Support NeoGAF

[jorma]

Freedom of movement within the EU is the best part of the whole union. They aren't going to abandon either of the four pillars just to keep the UK in the single market.

And if that still happens for some unfathomable reason i'd be on the leave side if a referendum was held in Sweden, because there'd be no fucking point with the EU anymore. And there would be plenty of national referendums in that future, because that would change everything.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It (EEA without freedom of movement) may go against the ideal world in the eyes of the EU, but they allowed it in several different cases (Liechteinstein, Greenland). This illustrates plentifully that this is subject to negotiation.

Liechtenstein - Population 36.925
Greenland - Population 56.483

UK - Population 64.100.00

There is a small different in priorities there. Giving up total free movement for Liechtenstein doesn't matter that much in the end, nobody really cares about the country and it doesn't have any impact on the world. The UK is a different story.

Greenland is also a different story, since it is basically a colony of Denmark that is getting more and more of their own rights over the years to go mostly independent.

 

[Patryn]

It (EEA without freedom of movement) may go against the ideal world in the eyes of the EU, but they allowed it in several different cases (Liechteinstein, Greenland). This illustrates plentifully that this is subject to negotiation.



It's a question on how big is the compromise. I don't think it's all that big, a reasonable quota on the number of people who enter per year - why not.

This is a slightly different case. They may want to make the UK an example of why you shouldn't attempt to leave the EU.

The countries you cited were never part of it in the first place.

It's a question on how big is the compromise. I don't think it's all that big, a reasonable quota on the number of people who enter per year - why not.

Because why should the EU give up total freedom of movement? You say it's not a big deal, but it really, truly is. And the UK will need to give up something huge to get it, and they don't really have anything to give.

 

[BigAl1992]

How does Ireland feel about being unified? I thought hat was a "somewhat" contentious subject...

To be frank, as someone who's an Irishman, I don't know. Obviously, Irish Nationalists and republicans would be chomping at the bit at such a thought happening now, considering we haven't even seen the start of the implications of this referendum, but as for the wider public, I honestly couldn't tell you. Possibly a lot of indifference to the idea of Irish unification, as it'll boil down to Economics and Security. Economics, because our received a complete battering during the last financial recession that has only recently recovered and people will be very frosty to the idea of unification if it means higher taxes and less individual income coming in as a result of having to support another six counties, especially as people are still having problems nearly 8 years after all of this took place; Security, because let's face it, a lot of tension and mistrust is still in supply in Northern Ireland and if unification means a return to terrorism, civil unrest and endless reports of something else kicking off that we have to deal with, then people's patience will be in very short supply within the rest of the country.

 

[Theonik]

The other point is that the UK is delaying negotiations to the detriment of their position. As the impact of uncertainty weakens their economy, the hurt on the EU lessens, as public opinion shifts and GE becomes closer in the UK the EU gets more leverage. The longer they delay the less willing the EU will be to negotiate they want negotiations to start this September not next September.

Also French and German elections are coming up, these member's agendas will change based on that too as their attention shifts to their domestic issues and trying to appeal to their voters. The UK will be treated accordingly.

 

[mrklaw]

It's already a thing though:

I don't know what we expected. We should have seen this coming for years. You walk out of the train station and see all of the unemployed British doctors and nurses on the corner with their begging bowls and signs 'will take blood pressure for food'. Breaks your heart, but because of the EU free movement rules there is nothing that can be done to prevent Sarkovian doctors from coming over and stealing all their jobs. It was bound to boil over eventually (probably used an autoclave to keep things sterile though)

 

[Funky Papa]

The EU won't shake the NI hornet nest. Nobody will want anything to do with the potential fallout that could come from that. That doesn't mean that NI couldn't pull a Scotland and try its luck with an indy referendum while Brussels remains on the sidelines if support for the EU remains solid.

 

[Tuffty]

It's very contentious. Any attempt to bring NI into Ireland would be met with a lot of pushback, both in terms of politics and in terms of violence.

In the short term Brexit raises questions about the Good Friday Agreement, since the peace settlement is predicated on the Irish and British states remaining members of the EU. Any general election I would have voted DUP as primarily I vote to keep N.Ireland in the UK as we would be better economically than a United Ireland. Though my vote has changed recently to Alliance because I find DUP's stances on social issues like homosexuality (NI remains the only part of the UK that doesn't allow gay marriage thanks to the DUP) or abortion, to be against my own. Brexit just opens up a new complication as I'm a Unionist and voted to Remain.

