Brexit Thread IV - They're laughing with us, not at us

[Hrothbern]

And yes, a non-deal really would be the EU’s fault. They maintain they can’t break the 4 Commandments, yet they appear ready to break Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty.

It would not at all be the EU's fault. Read what the article says:

"develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

"founded on the values of the Union"

Those four "Commandments" as you twist it into top-down thinking, are the Four Freedoms of the EU to start with.....
And those Four Freedoms are integral part of the founding values of the Union since 1957 defining the EU single market as having all four freedoms: trade on goods, services, capital, people.
So breaking those four freedoms would be breaking up the EU.
Why would the EU break up fundamental principles that bind 27 countries together, on behalf of 1 country ?

Art 8 is more aimed at pragmatical win-win's with closeby countries, without hassle on internal EU processes:

"A number of potential EU accession candidates have Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the EU, which allow for limited participation in selected sectors of the Single Market, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. In addition, through three individual agreements on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with the EU, the post-Soviet countries of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have also been granted limited access to the Single Market in selected sectors.[5] Turkey has access to the free movement of some goods via its membership in the European Union–Turkey Customs Union.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market

But so what....
Apparently we are in a phase of the negotiations where blaming gets more important
Like a football match, still not finished, where you are going to lose big time.... and the referee is blamed and the coach should be fired and, and....
=> Blame and isolate the appointed EU negotiator Barnier from the main country leaders. The charm offensive of Theresa May
=> Blame and isolate Brussels from "the EU people":
Liam Fox: ".... but if the EU decides that the theological obsession of the unelected is to take priority over the economic wellbeing of the people of Europe".......
And again Liam Fox: "It’s up to the EU27 to determine whether they want the EU commission’s ideological purity to be maintained at the expense of their real economies"
As if there is no ideological purity in the "taking back control" of the Brexiteers at the expense of the UK economy.

But so what.....
Just take a look at the national newspapers of those 27 countries..... how much attention the Brexit issue gets except in Ireland.. how much press coverage the recent blaming the EU turn of some UK politicians and Fleet street gets.
Almost nobody of "the EU people" is interested anymore in these attempts to shame, bully and threaten the EU.
If there are no elections or visits, it gets hardly more coverage as so many other domestic UK topics like the fox hunt.

 

[ori]

They point to Article 8 of the treaty, which states that the EU must "develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

The "must" of course is not part of the quote as the treaty uses "shall" and then (conveniently ommited here) continues: "For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned." - note the "may" there is no must here, this is an aspirationaly article which lays out a generaly vision of cooperation with neighboring countries without obliging the EU to do anything at all, merely highlighting the EU's willingness to cooperate. Grasping at that straw merely means that those pointing at it are out of realy arguments and are down to making up arguments out of thin air.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Art 8 is more aimed at pragmatical win-win's with closeby countries, without hassle on internal EU processes:

Quite. That is all we would want.

So the EU sticks its head in the sand and argues over the difference between ‘must’ and ‘shall’ while the threat of a loss of 1.5% on GDP and (get this) one million jobs.
The EC doesn’t care about people and their jobs it would seem.
In percentage terms the UK would be hit harder – but Ireland would be even worse off than us.

And all because the EC won’t bend it 4 Commandments.

(As it happens, I believe they will bend the rules, btw)

LONDON (Reuters) - European Union countries will suffer long-term damage equivalent to about 1.5 percent of annual economic output if Britain leaves the bloc without a free trade deal next year, the International Monetary Fund said on Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...an-union-1-5-percent-of-gdp-imf-idUSKBN1K92FN

 

[Kyriakos]

Quite. That is all we would want.

So the EU sticks its head in the sand and argues over the difference between ‘must’ and ‘shall’ while the threat of a loss of 1.5% on GDP and (get this) one million jobs.
The EC doesn’t care about people and their jobs it would seem.
In percentage terms the UK would be hit harder – but Ireland would be even worse off than us.

And all because the EC won’t bend it 4 Commandments.

