Europe’s leaders to force Britain into hard Brexit

[pwa]

The OP's Guardian article suggested that the driving force behind the EU taking a hard line with the UK was going to be the desire to stifle anti-EU sentiment within the remaining EU nations.

And what is anti-EU sentiment? What was it for us?

The idea that you can do just as well sorting out your own deals.

So rather than give us a cushy number in order to 'help us out' they're effectively saying "these are the rules you signed up for, have a nice day".
If it turns out worse for us who's to blame? Us.
If we make a success of it then perhaps the EU would be better broken up - but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't get this idea that they've got it in for us by not allowing us to sidestep the very rules that hold the EU together!
We helped form those rules, we obviously thought they were good at the time...

I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about what is left of the EU and how its leaders are trying to deter dissent among its own people. From a strictly commercial standpoint it is in the interest of the EU to maintain high levels of trade between the EU and the UK, with a minimum of obstacles. The only reason to impede trade is to deter separatist tendencies in the remaining EU states.

[bovlomov]

The OP's Guardian article suggested that the driving force behind the EU taking a hard line with the UK was going to be the desire to stifle anti-EU sentiment within the remaining EU nations.

That's a rather loaded form of words. You could have said that the EU is determined to get a fair settlement for the members. I suppose the wording depends on where you stand.

If a shopkeeper never gives discounts , do you say that he is trying to stifle dissent within his customer base?

[pwa]

Making a contribution to EU development funds seems like an obvious starting point.

That would be an act of bad faith with the people, after all the main referendum promise was that we would retain the £350 million to spend on the NHS, not continue to contribute after leaving.

No, the main reason people voted out was to be able to control immigration. For me the contributions thing was unimportant. I'd happily compromise on that. (Don't tell me what Boris said because I didn't listen to him anyway).

[kwackers]

I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about what is left of the EU and how its leaders are trying to deter dissent among its own people. From a strictly commercial standpoint it is in the interest of the EU to maintain high levels of trade between the EU and the UK, with a minimum of obstacles. The only reason to impede trade is to deter separatist tendencies in the remaining EU states.

No it isn't.
What's important from a commercial point of view is stability and market protection. That's fundamentally what the EU is.
What do you think all the payments the EU makes to various producers is for? The EU is a protectionist market, but protectionism works both way.

(I noticed NZ farmers were rubbing their hands with glee at the idea that they might be back to selling us cows - I wonder if our farmers had thought that far ahead...)

[broadway]

Well we shall see.

Yes.

It's win/win for me though.

I wouldn't mind a quick and easy Brexit which would be best for all parties, and I wouldn't mind a slow, poisonous one either as I think that could help hasten the EU's demise.

Since the government can't seem to agree what they want from Brexit, which is hardly surprising as they don't have a mandate, it is going to be a long drawn out process. The negotiations will not have been helped by the many different pronouncements that have been issued.



Maybe you can tell us how a quick EU exit can be achieved, as from all I have read it will be a very complicated process.

[roubaixtuesday]

From a strictly commercial standpoint it is in the interest of the EU to maintain high levels of trade between the EU and the UK, with a minimum of obstacles. The only reason to impede trade is to deter separatist tendencies in the remaining EU states.

This and similar statements are often Brexiters, but don't at all reflect where the rest of the EU are coming from.

The point of the regulations of the single market are that they prevent unfair competition within the single market.

So if the UK wants access, we will need to comply with, for instance, environmental regulations of the EU, so we can't undercut firms in EU member states by polluting the environment.

The same applies to all the various other bits of EU regulation. They are not at all obstacles to free trade, they enable it.

There is no way the EU will agree to giving us free market access without complying with their regs. It would be bizarre for them even to consider it.

[pwa]

I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about what is left of the EU and how its leaders are trying to deter dissent among its own people. From a strictly commercial standpoint it is in the interest of the EU to maintain high levels of trade between the EU and the UK, with a minimum of obstacles. The only reason to impede trade is to deter separatist tendencies in the remaining EU states.

No it isn't.
What's important from a commercial point of view is stability and market protection. That's fundamentally what the EU is.
What do you think all the payments the EU makes to various producers is for? The EU is a protectionist market, but protectionism works both way.

(I noticed NZ farmers were rubbing their hands with glee at the idea that they might be back to selling us cows - I wonder if our farmers had thought that far ahead...)

But that is not the motivation suggested by the Guardian article. That was all about not giving the UK a deal that would look attractive to the electorates of other EU states where leaving the EU has some support. That, surely, is pro-EU politicians worried that their own people are so lukewarm about the EU that the UK appearing to do alright after leaving might make them want to leave too. It's about controlling what their own people want. The democrat in me finds that disgusting.

[pwa]

From a strictly commercial standpoint it is in the interest of the EU to maintain high levels of trade between the EU and the UK, with a minimum of obstacles. The only reason to impede trade is to deter separatist tendencies in the remaining EU states.

This and similar statements are often Brexiters, but don't at all reflect where the rest of the EU are coming from.

The point of the regulations of the single market are that they prevent unfair competition within the single market.

So if the UK wants access, we will need to comply with, for instance, environmental regulations of the EU, so we can't undercut firms in EU member states by polluting the environment.

