5 ms·

The EU will make the UK pay a price for Brexit, and rightly so, otherwise all member states would leave and still enjoy the free movement of goods and people.

The EU will make the UK pay a price for Brexit, and rightly so, otherwise all member states would leave and still enjoy the free movement of goods and people. You make the EU sound like an abusive spouse. "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you!" Do you believe that if the UK leaves the EU, France and Germany will go to war? If not, I don't see how "created to prevent another world war" is relevant.

masklinn 10y ago
> You make the EU sound like an abusive spouse. "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you!" The UK decided that it could tell the EU to get fucked and get all the benefits of the relationship without any of the drawbacks, it is not in the EU's interest to confirm that and it has very little reason to bend over for the UK. To reuse your ménage analogy, it's more like one spouse deciding to up and go and asking for the house, car, accounts and still being invited to christmas and family dinners.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It's more like one spouse saying "I'm leaving you, please don't hurt the children". (By analogy, the citizens of Britain/France/etc are the children, who'd like to continue to play with one another, but perhaps one of their abusive parents will use violence to prevent this.)
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > It's more like one spouse saying "I'm leaving you, please don't hurt the children". No, it really isn't. > By analogy, the citizens of Britain/France/etc are the children, who'd like to continue to play with one another, but perhaps one of their abusive parents will use violence to prevent this. So the UK left with one of the children and is telling the others they can't see them anymore.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      According to you it's the EU who will do these things. Britain and #leave wants a free trade agreement similar to Canada, it's the EU who won't give it to them.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I agree with yummyfajitas here. A rational person would say "OK, we're not compatible, let's split up, but no point destroying the house, spending all our money on lawyers and kill each other". An irrational, emotional, greedy or terribly insecure person would say "You? Leaving me? How could you?! You FUCKER! I'LL RUIN YOU!!! AAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!!!"
    - masklinn 10y ago
      You've got your roles exactly inverted here. The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door but apparently expecting the same benefits they enjoyed beforehand, as a rational person the EU would have no reason whatsoever to entertain that behaviour let alone reward it. The EU has no rational reason to be especially sweet on the UK, and looking internally and at the future it can't even be seen as that as it would bolster eurosceptic movements inside the Union. There's no point of view under which being soft on the UK is rational.
      - tomp 10y ago
        Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.
        TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
        But hey - that's capitalism.
        masklinn 10y ago
        > Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational. You're the one who brought on the rationality argument, and while things differ across conflicts, in this specific instance yes being "mean"[0] is rational. [0] if "not bending over to the whims of an asshole" is considered mean these days
      - RickHull 10y ago
        > The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door Huh? This is your characterization of a referendum on membership?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    But its the citizens of Britain that decided that they were leaving, so who is supposed to be the "parent" that's leaving if the citizens of Britain are "the children"?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      The citizens who didn't want to leave. Who will now be forbidden to walk across what was once an open border, etc.
XJOKOLAT 10y ago
No one expects these things. And I can't see it for a few years. But ... if the EU members starts falling like domino's, Europe will look very different in a few years time. Tensions with Russia (Ukraine?), the rise of regional independent movements (Catalan/Spain), the continued rise of the far right, reactions against increased terrorism, etc. Anything can become a touch point. And it all seems far-fetched until it happens. Cost of EU: Billions. Cost of War: Everything. And your "abusive" quote is way off also. It's not about abuse, it's about, as per any negotiation, either side will try to extract as much value as they possibly can. And if there is a power differential between the participants, the one with the upper hand absolutely will make the other party pay a price, and if accepted, it will be a fair price per the market.
- tokensimian 10y ago
  Exactly. It's leverage, not abuse. What's the difference? Eye of the beholder. Regardless of judgement, you have to look at leverage. That's what really matters in terms of outcomes. I believe it's important for individuals to build character based on morals (ie judge leverage for abuse), but that's like suggesting thermodynamics law 2 just isn't very nice. You're right: it sucks. But wishing it were otherwise is not super relevant.
groby_b 10y ago
> Do you believe that if the UK leaves the EU, France and Germany will go to war? If not, I don't see how "created to prevent another world war" is relevant. Directly? No. Trade war between EU and Britain? Might happen. And if the EU doesn't take fairly drastic action to, it will fray further, essentially destabilizing Europe. No war will come from that, either. Not yet. But if the EU were to crumble, it's a good bet there'll be a division between haves and have-nots. We're still not at war - but the have-nots have crumbling economies now, creating unrest. Meanwhile, the few haves that are left over are likely to envy each other what little they still gain from such a union. Sooner or later, we'll go back to individual states. A few strong European powers, not bound by the EU any more, and many crumbling economies around it. Meanwhile, the pressure on the smaller states from migrants and refugees increases. (If you think we're done with middle East and African troubles, I suggest you take a look at climate projections). They will start to let them pass through and/or ignore them, because they have to, to survive at all. There's not much political clout left to move the agenda on a global scale any more, so that option is out. As a result, the stronger countries militarize their borders. Sooner or later, somebody will mount a preemptive mission into some of the smaller countries, simply because it "makes sense" to stop the flood of migrants earlier. Play the scenario from there. Sure, nothing guarantees it will happen that way, but there's a good chance something like that will happen. The point of the EU was to prevent that - to make the common bond so valuable that nobody would want to risk it. Britain's voting public decided that the value was low enough. If the EU wants to have any relevance in the long run, they will need to make it clear to Britain that yes, that bond is pretty valuable, and tough luck for Britain. That is how it's relevant - in the very long term, as a stabilizing force. And no, it's not "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you". It's "we had a contract, you broke it, that means I don't need to uphold my end of it either". That's generally how this whole treaty business works.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  And no, it's not "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you". It's "we had a contract, you broke it, that means I don't need to uphold my end of it either". That's generally how this whole treaty business works. It's right in the contract that member states have the freedom to leave. So tl;dr; Britain should stay in the EU because #remain folks want to start a trade war with them to punish them for leaving? And that maybe this will result in an actual hot war? You seem to be doubling down on my abusive spouse metaphor. I'm a huge free trader and open borders type. (And also a yank in India, so no skin in the game.) But listening to the arguments of #remain folks makes me think the UK is better off on their own. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
vonnik 10y ago
There are always benefits to being inside something. If you are a citizen of the EU, you have the right to work in any of the member states. US citizens do not have that right, and many waste long years trying to acquire it. It is likely that UK citizens will now face the same battle when they seek the right to work outside the UK, because the Leave vote was driven by racist impulses to keep the others out. The others will reciprocate against England.

masklinn 10y ago

> You make the EU sound like an abusive spouse. "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you!" The UK decided that it could tell the EU to get fucked and get all the benefits of the relationship without any of the drawbacks, it is not in the EU's interest to confirm that and it has very little reason to bend over for the UK. To reuse your ménage analogy, it's more like one spouse deciding to up and go and asking for the house, car, accounts and still being invited to christmas and family dinners.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
It's more like one spouse saying "I'm leaving you, please don't hurt the children". (By analogy, the citizens of Britain/France/etc are the children, who'd like to continue to play with one another, but perhaps one of their abusive parents will use violence to prevent this.)
- masklinn 10y ago
  > It's more like one spouse saying "I'm leaving you, please don't hurt the children". No, it really isn't. > By analogy, the citizens of Britain/France/etc are the children, who'd like to continue to play with one another, but perhaps one of their abusive parents will use violence to prevent this. So the UK left with one of the children and is telling the others they can't see them anymore.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    According to you it's the EU who will do these things. Britain and #leave wants a free trade agreement similar to Canada, it's the EU who won't give it to them.
- tomp 10y ago
  I agree with yummyfajitas here. A rational person would say "OK, we're not compatible, let's split up, but no point destroying the house, spending all our money on lawyers and kill each other". An irrational, emotional, greedy or terribly insecure person would say "You? Leaving me? How could you?! You FUCKER! I'LL RUIN YOU!!! AAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!!!"
  - masklinn 10y ago
    You've got your roles exactly inverted here. The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door but apparently expecting the same benefits they enjoyed beforehand, as a rational person the EU would have no reason whatsoever to entertain that behaviour let alone reward it. The EU has no rational reason to be especially sweet on the UK, and looking internally and at the future it can't even be seen as that as it would bolster eurosceptic movements inside the Union. There's no point of view under which being soft on the UK is rational.
    - tomp 10y ago
      Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.
      - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
        But hey - that's capitalism.
      - masklinn 10y ago
        > Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational. You're the one who brought on the rationality argument, and while things differ across conflicts, in this specific instance yes being "mean"[0] is rational. [0] if "not bending over to the whims of an asshole" is considered mean these days
    - RickHull 10y ago
      > The UK left screaming, huffing and smashing the door Huh? This is your characterization of a referendum on membership?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  But its the citizens of Britain that decided that they were leaving, so who is supposed to be the "parent" that's leaving if the citizens of Britain are "the children"?
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    The citizens who didn't want to leave. Who will now be forbidden to walk across what was once an open border, etc.