Recent surveys suggest that even Nationalist can’t be relied on to vote in overwhelming numbers for a United Ireland. For what it's worth, I'm angry that voters in England and Wales results in us pulling out of the EU despite the fact that the majority of N.Ireland voted to remain. Much like Scottish voters I guess. I just hope that those elected that work something out so that no physical border seperates North from South. Not feeling good about what the future, economically, may bring by remaining in the UK but we'll see.

 

[Joni]

It (EEA without freedom of movement) may go against the ideal world in the eyes of the EU, but they allowed it in several different cases (Liechteinstein, Greenland). This illustrates plentifully that this is subject to negotiation..

Free movement of workers also applies, in general terms, to the countries in the European Economic Area: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

 

[Theonik]

The EU won't shake the NI hornet nest. Nobody will want anything to do with the potential fallout that could come from that. That doesn't mean that NI couldn't pull a Scotland and try its luck with an indy referendum while Brussels remains on the sidelines if support for the EU remains solid.

Yeah I don't see them getting involved. But if something happened between NI seceding and unification with ROI, much less likely than say the Scot situation. I see EU development funds being made available.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

Actually Liechtenstein is allowed quotas on the number of workers who can move there. However it is a microstate with a population of 37,000. Hardly precedent for the UK. Greenland is not an EEA member.

 

[iz.podpolja]

It (EEA without freedom of movement) may go against the ideal world in the eyes of the EU, but they allowed it in several different cases (Liechteinstein, Greenland). This illustrates plentifully that this is subject to negotiation.

Of course it is a subject to negotiation - everything potentially is - just the UK's hand is very weak & the internal logic of the EU will be against any concessions, especially given how useless the deal Cameron negotiated (was it even utilized during the campaign?) was, and mind that it was considered a major, however undeserved win for UK. Bottom line is I think you heavily underestimate the value of the freedom of movement for the EU.

 

[Jotaka]

Not out of kindness, out of big mutual interests. Just professionalism, no favours, yes, totally, I ask for nothing else.

You are asking for 444 million inhabitants to bend over for 64.1 million

 

[shinra-bansho]

The EU won't shake the NI hornet nest. Nobody will want anything to do with the potential fallout that could come from that. That doesn't mean that NI couldn't pull a Scotland and try its luck with an indy referendum while Brussels remains on the sidelines if support for the EU remains solid.

There are actually implications for the Good Friday agreement due to Brexit. The establishment of hard borders between Northern Island and Ireland in the event of removal of freedom of movement? Reintroduction of border checks? Working rights? Patrols?

This freedom underpins a part of what's brought 20 years of peace.

It's something that hasn't gotten much attention.

 

[Funky Papa]

The other point is that the UK is delaying negotiations to the detriment of their position. As the impact of uncertainty weakens their economy, the hurt on the EU lessens, as public opinion shifts and GE becomes closer in the UK the EU gets more leverage. The longer they delay the less willing the EU will be to negotiate they want negotiations to start this September not next September.

Also French and German elections are coming up, these member's agendas will change based on that too as their attention shifts to their domestic issues and trying to appeal to their voters. The UK will be treated accordingly.

Then you also have to consider that Spain and Italy's European profiles just got elevated a few notches by virtue of the UK getting out of the Union.

Spain will probably tell negotiators to find a deal that is ammenable to its exports since the UK is an important partner for the local automotive, machinery and produce industries, but if the British economy begins to deteriorate it will make a huge push to strip it from its assets in order to make for the loses.

As a matter of fact, there are already preemptive bids for the London-based European Medicines Agency (EMA) and both Madrid and Barcelona are well positioned to suck up a good part of the financial industry, since there will be significant European pressure to avoid the brunt of it going to Germany if the UK loses its financial passport. Ford, GM and Nissan would also probably move its production facilities to Valencia, Zaragoza and Barcelona, along their local providers. Given the absolutely sorry state of the economies of the Valencian and Aragonese governments and the cheaper labour costs, I expect a large effort from Spain to grab a large part of UK's automotive industry. Chances are this is already underway.

Luton, Cowley, Oxford, Ellesmere Port, Castle Bromwich, Swindon, Sunderland and Burnaston (not to count Ford parts manufacturing factories in Bridgend, Dagenham and Halewood) are set to take a beating, with Spain throwing most of the punches.