The same applies to all the various other bits of EU regulation. They are not at all obstacles to free trade, they enable it.

There is no way the EU will agree to giving us free market access without complying with their regs. It would be bizarre for them even to consider it.

I accept that point, Brian. I do think we should be conforming to the same standards.

[kwackers]

But that is not the motivation suggested by the Guardian article. That was all about not giving the UK a deal that would look attractive to the electorates of other EU states where leaving the EU has some support. That, surely, is pro-EU politicians worried that their own people are so lukewarm about the EU that the UK appearing to do alright after leaving might make them want to leave too. It's about controlling what their own people want. The democrat in me finds that disgusting.

I think that simply demonstrates we find arguments in articles to support our beliefs.

I read it and see that it simply says that they can't give us what we demand and so the only real option is a hard brexit rather than cherry picking out the good bits.
IMO that's our doing not theirs.

[pwa]

But that is not the motivation suggested by the Guardian article. That was all about not giving the UK a deal that would look attractive to the electorates of other EU states where leaving the EU has some support. That, surely, is pro-EU politicians worried that their own people are so lukewarm about the EU that the UK appearing to do alright after leaving might make them want to leave too. It's about controlling what their own people want. The democrat in me finds that disgusting.

I think that simply demonstrates we find arguments in articles to support our beliefs.

I read it and see that it simply says that they can't give us what we demand and so the only real option is a hard brexit rather than cherry picking out the good bits.
IMO that's our doing not theirs.

I'm just hoping that when they all sit down around a table the adults will take control and issues will be thrashed out sensibly, with pragmatism and compromise prominent. If the EU are saying that the UK cannot have all the benefits with none of the costs, that's fine. It's obvious. We need some control over EU/UK migration, so that must be a starting point. It also benefits the whole region to have high levels of trade, and we should all be working towards that. But none of us need take an overly hard line on individual points. To take just one example, the EU/UK migration thing can be dealt with in a way that still allows the EU fairly good access to the UK labour market, but perhaps with an annual cap. The UK could still make some contribution to EU development funds. We could still conform to some EU regulations. With goodwill and a bit of imagination these things can be dealt with in a way that works for the UK and the EU.

[roubaixtuesday]

I accept that point, Brian. I do think we should be conforming to the same standards

First Brexit, then Trump, now agreement on an internet forum??

The world's gone mad, I tell you

[meic]

With goodwill and a bit of imagination these things can be dealt with in a way that works for the UK and the EU.

They were, at Maastricht.
Deals which have pluses and minus, good times and bad. What Britain is hoping to do is keep an existing deal at the "good times" and then re-write it at the "bad times". Which would be fine if it was everyone's good times and bad times but not just when it suits us.
Of course we can try and do this, in our own self interest but we have to expect the others to resist in their own self interest.

[pwa]

With goodwill and a bit of imagination these things can be dealt with in a way that works for the UK and the EU.

They were, at Maastricht.
Deals which have pluses and minus, good times and bad. What Britain is hoping to do is keep an existing deal at the "good times" and then re-write it at the "bad times". Which would be fine if it was everyone's good times and bad times but not just when it suits us.
Of course we can try and do this, in our own self interest but we have to expect the others to resist in their own self interest.

We have a good economy, Meic, and we are offering the EU continued access to that economy. We are proposing that we continue to contribute to the economic prosperity of Europe. Maastricht solved nothing. You must have noticed that. You can debate the way the referendum debate was conducted, but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving, rather than because they liked the EU. We have to come up with an arrangement that we and the EU can live with, long term. If you think the UK could possibly return to the EU and live there harmoniously I think you are disregarding all that we have experienced over the past decades.

[kwackers]

but for 52% of people to vote to leave there must have been real dislike of the EU as an institution. Especially when you consider that some of the 48% voting to remain did so because they feared leaving

I think you're adding your own spin there.

Most people who voted to leave believed the crap they'd been fed. My auntie voted to leave because being elderly she quite liked the idea the NHS would get a load of cash. Nothing deeper than that.

People voted to leave because they didn't want Greece to join or wanted control of immigration or simply because they thought it would be one in the eye for the establishment.
A surprising number genuinely thought a lot of the Boris fibs about EU rules were actually true and of course the was the patriotism - make Britain "Great" again. Despite the fact most of them wouldn't have been alive when Britain was great nor is Britain in any state to make military demands of nations anymore and live on the spoils.
I'm not so sure that many voted leave because they disliked the EU (at least the real EU and not the Boris/Farage spun EU).

As for 'fearing' to leave:
It's a bit like falling. I don't fear falling, I fear hitting the floor. In that respect I didn't fear leaving, I feared the mess we currently have and when we do actually leave I fear the repercussions as our entire industry is reconfigured.
Even then, as a computer programmer I don't fear it since I'll be OK. But I fear the mess it's going to make of 'my' country.

[meic]

Maastricht solved nothing. You must have noticed that

Yet it was the result of extensive negotiations and the deal which all parties agreed on, exactly what you are suggesting we sit through now.
Why should the EU work out a deal yet again when we have just voted to renege on the last one, which we fought so hard to have written in our favour? Why put in the effort for a country that changes its mind every four years?