4 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

>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.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > No, why they have to start > negotiations if there is no > change in the status quo. They shouldn't have to, but they will, because everyone will do better if the UK stays in due to some political compromise.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    They EU gave the UK another compromise before the referendum. How many political compromises should the EU give UK?
    - peteretep 10y ago
      As many as make sense. These compromises aren't given out of the love in the heart of the EU to the Brits, they're given because they seem like a good idea by the people whose job it is to make that judgement.
lagadu 10y ago
I'd argue the opposite: if the EU shows that it isn't willing to give any special deals (other than "regular" EEA or EEA-like membership, which is what matters really) to any absconding members, any other members seeing how bad it went for the UK having to stand alone would think twice before attempting any similar action. Regardless, you seem to be implying that the UK should have their cake and eat it too (I dislike that expression, I apologize). As the larger market the EU has a lot more power in negotiations, it's the downside of standing alone; if the UK want to get something significant out of the negotiations, they're going to have to give something significant back.
ifdefdebug 10y ago
>to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave This is not about punishment or revenge. You want to leave? Fine. Let's be friends anyway. You want to talk about leaving before you leave? No thanks. Just do it, then we talk. Seriously, some people from the exit league are promising British citizens full freedom of movement in the EU, while EU citizens are going to be submitted to immigration control. Is that the kind of things you want to talk about before leaving?
pluma 10y ago
I'm German so I may be biased, but I don't think this is punitive at all. The UK has been using the threat of leaving as a trump card in negotiations for decades. They've basically opted out of all major agreements yet demanded having a say in every decision. They've basically been given special treatment like no other EU member and still complained about the "fascist EU" taking away their "sovereignty". UKIP was the logical consequence to decades of telling your own people everything that goes wrong in the UK is the fault of those evil bureaucrats in the EU. Cameron tried to bluff in order to renegotiate the UK's special privileges but he made the mistake of promising a referendum he didn't foresee he would lose. He severely underestimated how much those decades of FUD had paved the road for the Leave campaign. In the wake of the referendum the entire UK government has committed to following through. The result has been communicated as "a democratic decision", not as a tentative opinion poll to aide in decision making. Nobody has invoked Article 50 yet but everything in how the UK has handled this says "we're going to leave". What the UK apparently didn't expect is that the EU's reaction can be summarised as "Good riddance; don't let the door hit you on the way out". The UK has two options now: 1. Follow through and renegotiate everything. 2. Admit they were bluffing and try to handle the fallout. Either way the brexit trump card is no longer on the table. Staying in the EU would mean effectively giving up on all the advantages gained in previous negotiations because nobody is going to take future threats serious anymore. Leaving means renegotiating everything from scratch. The UK isn't being punished. It's just having the privileges revoked that it previously bargained for by continuously threatening to leave. There's nothing vindictive about this. There's just no reason for the EU to be nice to the UK anymore. How the UK is being treated now is simply a reflection of how the UK has treated the EU until now. It's certainly not nice, but it's not unfair. There's simply no reason the EU should negotiate anything in advance to Article 50 being invoked. BTW, in Germany the general appearance of the Brexit seems to be that the UK made a huge mistake and their country is disintegrating as a result. Scottish independence is perceived as a given and nobody sees any long-term point of having EU companies stay in the UK unless the UK can reach an agreement (e.g. staying in the EEA, which would mean upholding a ton of regulations the Leavers complained about with no way of affecting them). Nobody is worried about this setting any favourable precedent in the slightest. And for the record: despite Leave campaigners' propaganda, Germany has its own nationalist anti-EU movement which had previously gained a considerable following as a result of the refugee crisis, which has hit Germany much more than the UK). Germans don't see the EU as some Fourth Reich tool of controlling Europe. Most Germans don't even seem to be aware of the amount of political power Germany has within Europe. During the Greek financial crisis the general reaction to the prospect of a Grexit was actually positive (again with some worries about how badly Greek would do on its own). The mindset is simply different: Germans seem to genuinely think of themselves as European whereas Brits seem to think of Europe as "the continent" (i.e. not them).

