6 ms·

> would be seen as in effect the start of Brexit > negotiations No, as much as I was pro-Remain, and as much as I have sympathy for their perspective, the

> would be seen as in effect the start of Brexit > negotiations No, as much as I was pro-Remain, and as much as I have sympathy for their perspective, the start of Brexit negotiations was this: > "No informal EU talks before Britain invokes Article > 50, says Germany"[0] [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-idUSKCN0ZD132 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-idUSKCN...

263919121 10y ago
I understand that position. Why should everyone waste time on negotiating if there is the very real possibility that Britain backpedals and stays?
- peteretep 10y ago
  The position is easily understood, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the first salvo in negotiation.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    I think that from an EU perspective the first salvo was the decision to keep a referendum.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Nobody - including the Conservatives - thought they would win a majority, and that it would have to be followed through.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        There is a risk in bringing a gun to a meeting, if you start brandishing it and it goes off you can't really blame anybody but yourself. It's the summit of irresponsibility.
      - lagadu 10y ago
        It's non-binding, technically it doesn't have to be followed through. Regardless, it's not the EU's fault that the leaver leadership thought that political sabre-rattling would be more important than actually having a plan.
lagadu 10y ago
You're saying they shouldn't? Seems a fairly straightforward strategy: by calling them out on it, they either force the UK to step up and invoke article 50 or to have their bluff called out. Both outcomes weaken the UK's ability to negotiate and remove the threat of leaving from the table as a weapon the UK could use. Seems like a decent plan, why would they possibly want to negotiate something with the UK, only for them to potentially make a heel-face turn and not leave? In other words, they have very little, if anything, to gain by negotiating anything before the UK makes a move.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > You're saying they shouldn't No, I'm saying it was positioining, and unambiguously the declaration itself was the start of negotiations, just as threatening to slash corporation tax in the UK is also a negotiating position.
  - lagadu 10y ago
    Ah yea, I agree: both are fairly aggressive moves.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >You're saying they shouldn't? Seems a fairly straightforward strategy: by calling them out on it, they either force the UK to step up and invoke article 50 or to have their bluff called out. Both outcomes weaken the UK's ability to negotiate and remove the threat of leaving from the table as a weapon the UK could use. Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave. >In other words, they have very little, if anything, to gain by negotiating anything before the UK makes a move. By being up front about precisely what an exit will entail it will reduce uncertainty about the outcome for everybody. That's a strong benefit. If EU wants to be vindictive it can try but it probably will be economically damaging (both to the UK and the EU). That will only serve to give Farage-equivalent politicians in the EU enough ammunition to call for their own referendums and before you know it the EU is no more. Edit: disagree by all means but please disagree with something I actually said rather than some crazy thing the leave campaign came up with or some rubbish you "implied" from what I said that I clearly didn't.

263919121 10y ago

I understand that position. Why should everyone waste time on negotiating if there is the very real possibility that Britain backpedals and stays?

peteretep 10y ago
The position is easily understood, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the first salvo in negotiation.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  I think that from an EU perspective the first salvo was the decision to keep a referendum.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Nobody - including the Conservatives - thought they would win a majority, and that it would have to be followed through.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      There is a risk in bringing a gun to a meeting, if you start brandishing it and it goes off you can't really blame anybody but yourself. It's the summit of irresponsibility.
    - lagadu 10y ago
      It's non-binding, technically it doesn't have to be followed through. Regardless, it's not the EU's fault that the leaver leadership thought that political sabre-rattling would be more important than actually having a plan.

lagadu 10y ago

You're saying they shouldn't? Seems a fairly straightforward strategy: by calling them out on it, they either force the UK to step up and invoke article 50 or to have their bluff called out. Both outcomes weaken the UK's ability to negotiate and remove the threat of leaving from the table as a weapon the UK could use. Seems like a decent plan, why would they possibly want to negotiate something with the UK, only for them to potentially make a heel-face turn and not leave? In other words, they have very little, if anything, to gain by negotiating anything before the UK makes a move.

peteretep 10y ago
> You're saying they shouldn't No, I'm saying it was positioining, and unambiguously the declaration itself was the start of negotiations, just as threatening to slash corporation tax in the UK is also a negotiating position.
- lagadu 10y ago
  Ah yea, I agree: both are fairly aggressive moves.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>You're saying they shouldn't? Seems a fairly straightforward strategy: by calling them out on it, they either force the UK to step up and invoke article 50 or to have their bluff called out. Both outcomes weaken the UK's ability to negotiate and remove the threat of leaving from the table as a weapon the UK could use. Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave. >In other words, they have very little, if anything, to gain by negotiating anything before the UK makes a move. By being up front about precisely what an exit will entail it will reduce uncertainty about the outcome for everybody. That's a strong benefit. If EU wants to be vindictive it can try but it probably will be economically damaging (both to the UK and the EU). That will only serve to give Farage-equivalent politicians in the EU enough ammunition to call for their own referendums and before you know it the EU is no more. Edit: disagree by all means but please disagree with something I actually said rather than some crazy thing the leave campaign came up with or some rubbish you "implied" from what I said that I clearly didn't.