3 ms·

Which is exactly why I didn't much like Juncker's agressive reaction to the Brexit vote. "This is not going to be an amicable divorce" was pretty much the first

Which is exactly why I didn't much like Juncker's agressive reaction to the Brexit vote. "This is not going to be an amicable divorce" was pretty much the first thing he said. This kind of hostility towards the result of a democratic referendum is totally uncalled for, especially if the EU wants to pretend to be a promotor of pacifism in Europe.

rahkiin 10y ago
I think this response is mainly to discourage other countries from organizing a referendum soon... UK hasn't been nice in the past and they shouldn't come out of this better than when they were in, because then the EU would fall apart.
exceptione 10y ago
I have the feeling you are not from Europe. GB had the best deal possible with lot of pre-exemptions. GB profited from the EU, but with their special veto-rights and the cold stance towards EU they were also a source of frustration for the countries that worked hard to make the EU work. GB has always made clear it didn't love the EU but wanted to reap profits from market access, and it was nonetheless welcomed by countries as The Netherlands which have lobbied for GB's membership. Therefore you can't blame Juncker stating the fact that the marriage between GB and the rest of the EU was a somewhat cold love. The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality. I read the British press closely and am astonished by the amount of classlessness many people have regarding this issue. It is in the interest of Europe to not let the trade block crumble. GB knew this was at stake with a brexit. Now the EU needs to (even if it wouldn't want to) give GB the finger just to make sure this will not become a precedent for many other countries (eg. NL, FR). GB has to pay, even if no one wouldn't want to harm GB. The risk of a collapsing EU market with investments and trade drying up will have severe consequences world wide. From a purely rational perspective this was the most stupid action for GB.
- _9MOTHER9HORSE 10y ago
  I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to. The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball. That's the calculation the British public made. The UK pays more in than it gets out. It imports more from the EU than it exports to it. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU. Just look at the immediate aftermath in the markets. FTSE 100 closed 3.15% down, whereas almost all EU indices saw losses 2-3x as much.
  - exceptione 10y ago
    I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to. The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball. I think you and the UK public are mistaken. The cost of another country leaving the EU far exceeds the cost of punishing [1] GB. Think about it. What if GB gets nice deals for nothing? I assure you that within two years the EU is over. There are many countries with a large fraction of people that are anti-EU. I think the EU will rather loosen sanctions on Russia than giving the UK a good deal. Im wondering how the US government is thinking at this very moment. One lesson we can draw is that the EU should advertise their benefits in a better manner. And "wir schaffen das" is a sure way to blow up the continent. 1. actually punishing does mean nothing more than to give no special benefits to the UK. They had it, they will loose it.
    - _9MOTHER9HORSE 10y ago
      The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. They're all talk and no trousers on that front. I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU. I think the current EU is toast either way, so the argument of what deal the UK negotiates with it may end up being moot.
    - exceptione 10y ago
      AS response to _9MOTHER9HORSE below [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977154 ] `````` The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. You keep mentioning the EU can't afford it, but why do you think it can afford to let the EU explode? I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU. That is not relevant. Access to the market will have to be paid for, so they still need to be a net contributor. Maybe even more than they did so previously.

rahkiin 10y ago

I think this response is mainly to discourage other countries from organizing a referendum soon... UK hasn't been nice in the past and they shouldn't come out of this better than when they were in, because then the EU would fall apart.

exceptione 10y ago

I have the feeling you are not from Europe. GB had the best deal possible with lot of pre-exemptions. GB profited from the EU, but with their special veto-rights and the cold stance towards EU they were also a source of frustration for the countries that worked hard to make the EU work. GB has always made clear it didn't love the EU but wanted to reap profits from market access, and it was nonetheless welcomed by countries as The Netherlands which have lobbied for GB's membership. Therefore you can't blame Juncker stating the fact that the marriage between GB and the rest of the EU was a somewhat cold love. The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality. I read the British press closely and am astonished by the amount of classlessness many people have regarding this issue. It is in the interest of Europe to not let the trade block crumble. GB knew this was at stake with a brexit. Now the EU needs to (even if it wouldn't want to) give GB the finger just to make sure this will not become a precedent for many other countries (eg. NL, FR). GB has to pay, even if no one wouldn't want to harm GB. The risk of a collapsing EU market with investments and trade drying up will have severe consequences world wide. From a purely rational perspective this was the most stupid action for GB.

_9MOTHER9HORSE 10y ago
I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to. The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball. That's the calculation the British public made. The UK pays more in than it gets out. It imports more from the EU than it exports to it. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU. Just look at the immediate aftermath in the markets. FTSE 100 closed 3.15% down, whereas almost all EU indices saw losses 2-3x as much.
- exceptione 10y ago
  I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to. The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball. I think you and the UK public are mistaken. The cost of another country leaving the EU far exceeds the cost of punishing [1] GB. Think about it. What if GB gets nice deals for nothing? I assure you that within two years the EU is over. There are many countries with a large fraction of people that are anti-EU. I think the EU will rather loosen sanctions on Russia than giving the UK a good deal. Im wondering how the US government is thinking at this very moment. One lesson we can draw is that the EU should advertise their benefits in a better manner. And "wir schaffen das" is a sure way to blow up the continent. 1. actually punishing does mean nothing more than to give no special benefits to the UK. They had it, they will loose it.
  - _9MOTHER9HORSE 10y ago
    The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. They're all talk and no trousers on that front. I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU. I think the current EU is toast either way, so the argument of what deal the UK negotiates with it may end up being moot.
  - exceptione 10y ago
    AS response to _9MOTHER9HORSE below [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977154 ] `````` The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. You keep mentioning the EU can't afford it, but why do you think it can afford to let the EU explode? I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU. That is not relevant. Access to the market will have to be paid for, so they still need to be a net contributor. Maybe even more than they did so previously.