I'm particularly familiar with the British and Spanish automotive industry and UK has a lot to lose there from Brexit. There's going to be a bloodbath unless the UK magically manages to avoid large import and export tariffs. I really, really hope Leavers enjoy the MG range of cars.

The UK's position weakens with each day it passes without invoking Article 50.

 

[Bleepey]

The last paragraph of the article:



It's been circulating a while - I think I saw it before the referendum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

 

[KingSnake]

Not out of kindness, out of big mutual interests. Just professionalism, no favours, yes, totally, I ask for nothing else.

Professionalism on EU side means keeping EU intact. Thus no deal that includes both free trade and exclusion from free movement will be signed, because that will endanger the very existence of EU. And UK has nothing of value to give in exchange for it anyhow. The positions are very clear and public on this.

You accept freedom of movement => Norway deal.
You don't accept freedom of movement => Turkey deal.

Just professionalism, no favours.

 

[accel]

Giving up a say in regulations isn't a card the UK can play in the negotiations, because they gave up that card when they said they wanted to leave the EU.

In fact (and this is far from an original thought) I'd argue that certain elements of the EU would probably want to punish the UK and make an example out of them in order to dissuade other countries from attempting a similar thing. There may be value in causing some pain to the EU right now in order to prevent more pain for the EU in the future.

In that case, the UK gets screwed very, very hard. You say that the UK and the EU have mutual interests, but the EU also has an interest in preserving its existence, and its entirely possible that they may weigh that interest well above their interest in the UK market.

Basically, the EU nailing the UK to the wall hard doesn't hurt the EU nearly as much as it would hurt the UK, and there's an argument to be made that it would actually be in the EU's best long-term interests to do so.

I believe this works differently.

Let me try to illustrate my thinking in another way:

Right now, the UK are in the EU and there is a referendum that says the UK has to quit. Fine. If nothing but quitting is done, no deals, nothing at all, there will be trade and other barriers both ways. That harms both sides (perhaps one more than the other). So it is in the interests of both sides to find some solution other than no deals and no agreements, that would be better for both.

One (I think best) such solution could be staged exit, where the UK exits gradually. This gives both sides time to work out the details and allows to smooth the process. What the first intermediate step would be is subject to negotiation. Yes, the UK is exiting the EU and when it finally exits, it will not be able to vote on anything, that's true and not under dispute. But right now the UK can vote and where exactly on the way to the exit it will give up the right to vote and for what *is* subject to negotiation. The right to vote does have value. Perhaps you mean that until the UK gives up rights to vote in the EU, that's not really exiting, but that's a different matter.

I agree that the EU nailing the UK to the wall hurts the EU less than the UK, but it's a two-way road still. To put it very simple, if you were the EU, why should you get hurt at all? Why not give up some of the nailing to the wall in order to remove the hurt from your side? That brings us to negotiations.

 

[iz.podpolja]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

LOL. So, it's either 2:1 for remain or ~54% for leave according to The Independent.
Is there a reliable src to check these numbers against?

 

[KingSnake]

One (I think best) such solution could be staged exit, where the UK exits gradually. This gives both sides time to work out the details and allows to smooth the process. What the first intermediate step would be is subject to negotiation. Yes, the UK is exiting the EU and when it finally exits, it will not be able to vote on anything, that's true and not under dispute. But right now the UK can vote and where exactly on the way to the exit it will give up the right to vote and for what *is* subject to negotiation. The right to vote does have value. Perhaps you mean that until the UK gives up rights to vote in the EU, that's not really exiting, but that's a different matter.

Do you understand what rules are? Do you think abiding the law can be negotiated?

There is a clear rule in place for leaving EU. The famous article 50. Once the article 50 is invoked by UK, UK has no longer the right to participate in EU's decisions. It's not subject to negotiation. It's a rule.

There is no staged exit possible from EU. That would mean to change the EU treaties.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

LOL. So, it's either 2:1 for remain or ~54% for leave according to The Independent.
Is there a reliable src to check these numbers against?

The UK’s Jewish population had voted overwhelmingly, by two to one, to reject Brexit, according to polls. A survey carried out in the aftermath, on behalf of The Jewish Chronicle newspaper, showed that 59 per cent of those questioned were unhappy with the referendum result, compared to 28.3 per cent who were satisfied.

Well even if both polls were fairly sampled it could still be the case. You could be unhappy with the result if you voted leave or if you didn't vote.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I believe this works differently.