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.
peteretep 10y ago
> No, why they have to start > negotiations if there is no > change in the status quo. They shouldn't have to, but they will, because everyone will do better if the UK stays in due to some political compromise.
- Oletros 10y ago
  They EU gave the UK another compromise before the referendum. How many political compromises should the EU give UK?
  - peteretep 10y ago
    As many as make sense. These compromises aren't given out of the love in the heart of the EU to the Brits, they're given because they seem like a good idea by the people whose job it is to make that judgement.

lagadu 10y ago

I'd argue the opposite: if the EU shows that it isn't willing to give any special deals (other than "regular" EEA or EEA-like membership, which is what matters really) to any absconding members, any other members seeing how bad it went for the UK having to stand alone would think twice before attempting any similar action. Regardless, you seem to be implying that the UK should have their cake and eat it too (I dislike that expression, I apologize). As the larger market the EU has a lot more power in negotiations, it's the downside of standing alone; if the UK want to get something significant out of the negotiations, they're going to have to give something significant back.

ifdefdebug 10y ago

>to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave This is not about punishment or revenge. You want to leave? Fine. Let's be friends anyway. You want to talk about leaving before you leave? No thanks. Just do it, then we talk. Seriously, some people from the exit league are promising British citizens full freedom of movement in the EU, while EU citizens are going to be submitted to immigration control. Is that the kind of things you want to talk about before leaving?

pluma 10y ago

I'm German so I may be biased, but I don't think this is punitive at all. The UK has been using the threat of leaving as a trump card in negotiations for decades. They've basically opted out of all major agreements yet demanded having a say in every decision. They've basically been given special treatment like no other EU member and still complained about the "fascist EU" taking away their "sovereignty". UKIP was the logical consequence to decades of telling your own people everything that goes wrong in the UK is the fault of those evil bureaucrats in the EU. Cameron tried to bluff in order to renegotiate the UK's special privileges but he made the mistake of promising a referendum he didn't foresee he would lose. He severely underestimated how much those decades of FUD had paved the road for the Leave campaign. In the wake of the referendum the entire UK government has committed to following through. The result has been communicated as "a democratic decision", not as a tentative opinion poll to aide in decision making. Nobody has invoked Article 50 yet but everything in how the UK has handled this says "we're going to leave". What the UK apparently didn't expect is that the EU's reaction can be summarised as "Good riddance; don't let the door hit you on the way out". The UK has two options now: 1. Follow through and renegotiate everything. 2. Admit they were bluffing and try to handle the fallout. Either way the brexit trump card is no longer on the table. Staying in the EU would mean effectively giving up on all the advantages gained in previous negotiations because nobody is going to take future threats serious anymore. Leaving means renegotiating everything from scratch. The UK isn't being punished. It's just having the privileges revoked that it previously bargained for by continuously threatening to leave. There's nothing vindictive about this. There's just no reason for the EU to be nice to the UK anymore. How the UK is being treated now is simply a reflection of how the UK has treated the EU until now. It's certainly not nice, but it's not unfair. There's simply no reason the EU should negotiate anything in advance to Article 50 being invoked. BTW, in Germany the general appearance of the Brexit seems to be that the UK made a huge mistake and their country is disintegrating as a result. Scottish independence is perceived as a given and nobody sees any long-term point of having EU companies stay in the UK unless the UK can reach an agreement (e.g. staying in the EEA, which would mean upholding a ton of regulations the Leavers complained about with no way of affecting them). Nobody is worried about this setting any favourable precedent in the slightest. And for the record: despite Leave campaigners' propaganda, Germany has its own nationalist anti-EU movement which had previously gained a considerable following as a result of the refugee crisis, which has hit Germany much more than the UK). Germans don't see the EU as some Fourth Reich tool of controlling Europe. Most Germans don't even seem to be aware of the amount of political power Germany has within Europe. During the Greek financial crisis the general reaction to the prospect of a Grexit was actually positive (again with some worries about how badly Greek would do on its own). The mindset is simply different: Germans seem to genuinely think of themselves as European whereas Brits seem to think of Europe as "the continent" (i.e. not them).