the ability to buy UK products, and visa versa.
Equal - absolutely not. It's far harder for us to give something up than for them, and we want a huge amount more.
It's a completely, wildly unequal trade right from the start, and will only get worse as the £ continues to drop and "the risks crystallise". The wider incentives clearly point to the EU screwing us to the ground in any discussions - and rightly so, that's what they should do to protect their citizens and the EU. Try as we might, we have nothing to bring to the table that compares to what they have and what we want.
Triggering the article 50 is an UK internal decision. Either you do it or you don't. EU has nothing to discuss about it. The discussions start after that.
If you think you have some kind of leverage by threatening EU forever with the article 50, you have to think if UK wants to become the public enemy in EU while there is also the article 7.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked