6 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave. No, why they have to start negotiations if there is no change in the status quo. > 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. How it is vindictive? Should the EU give the same deal the UK has right now? It seems that for some of you, not giving to UK all they ask is being vindictive.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >No, why they have to start negotiations if there is no change in the status quo. Because talk is cheap and uncertainty is expensive. >How it is vindictive? Insisting on article 50 being invoked before starting negotiations will trigger a massive amount of economic uncertainty (and possibly panic). This uncertainty will be worse for the UK but it will be very bad for the EU too. The EU is on tenterhooks even if it doesn't realize it. A wave of euroskeptic election wins in Europe could trigger cascading copycat leave referendums and ultimately the death of the EU. Its negotiating position really isn't as strong as it believes it is.
    - bruceboughton 10y ago
      The EU's negotiating position is exactly as weak as it thinks it is and that is why it has to be so hard on us (Britain). The only negotiating position weaker is Britain's.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > Insisting on article 50 being invoked before starting negotiations will trigger a massive amount of economic uncertainty Then invoke the article 50 so the conversations can start. The ones triggering a massive amount of economic uncertainty are the ones that doesn't want to invoke the Article 50 As I said, some of you think that not giving all that UK wants is being vindictive.
  - 10y ago

by lagadu 10y ago

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.

Oletros 10y ago
> Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave. No, why they have to start negotiations if there is no change in the status quo. > 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. How it is vindictive? Should the EU give the same deal the UK has right now? It seems that for some of you, not giving to UK all they ask is being vindictive.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >No, why they have to start negotiations if there is no change in the status quo. Because talk is cheap and uncertainty is expensive. >How it is vindictive? Insisting on article 50 being invoked before starting negotiations will trigger a massive amount of economic uncertainty (and possibly panic). This uncertainty will be worse for the UK but it will be very bad for the EU too. The EU is on tenterhooks even if it doesn't realize it. A wave of euroskeptic election wins in Europe could trigger cascading copycat leave referendums and ultimately the death of the EU. Its negotiating position really isn't as strong as it believes it is.
  - bruceboughton 10y ago
    The EU's negotiating position is exactly as weak as it thinks it is and that is why it has to be so hard on us (Britain). The only negotiating position weaker is Britain's.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > Insisting on article 50 being invoked before starting negotiations will trigger a massive amount of economic uncertainty Then invoke the article 50 so the conversations can start. The ones triggering a massive amount of economic uncertainty are the ones that doesn't want to invoke the Article 50 As I said, some of you think that not giving all that UK wants is being vindictive.
- 10y ago