(As it happens, I believe they will bend the rules, btw)

LONDON (Reuters) - European Union countries will suffer long-term damage equivalent to about 1.5 percent of annual economic output if Britain leaves the bloc without a free trade deal next year, the International Monetary Fund said on Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...an-union-1-5-percent-of-gdp-imf-idUSKBN1K92FN

I don't think the eu will bend anything. Not due to disliking the british gov (they are birds of a feather; May would do just fine in the eu and would have possibly ended in some eu role in the future if not for the no in the referendum) but because, to put it simply, Britain would cost the eu more to arrive to a mutually beneficial treaty with than to just push away and then cut off. Which - unless you have a new pm, and a new procedure, and a possible Norway-type deal - is what imo will happen in the end (and the end is next year, mind).
Barnier is just there to tick boxes in his eu-given chart. He cannot, and will not, do anything else. Hoping this will change isn't realistic.

 

[Cheetah]

Quite. That is all we would want.

So the EU sticks its head in the sand and argues over the difference between ‘must’ and ‘shall’ while the threat of a loss of 1.5% on GDP and (get this) one million jobs.
The EC doesn’t care about people and their jobs it would seem.
In percentage terms the UK would be hit harder – but Ireland would be even worse off than us.

And all because the EC won’t bend it 4 Commandments.

Giving in on the four freedoms WILL break the European Union and WILL cost dozens of millions of jobs!

Everyone knows that things will be bad if a deal can not be made with the UK. The problem is that the only deals the UK seems willing to do are deals that will end up destroying the European Union, and which must therefore be declined by the EU.

Everyone told you and the other leavers this, even before the referendum. Why do you refuse to listen?

 

[Lexicus]

are deals that will end up destroying the European Union

Can you expand on this a bit?

 

[Arakhor]

So why is the EU the inflexible tyrant for its red lines that multiple countries endorse, yet the UK's red lines go completely unremarked and aren't even supported by the entire government?

 

[AdrienIer]

Can you expand on this a bit?

Two examples would be
- A deal that would screw Ireland over, signaling to all other members that maintaining peace and standing up for members against non-members are not EU priorities
- A deal that is too favorable to the UK, which would make countries with worse deals (Norway for example) demand the same kind of advantages.

In the first case many members would rethink their commitment to the union. In the second the EU would lose quite a lot, both in negotiating power when discussing new memberships and onto their image in the world.

 

[Kyriakos]

both in negotiating power when discussing new memberships and onto their image in the world.

There aren't many new members to come. I mean... even looking at the actual map of Europe, with the disastrous 2003-4 expansion most are now in this "union". The only ones not in are (a number of) balkan countries & Ukraine; unless you want to assume that some caucasian/cis-caucasian smaller states may ever be in.

Iirc the full list would be:

Albania
Fyromania ( )
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Serbia (not likely)
Moldavia
Ukraine
Belarus (not likely)
Georgia
Armenia (? has european culture, obviously)

other:
Iceland (? iirc there are other issues there)
Switzerland (not likely to become more tied)
Norway (not likely to become an actual member)

other kind of other:
Turkey (lol)
Azerbaijan (lol)

Oh, last but not least:
Russia; i mean half of the european continent is in Russia

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Can you expand on this a bit?

What AdrienIer said, and it's the first time a country is leaving the Union and it will set a precedent.

A favorable deal for the UK could encourage other members to leave or threaten to leave and try to negotiate a new arrangement that gives them all the benefits of EU membership with none of the responsibilities which could cause a chain reaction and unravel the entire thing.

 

[AdrienIer]

There aren't many new members to come. I mean... even looking at the actual map of Europe, with the disastrous 2003-4 expansion most are now in this "union". The only ones not in are (a number of) balkan countries & Ukraine; unless you want to assume that some caucasian/cis-caucasian smaller states may ever be in.

Iirc the full list would be:

Albania
Fyromania ( )
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Serbia (not likely)
Moldavia
Ukraine
Belarus (not likely)
Georgia
Armenia (? has european culture, obviously)

other:
Iceland (? iirc there are other issues there)
Switzerland (not likely to become more tied)
Norway (not likely to become an actual member)

other kind of other:
Turkey (lol)
Azerbaijan (lol)

Oh, last but not least:
Russia; i mean half of the european continent is in Russia

You forgot Montenegro and Kosovo (of course not in the next couple decades)

 

[Kyriakos]

You forgot Montenegro and Kosovo (of course not in the next couple decades)

Parts of Serbia

There is also (Great nation of) Kazakhstan.

 

[Cheetah]

Can you expand on this a bit?

Adrienler and GoodSamaritan already answered, but to give my take on it:

The EU does want a deal with the UK, so let's say we* agree to making a deal where everything mostly stay the same trade-wise, but Freedom of Movement of People is dropped.

