4 ms·

The Brexit will never happen, for 2 reasons. 1) The EU is not allowing the UK any unofficial negotiations, so they have no idea how any of these economic negot

The Brexit will never happen, for 2 reasons. 1) The EU is not allowing the UK any unofficial negotiations, so they have no idea how any of these economic negotiations will go. The UK government is scared to pull the trigger and no one in power wants to be the one to do it. 2) The UK needs free trade with the EU. If they want free trade, they also have to agree to free movement of labor. Stopping free movement of the labor was one of the core reasons the Brexit passed.

Houshalter 10y ago
But if they don't go through with it, the voters will be pissed that they are breaking promises and anti democratic, etc, and vote them out. It's my understanding that conservatives are over represented in Parliament in the UK. You can have free trade without limitless immigration. Many countries do. I don't know where you get that idea.
- yongjik 10y ago
  I'm sure UK can have free trade with Japan without any immigration. Good luck arranging that (free trade w/o immigration) with the rest of EU.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    I believe the EU has free trade deals with Australia and Canada, without unrestricted immigration. Those are both former UK colonies that are similar to the UK. I'm not sure why you believe the EU is anti-trade. In fact promoting free trade seems to be it's main purpose.
    - yongjik 10y ago
      Label it whatever you want, but I believe the EU is anti-(trade with UK without freedom of movement) because they publicly said so. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900 > "Any agreement, which will be concluded with the UK as a third country, will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms." Are you saying that they're bluffing? (Well, that's possible, I guess.)
      - Houshalter 10y ago
        Well a single EU leader said that, I don't know if the opinion is unanimous. Regardless, I suspect they won't do it because it would be irrational. Of course they have every incentive to make threats. But actually going through with them would hurt them just as much as the UK. Trade is a mutual benefit after all. Anyway it just strikes me as mean-spirited. I doubt the EU leaders really care about immigration that strongly. They are also holding the UK to a different standard than other non-EU countries, and there is no justification for that. I'll believe their serious if they start demanding the US, Australia, etc, open their borders or lose trade. Good luck with that. Yet somehow they find it weird the UK doesn't want unrestricted immigration.
        yongjik 10y ago
        > They are also holding the UK to a different standard than other non-EU countries, and there is no justification for that. If Amex offers $500 credit to any new card holder, and if I happen to have the card, cancel it, and immediately re-apply, chances are that Amex won't give me $500. In fact, if Amex did, it would be financially irresponsible to its shareholders. You may not like it, but EU does not really need a justification to treat UK differently from Australia. The leaders of France and Germany are elected to represent the interest of French/German people, and if they believe that discouraging more countries from walking out is in the best interest of EU and their own people (now you might disagree, but they can surely believe that themselves), then they are morally obliged to act tough to UK.
        mryan 10y ago
        > Anyway it just strikes me as mean-spirited. I doubt the EU leaders really care about immigration that strongly. Freedom of movement of trade, people/labour, capital and services is the core founding principle of the EU - they care about it a lot. > Regardless, I suspect they won't do it because it would be irrational. If Britain is given a deal that allows them all of the benefits of EU membership without any of the perceived downsides, all other EU member states will want this better deal too. Giving the UK such a deal would cause a number of additional countries to leave the EU. Thus, it would be irrational for the EU to give the UK a deal which would lead to the eventual breakup of the EU. > I believe the EU has free trade deals with Australia and Canada, without unrestricted immigration. There are essentially three ways to trade with the EU: As a member state (Britain's current position, France, Germany, etc.), as a member of the EEA (Norway), or under WTO rules (Australia). If the UK wants one of the first two options they will need to allow freedom of movement. If Australia (somehow) applied for membership of the EU or EEA it would need to allow freedom of movement for EU citizens.
dtf 10y ago
Well, there's a fair chance now that Andrea Leadsom will become PM. And she's definitely crazy enough to do it, regardless of consequence.
brc 10y ago
Your second point is incorrect. There are plenty of trade agreements without free movement included. Indeed the EC (forerunner to the EU) was precisely free trade without free movement. The first point is debatable. There is a lot of political power to be gained by the person who pulls the trigger if they do it succesfully. I think it is 50:50, but there is a lot of upside to be had if it is done well and with plenty of stability and adjustment time. Anyone in the Conservative party who refuses to pull the trigger will be subject to endless criticism and undermining from the significant base of people that wants it done.