Let me try to illustrate my thinking in another way:

Right now, the UK are in the EU and there is a referendum that says the UK has to quit. Fine. If nothing but quitting is done, no deals, nothing at all, there will be trade and other barriers both ways. That harms both sides (perhaps one more than the other). So it is in the interests of both sides to find some solution other than no deals and no agreements, that would be better for both.

One (I think best) such solution could be staged exit, where the UK exits gradually. This gives both sides time to work out the details and allows to smooth the process. What the first intermediate step would be is subject to negotiation. Yes, the UK is exiting the EU and when it finally exits, it will not be able to vote on anything, that's true and not under dispute. But right now the UK can vote and where exactly on the way to the exit it will give up the right to vote and for what *is* subject to negotiation. The right to vote does have value. Perhaps you mean that until the UK gives up rights to vote in the EU, that's not really exiting, but that's a different matter.

No... It is not in the interest of the EU to make this process as easy as possible for the UK. This has been explained a few times.

The UK will leave and give up its right to vote. So there is nothing to negotiate about there. It will happen. The UK can not use that in their negotiations.

 

[Xun]

Reading comments by leave voters on Facebook gives me a fucking headache.

Many say they're doing it to go against the elite, and yet they've just empowered the elite by leaving.

Their reasoning is incredibly baffling and it's a concern such people are able to vote.

 

[Patryn]

I believe this works differently.

Let me try to illustrate my thinking in another way:

Right now, the UK are in the EU and there is a referendum that says the UK has to quit. Fine. If nothing but quitting is done, no deals, nothing at all, there will be trade and other barriers both ways. That harms both sides (perhaps one more than the other). So it is in the interests of both sides to find some solution other than no deals and no agreements, that would be better for both.

One (I think best) such solution could be staged exit, where the UK exits gradually. This gives both sides time to work out the details and allows to smooth the process. What the first intermediate step would be is subject to negotiation. Yes, the UK is exiting the EU and when it finally exits, it will not be able to vote on anything, that's true and not under dispute. But right now the UK can vote and where exactly on the way to the exit it will give up the right to vote and for what *is* subject to negotiation. The right to vote does have value. Perhaps you mean that until the UK gives up rights to vote in the EU, that's not really exiting, but that's a different matter.

I agree that the EU nailing the UK to the wall hurts the EU less than the UK, but it's a two-way road still. To put it very simple, if you were the EU, why should you get hurt at all? Why not give up some of the nailing to the wall in order to remove the hurt from your side? That brings us to negotiations.

Firstly, as soon as Article 50 is enacted, the UK loses their vote. If the EU holds off negotiations until then you take that arrow out of the UK's quiver. As it would put the UK in an even worse negotiating position, it can be argued its to the EU's benefit to refuse to negotiate until Article 50 is enacted.

Secondly, why would the EU accept pain at all? As I said in order to avoid more pain down the line. If the UK gets a pretty nice deal for itself, that will be something a lot of rightist movements in other countries can point to as a justification for their own Exit campaign. If the UK gets bloodied and hurt really badly in the exit, then you're pre-preemptively cutting the knees out of those movements, which leads to long-term benefits for the EU.

 

[Dougald]

Reading comments by leave voters on Facebook gives me a fucking headache.

Many say they're doing it to go against the elite, and yet they've just empowered the elite by leaving.

Their reasoning is incredibly baffling and it's a concern such people are able to vote.

I keep seeing the word "dictatorship" used.

You can make the case that the EU needs to be more democratic, sure. But dictatorship is so far from the truth it's just sad.

 

[Kyoufu]

Reading comments by leave voters on Facebook gives me a fucking headache.

Many say they're doing it to go against the elite, and yet they've just empowered the elite by leaving.

Their reasoning is incredibly baffling and it's a concern such people are able to vote.

I wish they'd take a look at what's happening to their economy. Sigh.

 

[Theonik]

Reading comments by leave voters on Facebook gives me a fucking headache.

Many say they're doing it to go against the elite, and yet they've just empowered the elite by leaving.

Their reasoning is incredibly baffling and it's a concern such people are able to vote.

It's one of the reasons I'm against mandatory voting. People complain about low voter turnouts all the time, but the reality of the matter is most voters are not necessarily equipped to vote. Optional voting makes it so the voters which care the most and presumably are more informed are also the ones voting. Mind that also means that the people voting are also the ones that feel the strongest about something which does not necessarily mean they are the most informed.