XJOKOLAT 10y ago

No one expects these things. And I can't see it for a few years. But ... if the EU members starts falling like domino's, Europe will look very different in a few years time. Tensions with Russia (Ukraine?), the rise of regional independent movements (Catalan/Spain), the continued rise of the far right, reactions against increased terrorism, etc. Anything can become a touch point. And it all seems far-fetched until it happens. Cost of EU: Billions. Cost of War: Everything. And your "abusive" quote is way off also. It's not about abuse, it's about, as per any negotiation, either side will try to extract as much value as they possibly can. And if there is a power differential between the participants, the one with the upper hand absolutely will make the other party pay a price, and if accepted, it will be a fair price per the market.

tokensimian 10y ago
Exactly. It's leverage, not abuse. What's the difference? Eye of the beholder. Regardless of judgement, you have to look at leverage. That's what really matters in terms of outcomes. I believe it's important for individuals to build character based on morals (ie judge leverage for abuse), but that's like suggesting thermodynamics law 2 just isn't very nice. You're right: it sucks. But wishing it were otherwise is not super relevant.

groby_b 10y ago

> Do you believe that if the UK leaves the EU, France and Germany will go to war? If not, I don't see how "created to prevent another world war" is relevant. Directly? No. Trade war between EU and Britain? Might happen. And if the EU doesn't take fairly drastic action to, it will fray further, essentially destabilizing Europe. No war will come from that, either. Not yet. But if the EU were to crumble, it's a good bet there'll be a division between haves and have-nots. We're still not at war - but the have-nots have crumbling economies now, creating unrest. Meanwhile, the few haves that are left over are likely to envy each other what little they still gain from such a union. Sooner or later, we'll go back to individual states. A few strong European powers, not bound by the EU any more, and many crumbling economies around it. Meanwhile, the pressure on the smaller states from migrants and refugees increases. (If you think we're done with middle East and African troubles, I suggest you take a look at climate projections). They will start to let them pass through and/or ignore them, because they have to, to survive at all. There's not much political clout left to move the agenda on a global scale any more, so that option is out. As a result, the stronger countries militarize their borders. Sooner or later, somebody will mount a preemptive mission into some of the smaller countries, simply because it "makes sense" to stop the flood of migrants earlier. Play the scenario from there. Sure, nothing guarantees it will happen that way, but there's a good chance something like that will happen. The point of the EU was to prevent that - to make the common bond so valuable that nobody would want to risk it. Britain's voting public decided that the value was low enough. If the EU wants to have any relevance in the long run, they will need to make it clear to Britain that yes, that bond is pretty valuable, and tough luck for Britain. That is how it's relevant - in the very long term, as a stabilizing force. And no, it's not "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you". It's "we had a contract, you broke it, that means I don't need to uphold my end of it either". That's generally how this whole treaty business works.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
And no, it's not "Don't leave me or I'll hurt you". It's "we had a contract, you broke it, that means I don't need to uphold my end of it either". That's generally how this whole treaty business works. It's right in the contract that member states have the freedom to leave. So tl;dr; Britain should stay in the EU because #remain folks want to start a trade war with them to punish them for leaving? And that maybe this will result in an actual hot war? You seem to be doubling down on my abusive spouse metaphor. I'm a huge free trader and open borders type. (And also a yank in India, so no skin in the game.) But listening to the arguments of #remain folks makes me think the UK is better off on their own. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

vonnik 10y ago

There are always benefits to being inside something. If you are a citizen of the EU, you have the right to work in any of the member states. US citizens do not have that right, and many waste long years trying to acquire it. It is likely that UK citizens will now face the same battle when they seek the right to work outside the UK, because the Leave vote was driven by racist impulses to keep the others out. The others will reciprocate against England.