14 ms·

Doesn't matter who needs more who. The best deal for both is low tarrifs. There's no conflicting interest here. Tarrifs = more jobs losses for both No tarrifs

• siscia 10y ago
  I do agree with you but is not that obvious... Apparently it looks like the English dont grasp this idea...
  • valkea 10y ago
    > Apparently it looks like the English dont grasp this idea... Would you care to elaborate?
  • ZenoArrow 10y ago
    You should look into the reasons why people wanted to leave. I for one accept there will be a period of economic uncertainty, but consider it worth it in order to remove ourselves from an undemocratic institution that has power to set the laws of its members. I'd be for a democratic union, but I'll not be losing sleep over leaving an undemocratic one, even if it's a messy divorce.
    • AstralStorm 10y ago
      Completely undemocratic, with representatives chosen in democratic ways, membership proportional to population (with UK getting the break there), laws voted in a democratic way.
      • spdionis 10y ago
        AND UK having veto power.
        • ZenoArrow 10y ago
          Look into the role of the European Commission.
        • rcxdude 10y ago
          Not over everything. And the system is democratic, but it does decide against the UK vote more frequently than most other countries. In that sense you can claim that the EU does not represent the UK very well.
          • gambiting 10y ago
            Well, one could make an argument that the house of lords represents exactly no one, and yet it is a part of the policy making process.
            • youngtaff 10y ago
              And the Queen
            • ZenoArrow 10y ago
              I'd be up for House of Lords reform as well, but let's let the dust settle on Brexit first.
            • sievebrain 10y ago
              HoL can't stop legislation, only delay it, and by convention they never delay manifesto pledges. If the HoL stopped being anything more than a handbrake on laws it'd be abolished too. And as for the monarchy, well, nobody cares whilst the Queen is so disciplined about staying out of politics. If she dies and is replaced by Charles, and he doesn't change his ways, expect a constitutional change soon after.
      • ZenoArrow 10y ago
        The European Parliament isn't the central body of power in the EU. Only the European Commission can propose new laws. To give you a quick introduction to the EU's legislative process... There are three main groups involved in putting together new EU legislation: the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council. In terms of democratic debate, the European Parliament is where the bulk of elected representatives sit, with the Council being the 'upper house' (equivalent to the House of Lords in the UK). However, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power to propose new laws, they can only discuss proposed laws put forward by the Commission. Therefore, it is the Commission that controls the agenda for the EU. EU Commissioners are not elected democratically. Furthermore, they are required to take an oath to put the interests of the EU first, and not take any instructions from the countries they are from. In addition to all that, the Commission has very close ties to big business. There are reasons why TTIP and CETA are being pushed forward even with resistance from MEPs. I'd recommend checking out the documentary The Brussels Business for a look into the ways the Commission and big business work together. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xMuUEd6w54E https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xMuUEd6w54E
        • claudius 10y ago
          > EU Commissioners are not elected democratically. Well, they are suggested by the democratically elected governments of the member states and either accepted or rejected by the democratically elected European Parliament. > Furthermore, they are required to take an oath to put the interests of the EU first, and not take any instructions from the countries they are from. As they should, they are to work in the interests of the EU, not a single member state. German ministers are also required to serve the whole federal republic appealing to individual states is not looked upon very favorably. > In addition to all that, the Commission has very close ties to big business. Hopefully we can solve at least some of the issues with corruption and lobbying when the most corrupt country in the world[1], which has worked against workers’ rights and increased regulation to ensure public health and safety in the EU for the last four decades, leaves. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tells-us-britain-is-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-world-its-time-to-start-a7057686.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tell...
    • BlackFly 10y ago
      You may be interested to know that it is in fact a democratic union. The treaty of Maastricht outlines this in detail.
      • ZenoArrow 10y ago
        See my reply to AstralStorm.
      • ptaipale 10y ago
        And still it's unable to e.g. abolish the travesty of European Parliament's monthly travel to Strasbourg. Is that according to democratic will of European people? Hardly not. It's not a hugely significant thing - maybe costs just a hundred million € per year, or a bit more, not a lot in EU context - but its symbolic nature about the essence of European Union is telling.