 

[Jackpot]

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.

Still waiting on those examples. 5 was too ambitious, can you do 2?

 

[accel]

Firstly, as soon as Article 50 is enacted, the UK loses their vote. If the EU holds off negotiations until then you take that arrow out of the UK's quiver. As it would put the UK in an even worse negotiating position, it can be argued its to the EU's benefit to refuse to negotiate until Article 50 is enacted.

Secondly, why would the EU accept pain at all? As I said in order to avoid more pain down the line. If the UK gets a pretty nice deal for itself, that will be something a lot of rightist movements in other countries can point to as a justification for their own Exit campaign. If the UK gets bloodied and hurt really badly in the exit, then you're pre-preemptively cutting the knees out of those movements, which leads to long-term benefits for the EU.

The UK and the EU can agree to have the UK activate article 50 and enter the alternate form of participation the same day or even simultaneously.

As to the EU accepting some pain in order to teach everybody around a lesson, I happen to think this would strike an opposite note than the EU would want - "once you are here, don't dare talk, because we own you". I don't think that's in the best interests of the EU.

Still waiting on those examples. 5 was too ambitious, can you do 2?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=209275659&postcount=6806

 

[ClosingADoor]

I keep seeing the word "dictatorship" used.

You can make the case that the EU needs to be more democratic, sure. But dictatorship is so far from the truth it's just sad.

Apparently we need to vote for every government employee now, otherwise it is undemocratic. Oh, but please ignore the House of Lords and the fact that countries don't elect about 99% of their officials directly.

The UK and the EU can agree to have the UK activate article 50 and enter the alternate form of participation the same day or even simultaneously.

As to the EU accepting some pain in order to teach everybody around a lesson, I happen to think this would strike an opposite note than the EU would want - "once you are here, don't dare talk, because we own you". I don't think that's in the best interests of the EU.

EU countries have already stated negotiations start when the UK activates Article 50, not before. So no, that will probably not happen. It would also make little sense.

You are time and time again just looking at this from an UK perspective of making the exit the least painful possible. That is not what the EU wants. It is not in their interest at all.

 

[operon]

A few points I wanted to make.
1. People saying that a second referendum is somehow undemocratic, somehow ignore the fact that the general public were lied to quite blatantly. Wildly inaccurate claims and promises were made and that people deserve to know the full facts when they make a big decision like this that impacts the future of everyone in this country. Ireland and its EU referendums usually always come up in this discussion as a way of somehow showing that the EU won't take no for an answer. This conveniently forgets that concessions were made and that a new referendum was held on this basis. It took 2 referendum for divorce to be made legal in Ireland going by the arguments some in here hold this would have never have been made illegal. Three referendums have been held on the topic of abortion in Ireland and the position on it is still a mess and a legal minefield. Should they ignore that because the held 3 referendums on it.
2. I hate to have to join the chorus of people attempting to show you blackcrane that you are wrong and frankly and I mean this in the nicest way living in clown cuckoo land. Yes the EU will act professionally when negotiating our leaving the EU, but it will be in representing their members, professionally getting the best deal for them. After all that is the job of a union to represent their members and get the best deal for them.
3. And lastly whilst I think a united Ireland is way off, I think brexit will have an affect on it. In the last while, a lot of nationalist whilst still retaining a aspiration of a united Ireland have accepted the status quo. Enjoying a reasonable economy and a generous block grant from England. But as the economy is already on the way down, and we can expect cuts from the block grant, no EU grants and stormont expected to take on the paying of farm subsidies we could be in serious trouble

 

[Dougald]

Apparently we need to vote for every government employee now, otherwise it is undemocratic. Oh, but please ignore the House of Lords and the fact that countries don't elect about 99% of their officials directly.

Wouldn't that be awful. We'd end up like the US where people are electing their school comissioners, etc. It's bad enough that we now have elected police comissioners, I always spoil my ballot on those.

 

[Jackpot]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=209275659&postcount=6806

I mentioned "finances" and "agriculture"

"Minister, what policy will you take on leveraging a beneficial exit for the UK?"

"FINANCES"

Such detail.

 

[Frankfurter]

I believe this works differently.

Let me try to illustrate my thinking in another way:

Right now, the UK are in the EU and there is a referendum that says the UK has to quit. Fine. If nothing but quitting is done, no deals, nothing at all, there will be trade and other barriers both ways. That harms both sides (perhaps one more than the other). So it is in the interests of both sides to find some solution other than no deals and no agreements, that would be better for both.