First order effects of this is that other countries will also want this. First amongst them would be Switzerland, who would figuratively blow up, and rightly so, if they didn't also get to opt out of the Freedom of Movement of People. Other countries which also will demand this would be Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. I'd be surprised if not also Belgium, France, Spain and Germany would demand the same.

But why does the Freedom of Movement of People even exist, if so many have a problem with it? Because other member states which have relatively little capital or technology, and thus can't compete on Goods and Services, can compete on (cheaper) workers. With the Freedom of Movement of People workers in these countries can go to more developed countries and work, maybe save, maybe establish themselves, maybe return back later with more capital. It's a proven and working way of growing and catching up.

And what does the more developed countries get in return from letting workers from poorer countries move in and work? They get a larger market. Their companies, which does have capital, find large new territories where they can expand, where they can recruit, where they can buy up smaller, cheaper companies. They find lots of new consumers which can buy their stuff without them having to pay customs or worry about regulations.

Foreign companies coming to take over all their industries and home-grown businesses and out-competing all the local producers is really, really popular amongst people in these less developed countries, as I'm sure you can imagine. They accept it, because they get something in return for it.

So the second order effects of letting the UK opt out of the Freedom of Movement of People is that countries like Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, etc. will find that they get less out of the union, and if they'd have to accept that, they'd most likely demand opt-outs from the Freedom of Movement of Capital, or of Services. Or maybe even Goods? Why should Norway be allowed to sell fish in Latvia without hassle if Latvian workers aren't allowed to work in Norway without hassle?

So the follow-on effects is that the Freedoms are all reduced and restricted until the EU breaks down, or some new — probably worse — equilibrium between the Freedoms is found. Not that anyone has even tried to propose what such a new equilibrium could possibly look like.

The Four Freedoms are all working together to reduce any possible exploitative effects of an economic union between such different countries. The EU isn't perfect by any means, and there are lots of issues to tackle. Making sure that any workers from other EU members must be paid the same as locally employed workers, or that truck drivers between different countries are paid fairly and that they all have the same minimum rights (and that the minimum isn't set too low, even if it's going to be gradually raised), are all things we've been struggling with over the last couple of years. The tax issues BvBPL is complaining about in another thread is another topic we're working on. Same with the "different content in food in different countries" debate.

The UK can not be allowed to opt out of the Freedom of Movement of People, and at the same time keep the three other Freedoms. It's antithetical to what the EU is. What it has always been. If UK companies are going to be allowed to freely ship and sell their goods in the EU, if UK companies are going to be allowed to freely buy companies and property and invest within the EU, and if UK companies are going to be allowed to freely provide services within the EU, then EU workers must also be allowed to compete with UK workers.


* I like to say 'we', even though I don't have any voting rights in it.

 

[dutchfire]

In general, the EU consists of a bunch of consensus compromises. Between christian-democrats, social-democrats and liberal-conservatives. Between North, South and later also East. All of these groups have had to give up on some point, but all of them considered the deals to be good on balance. Otherwise, they wouldn't have joined. Otherwise, they would have left already.*

People like to complain that the EU is not democratic. The reality is that the EPP, S&D and ALDE have had wide majorities in the European Parliament for decades, and their members have ruled most member states. These three movements designed the EU and the electorate has supported them. All movements have had to give in on certain topics but on the balance they're satisfied.

Different groups also value certain aspects of the EU differently. Dutch tourists are happy with the freedom of movement to reach their destination. Some tourist attractions will have lost customers since those now travel abroad, but others have gained from being accessible to more foreign tourists. Farmers are happy that they can hire cheap Eastern European labour. Scientists are happy that it is easier to collaborate internationally and to work somewhere else for a few years. Some people I know have moved to London to work in the City. Other people here complain that they've lost their jobs due to competition from cheaper labour.

And it is the same for member states. Some countries profit from the agricultural policy, some from the European Research Council, some from structural development funds, some from freedom of movement, some from the regulations concerning traditional regional products and so on.
Allowing a country to pick and mix in this is not going to work.

 

[Arakhor]

Everyone who's been paying attention at any point already knows this. It's a question of why so many people appear to have never paid attention, such that politicians and "journalists" can lie to them, such that they don't even notice.

 

[really]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...n-ni-peace-in-brexit-talks-1.3591310?mode=amp
'The British government asked Ireland to ease off on its emphasis on peace in Northern Ireland as one of the main issues at stakes in the Brexit talks.