Houshalter 10y ago

But if they don't go through with it, the voters will be pissed that they are breaking promises and anti democratic, etc, and vote them out. It's my understanding that conservatives are over represented in Parliament in the UK. You can have free trade without limitless immigration. Many countries do. I don't know where you get that idea.

yongjik 10y ago
I'm sure UK can have free trade with Japan without any immigration. Good luck arranging that (free trade w/o immigration) with the rest of EU.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I believe the EU has free trade deals with Australia and Canada, without unrestricted immigration. Those are both former UK colonies that are similar to the UK. I'm not sure why you believe the EU is anti-trade. In fact promoting free trade seems to be it's main purpose.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    Label it whatever you want, but I believe the EU is anti-(trade with UK without freedom of movement) because they publicly said so. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900 > "Any agreement, which will be concluded with the UK as a third country, will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms." Are you saying that they're bluffing? (Well, that's possible, I guess.)
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      Well a single EU leader said that, I don't know if the opinion is unanimous. Regardless, I suspect they won't do it because it would be irrational. Of course they have every incentive to make threats. But actually going through with them would hurt them just as much as the UK. Trade is a mutual benefit after all. Anyway it just strikes me as mean-spirited. I doubt the EU leaders really care about immigration that strongly. They are also holding the UK to a different standard than other non-EU countries, and there is no justification for that. I'll believe their serious if they start demanding the US, Australia, etc, open their borders or lose trade. Good luck with that. Yet somehow they find it weird the UK doesn't want unrestricted immigration.
      - yongjik 10y ago
        > They are also holding the UK to a different standard than other non-EU countries, and there is no justification for that. If Amex offers $500 credit to any new card holder, and if I happen to have the card, cancel it, and immediately re-apply, chances are that Amex won't give me $500. In fact, if Amex did, it would be financially irresponsible to its shareholders. You may not like it, but EU does not really need a justification to treat UK differently from Australia. The leaders of France and Germany are elected to represent the interest of French/German people, and if they believe that discouraging more countries from walking out is in the best interest of EU and their own people (now you might disagree, but they can surely believe that themselves), then they are morally obliged to act tough to UK.
      - mryan 10y ago
        > Anyway it just strikes me as mean-spirited. I doubt the EU leaders really care about immigration that strongly. Freedom of movement of trade, people/labour, capital and services is the core founding principle of the EU - they care about it a lot. > Regardless, I suspect they won't do it because it would be irrational. If Britain is given a deal that allows them all of the benefits of EU membership without any of the perceived downsides, all other EU member states will want this better deal too. Giving the UK such a deal would cause a number of additional countries to leave the EU. Thus, it would be irrational for the EU to give the UK a deal which would lead to the eventual breakup of the EU. > I believe the EU has free trade deals with Australia and Canada, without unrestricted immigration. There are essentially three ways to trade with the EU: As a member state (Britain's current position, France, Germany, etc.), as a member of the EEA (Norway), or under WTO rules (Australia). If the UK wants one of the first two options they will need to allow freedom of movement. If Australia (somehow) applied for membership of the EU or EEA it would need to allow freedom of movement for EU citizens.

dtf 10y ago

Well, there's a fair chance now that Andrea Leadsom will become PM. And she's definitely crazy enough to do it, regardless of consequence.

brc 10y ago

Your second point is incorrect. There are plenty of trade agreements without free movement included. Indeed the EC (forerunner to the EU) was precisely free trade without free movement. The first point is debatable. There is a lot of political power to be gained by the person who pulls the trigger if they do it succesfully. I think it is 50:50, but there is a lot of upside to be had if it is done well and with plenty of stability and adjustment time. Anyone in the Conservative party who refuses to pull the trigger will be subject to endless criticism and undermining from the significant base of people that wants it done.