One (I think best) such solution could be staged exit, where the UK exits gradually. This gives both sides time to work out the details and allows to smooth the process. What the first intermediate step would be is subject to negotiation. Yes, the UK is exiting the EU and when it finally exits, it will not be able to vote on anything, that's true and not under dispute. But right now the UK can vote and where exactly on the way to the exit it will give up the right to vote and for what *is* subject to negotiation. The right to vote does have value. Perhaps you mean that until the UK gives up rights to vote in the EU, that's not really exiting, but that's a different matter.

I agree that the EU nailing the UK to the wall hurts the EU less than the UK, but it's a two-way road still. To put it very simple, if you were the EU, why should you get hurt at all? Why not give up some of the nailing to the wall in order to remove the hurt from your side? That brings us to negotiations.

No, it simply isn't. There is a very clear process at which point the UK loses its right to vote and this is indeed nonnegotiable.

 

[Theonik]

"Minister, what policy will you take on leveraging a beneficial exit for the UK?"

"FINANCES"

Such detail.

You just don't get it. It's several SMALL policies. He'd list all of them but he doesn't want to waste our time reading them all.
He's only doing it for our sake.

 

[iz.podpolja]

The UK’s Jewish population had voted overwhelmingly, by two to one, to reject Brexit, according to polls. A survey carried out in the aftermath, on behalf of The Jewish Chronicle newspaper, showed that 59 per cent of those questioned were unhappy with the referendum result, compared to 28.3 per cent who were satisfied.

Well even if both polls were fairly sampled it could still be the case. You could be unhappy with the result if you voted leave or if you didn't vote.

Yeah, I assumed that the first sentence, ie. "Jewish population had voted overwhelmingly" and the provided 2:1 ratio is a separate statement as it clearly talks about the referendum itself, not the mood in the community after the vote & there is no way the cited poll can support the first sentence's assertion.
But it seems it's rather poor journalism/logic than two separate statements.

 

[accel]

2. I hate to have to join the chorus of people attempting to show you blackcrane that you are wrong and frankly and I mean this in the nicest way living in clown cuckoo land. Yes the EU will act professionally when negotiating our leaving the EU, but it will be in representing their members, professionally getting the best deal for them. After all that is the job of a union to represent their members and get the best deal for them.

I am not saying otherwise, I am saying that the best deal for the EU is way better for the UK than "screw you, UK, you get nothing, just give us everything you have on us (ie, continue buying our products every year) and be glad we didn't spit on you".

 

[Maledict]

I am not saying otherwise, I am saying that the best deal for the EU is way better for the UK than "screw you, UK, you get nothing, just give us everything you have on us and be glad we didn't spit on you".

There is room between "The UK gets everything it wants" (your position) and "the EU burns the UK to the ground out of spite" (the straw man position). It's just the mid-point is a lot closer to the EU side than the UKs.

No-one thinks either of those is going to happen. What's going to happen is we enter negotiations where we hold literally no power or sway and have to take what we are offered. It's as simple as that - you look at the relevant costs and motivators for each party, and it's crystal clear that expecting the EU to budge on freedom of movement after everything that has happened would be impossible.

Unless there is an EU wide movement towards looking at freedoms of movement ands restricting immigration I just don't see it happening, at all. Nor does anyone else outside of the Conservative party leadership contest.

 

[Patryn]

The UK and the EU can agree to have the UK activate article 50 and enter the alternate form of participation the same day or even simultaneously.

What does the UK have to offer for the EU to make this concession?

Keep in mind that anything that the UK gives up for this is something they cannot give up later on in the negotiations.

And blocking votes doesn't really count, because the EU has already seen the UK's cards and they know that Article 50 is coming so the threat is toothless and goes away once that happens.

There is room between "The UK gets everything it wants" (your position) and "the EU burns the UK to the ground out of spite" (the straw man position). It's just the mid-point is a lot closer to the EU side than the UKs.

No-one thinks either of those is going to happen. What's going to happen is we enter negotiations where we hold literally no power or sway and have to take what we are offered. It's as simple as that - you look at the relevant costs and motivators for each party, and it's crystal clear that expecting the EU to budge on freedom of movement after everything that has happened would be impossible.

Unless there is an EU wide movement towards looking at freedoms of movement ands restricting immigration I just don't see it happening, at all. Nor does anyone else outside of the Conservative party leadership contest.