The request, from representatives of the UK administration, was made in recent months because British prime minister Theresa Maywas said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement were not being taken seriously, sources disclosed.'

May surprised that getting into bed with the DUP and ploughing ahead with a narrow mandate for Brexit despite a clear rejection in Northern Ireland means she isn't seen as a neutral player

 

[danjuno]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...n-ni-peace-in-brexit-talks-1.3591310?mode=amp
'The British government asked Ireland to ease off on its emphasis on peace in Northern Ireland as one of the main issues at stakes in the Brexit talks.

The request, from representatives of the UK administration, was made in recent months because British prime minister Theresa Maywas said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement were not being taken seriously, sources disclosed.'

May surprised that getting into bed with the DUP and ploughing ahead with a narrow mandate for Brexit despite a clear rejection in Northern Ireland means she isn't seen as a neutral player

Troubles 2: Electric Carbomb Boogaloo?

 

[Traitorfish]

Who could have thought that allying with a group of far-right ex-paramilitary religious fundamentalists could be that thing I just said.

 

[danjuno]

What I'm getting from this is that I should avoid the UK for the next couple of years because it's about to get very explodey.

Spoiler :

 

[Takhisis]

The new story is that ‘actually we're bluffing the EU and trying to scare them with the tale of how badly they'll do with us out’. The whole point of a bluff is not to let your opponent know that you are bluffing.

Brexit: chances of UK leaving EU with a deal ‘only 50:50’ says Latvian Foreign Minister
The chances of the UK securing a Brexit deal before it leaves the European Union in March are only 50:50, Latvia’s foreign minister has said ahead of talks with Jeremy Hunt.

Edgars Rinkevics said there was a “very considerable risk” that, with time rapidly running out, Britain could crash out of the bloc without a withdrawal agreement.


He will meet Mr Hunt, the foreign secretary, in the Latvian capital Riga today, with Brexit high on the agenda.

Mr Hunt’s visit is part of a three day trip that will also take in Denmark and the Netherlands. The talks form part of a concerted effort by UK ministers to convince their European counterparts to support Theresa May’s Chequers plan, which has already been dismissed by the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

(…)

Ms May has also repeatedly insisted a Brexit deal based on the Chequers plan is achievable, but Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, said there is only a 40 per cent chance of an agreement.

Asked about the chances of a no-deal Brexit, he told the Sunday Times last week: “I have never thought it was much more than 50-50, certainly not much more than 60-40.”

He said the EU was concerned about the prospects of Britain crashing out without an agreement, and that this was crucial to securing a good deal for Britain.

He said: “I think it’s essential that no deal looks credible to the EU. If it’s causing some anxiety in Britain – think what it’s causing in Brussels.

“If our message on no deal is becoming more credible and resonating with those we are negotiating with in Europe, then our negotiating hand is getting stronger every day and we shouldn’t do anything to undermine that.”​

Mr. Hunt really thinks his first name is Ethan.

Meanwhile, oop North…

Labour and SNP under pressure in Scotland as poll shows voters strongly support fresh referendum
Pollster Peter Kellner says survey suggests both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon's party are 'in the wrong place with most of their supporters'

Labour and the SNP in Scotland are under pressure to adopt a stronger stance on Brexit as a new poll shows Scottish voters strongly support a fresh referendum on the final deal.

The YouGov survey for the People’s Vote campaign – calling for a public vote on the deal Theresa May returns from Brussels with – found that 48 per cent of respondents were in favour of the idea, with 31 per cent opposed.

While the SNP’s leader Nicola Sturgeon has previously said the case for a second vote may become “irresistible”, the party does not support the policy and Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said Labour is not backing the idea.

(…)

Researchers, who surveyed 2,013 adults in Scotland, found rising support for staying in the European Union. After the don’t-knows were removed, two-thirds (66 per cent) said they wanted to remain while 34 per cent were pro-Brexit.

At the 2016 EU referendum Scottish voters, 62 per cent backed Remain and 38 per cent opted for Brexit.

The poll also indicated widespread support among SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters for staying in the EU at 73 per cent, 67 per cent, and 77 per cent respectively.

SNP voters back a Brexit deal referendum by a margin of more than four to one – 66 per cent to 18 per cent when the don’t-knows have been removed – while for Labour this is 64 per cent to 21 per cent.

​