        • notahacker 10y ago
          All democratic polities have weird little quirks which are unpopular but never remotely likely to become an election defining issue I mean, the UK has a House of Lords...
          • ptaipale 10y ago
            True, though to me it seems the House of Lords actually serves a useful purpose.
    • rodgerd 10y ago
      > but consider it worth it in order to remove ourselves from an undemocratic institution that has power to set the laws of its members. I wasn't aware you'd disestablished the House of Lords. It will indeed be delightful not to have the Anglican Church dictating social legislation!
      • ZenoArrow 10y ago
        All in good time. The push for elected peers in the House of Lords is not off the cards. To me the next big push for greater democracy is to go for proportional representation in the House of Commons.
• j7f3 10y ago
  Not in this particular case. Like others have pointed out, it is not in the best interest of EU to give UK a sweet deal and it is not that hard to understand why. UK has had a sweet deal with the EU full of exceptional treatments. It can veto anything it wants and frequently exercises its right to do so but does not contribute much to the common piggy bank. But now UK wants to leave altogether, will not contribute financially at all but will have an even better trade deal? What message does it send to those who are loyal members of EU? That they will be financially penalized for their loyalty? There is no way Britain gets a decent deal at all. I read that about 5% of EU's trade is with UK. It's not insignificant but it's not the end of the world if it goes down to 0.5%. We will fuck UK over, good riddance, we will be stronger without UK, now we will finally pursue tighter integration without fear UK will sabotage such attempts.
  • UK-AL 10y ago
    So Germany will risk 1\5 of German car workers because it wants to send a message?
    • barrkel 10y ago
      There are no circumstances whatsoever that the EU will give the UK a trade deal like Norway / Switzerland / Iceland / etc. without the UK paying for the EU budget and allowing free movement of people, for example. All the things that the UK population voted against are exactly what prevents them from getting a trade deal. Something will have to give. If you want to go with the rationalist perspective you seem to be advocating, then the UK government will have to be anti-democratic and strike a deal explicitly against their citizen's declared interests. (This vote is particularly vexing for me since I'm Irish (voted stay) and now will have to sell my house in order to leave. Quite upsetting, overall.)
      • FreeFull 10y ago
        Northern Ireland might decide to become part of Ireland though, which would keep you in the EU. I wouldn't sell your house yet.
• Scarblac 10y ago
  Note that "deal" will have to replace the existing decades' worth of detailed regulation argued over by many government workers ad infinitum, on a thousand topics. And the treaty says that such a deal is only accepted by a unanymous vote of all EU members. If the UK leaves this decade, it will be without any deal in place.
  • sievebrain 10y ago
    Here's how you write such a deal: "As of date X, all existing EU regulations remain in force. Changes to UK law that overlap with existing areas of EU regulation will result in a notification to the Commission". Done. There is no need to 'replace' detailed regulation on a thousand topics when, as you observe, it is already implemented in UK law.
• arrrg 10y ago
  Tarrifs, sure, but tariffs are the boring part. What about freedom of movement? What – most importantly – about unified regulation? Differing regulations create trade barriers and much of the work the EU did was unifying exactly those myriad different and sometimes contradictory regulations. That way someone making something in Germany only has to adhere to one set of regulations (and not, in the worst case, maybe even open different production lines for different countries) if they want to sell something anywhere in the EU. How does the UK plan to be involved there? Realistically they can't if they are outside. So it's adhere or be out of the common market … this is the UK losing some of their power because they are unwilling to cooperate. Not even ill will involved This is not the EU trying to do something harmful. If you don't cooperate and participate in something complex like unifying regulation you obviously lose power. It couldn't even be any other way! I mean, what do you even expect the EU to do here?! Roll over and say that the whole EU will adhere to all UK regulation from now on? Accepting that the UK unilaterally gets to dictate regulation? That’s obviously not fair. The EU cannot give that kind of power to the UK. That would be monumentally unfair to all members of the EU. It's already fucking hard to unify regulation and it's hard to find a way to somehow respect everyone's interests. How should the EU even react to the UK saying that they don't want to play ball anymore? There is no way except to give the UK an unfair amount of power or less power than they have inside the EU. And the second solution is the only plausible one to me.