This is kind of what I'm saying. Either the UK gets border controls and immigration controls, or they get access to the single market. I don't foresee a situation in which they get both.

I suspect that they'll end up picking access to the single market, which will end up with them almost in the same position, paying the same amount (or possibly more) to the EU, but with no say at the table. So they'll have basically have damaged their economy for no gain beyond being able to say that they're not part of the EU.

 

[KingSnake]

The UK and the EU can agree to have the UK activate article 50 and enter the alternate form of participation the same day or even simultaneously.

Maybe is useful to read the article in question before fantasising further:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

 

[jakonovski]

I am not saying otherwise, I am saying that the best deal for the EU is way better for the UK than "screw you, UK, you get nothing, just give us everything you have on us (ie, continue buying our products every year) and be glad we didn't spit on you".

The EU already gave the UK massive concessions, it was the UK that rejected them all. Simply put, the UK's position was so good that there is no deal that is good in comparison.

 

[Clear]

This is absolutely disgusting. I have been seriously questioning whether I want to remain in this country

Show some maturity, out of over 50 million people the tyranny of numbers ensures that a small number will be hateful arseholes. Brexit may have emboldened them, but it sure as hell didn't create these people.

In some respects I think long-term its a good thing that its flushed some of these Fascist rats out of hiding, because not only does it make it more likely they'll get their collars felt for holding hateful attitudes, but it reminds the overwhelming majority who the real enemy within really is.

 

[GamerMax73]

Freedom of movement within the EU is the best part of the whole union. They aren't going to abandon either of the four pillars

As a Brit, Loss of Freedom of movement is one of the reasons I'm most annoyed about with the referendum vote. A big attractive pull towards moving to Scotland sooner rather than later is the prospect of retaining my EU citizenship. Nobody knows what the future holds and just having the possibility of emigration to Germany or Spain or Poland or wherever open to me, even if I never take it up, is a very important right I cherish.

Sometimes people forget these freedoms work both ways.

 

[jorma]

As to the EU accepting some pain in order to teach everybody around a lesson, I happen to think this would strike an opposite note than the EU would want - "once you are here, don't dare talk, because we own you". I don't think that's in the best interests of the EU.

It's perhaps a shitty situation if some of the other member states thought that, but an even shittier situation would be if some of the other member states would go "yeah, well fuck this shit, we'd rather have the deal UK got than a full membership.

There are no outcomes that are better than "UK doesn't leave the union", but i'm pretty sure that "give the UK what they want so they can remain in the single market" isn't going to be the second best outcome.

 

[accel]

What does the UK have to offer for the EU to make this concession?

From earlier posts:

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.

Either the UK gets border controls and immigration controls, or they get access to the single market. I don't foresee a situation in which they get both.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[ClosingADoor]

From earlier posts:

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.

You think there are things the UK can give, but can't name any.

And no, any position the UK took previously in the EU can not be used for negotiation, since the UK would be gone and the EU doesn't have to listen to them anymore.

 

[operon]

From earlier posts:

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.



Maybe, maybe not.

Nothing you have shown that we can give to the EU is worth more to them that the free movement of people. Nothing, you have been shown this repeatedly nothing.

 

[accel]

Maybe is useful to read the article in question before fantasising further:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

This simply illustrates that when to invoke article 50 is also subject to talks / negotiations.

Nothing you have shown that we can give to the EU is worth more to them that the free movement of people. Nothing, you have been shown this repeatedly nothing.

Even if we are merely talking about a yearly quota with a reasonable number? I don't think so.

 

[Dougald]

Show some maturity, out of over 50 million people the tyranny of numbers ensures that a small number will be hateful arseholes. Brexit may have emboldened them, but it sure as hell didn't create these people.

In some respects I think long-term its a good thing that its flushed some of these Fascist rats out of hiding, because not only does it make it more likely they'll get their collars felt for holding hateful attitudes, but it reminds the overwhelming majority who the real enemy within really is.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Show some maturity, out of over 50 million people the tyranny of numbers ensures that a small number will be hateful arseholes. Brexit may have emboldened them, but it sure as hell didn't create these people.

In some respects I think long-term its a good thing that its flushed some of these Fascist rats out of hiding, because not only does it make it more likely they'll get their collars felt for holding hateful attitudes, but it reminds the overwhelming majority who the real enemy within really is.

What was immature about what was written? I'd be leaving the UK right now if I still lived there.