3 ms·

If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy

If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done. They're also briefing about "dirty brexit". Google it.

DocTomoe 10y ago
> they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do. > In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion". > and refusing to talk about anything at all Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in. > thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Your response is typical of why the EU will eventually collapse in a messy way that will likely make all of Europe poorer. It is simply re-running the story of the USSR in a less extreme way. EU supporters even think of themselves as being "anti-fascist", language identical to what the Bolesheviks used in the 30's and 40's. I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them to do. See my comments elsewhere. The EU is held together by fear and needs to make itself a sworn enemy of any country that wants to get out. It's an unstable strategy and it will eventually cause serious chaos, especially when the Euro falls apart. If the EU was willing to undergo massive reform and change itself, the transition could be orderly and yield minimal or even positive economic impact. It never will, so Europe is gonna have a very troubled next few decades.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    UK is bringing this on itself. I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself. UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up and leave after brexit) EU has no obligation to make special concessions, quite the contrary - it is obvious you cannot get a better deal than for example Norway, nor can you continue to benefit from common market without agreeing to it's most core terms Sure, the Euro is in dire need of remaking, maybe explosive collapse of UK will be glorious enough to force some changes in that regard, so...thanks!
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      That's the criminal banker city the French and Germans are so keen to forcibly relocate? Jeesh, you guys.
sasvari 10y ago
I find it kind of amusing that for some/a lot of commentators (from the UK) it is ok for UK politicians to only try to get the best deal possible for the UK, whereas when EU officials and/or representatives from the other EU27 state that they will do the same for the EU/their country/interests, it is considered screwing over the UK. This argument can easily be turned around from the point of view from people living in the rest of the EU, just as a hint.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  There is no assumption on the part of the British that a good deal for the UK is in any way worse for the rest of the EU than what they have now. Why would it be? I'm sure the UK would be quite happy with a reciprocal arrangement - UK imposes immigration quotas on Europeans and the same is true in reverse, but trade continues and other forms of cooperation continue as well. That would be best for all sides. It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.

DocTomoe 10y ago

> they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do. > In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion". > and refusing to talk about anything at all Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in. > thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?

zigzigzag 10y ago
Your response is typical of why the EU will eventually collapse in a messy way that will likely make all of Europe poorer. It is simply re-running the story of the USSR in a less extreme way. EU supporters even think of themselves as being "anti-fascist", language identical to what the Bolesheviks used in the 30's and 40's. I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them to do. See my comments elsewhere. The EU is held together by fear and needs to make itself a sworn enemy of any country that wants to get out. It's an unstable strategy and it will eventually cause serious chaos, especially when the Euro falls apart. If the EU was willing to undergo massive reform and change itself, the transition could be orderly and yield minimal or even positive economic impact. It never will, so Europe is gonna have a very troubled next few decades.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  UK is bringing this on itself. I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself. UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up and leave after brexit) EU has no obligation to make special concessions, quite the contrary - it is obvious you cannot get a better deal than for example Norway, nor can you continue to benefit from common market without agreeing to it's most core terms Sure, the Euro is in dire need of remaking, maybe explosive collapse of UK will be glorious enough to force some changes in that regard, so...thanks!
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    That's the criminal banker city the French and Germans are so keen to forcibly relocate? Jeesh, you guys.

sasvari 10y ago

I find it kind of amusing that for some/a lot of commentators (from the UK) it is ok for UK politicians to only try to get the best deal possible for the UK, whereas when EU officials and/or representatives from the other EU27 state that they will do the same for the EU/their country/interests, it is considered screwing over the UK. This argument can easily be turned around from the point of view from people living in the rest of the EU, just as a hint.

zigzigzag 10y ago
There is no assumption on the part of the British that a good deal for the UK is in any way worse for the rest of the EU than what they have now. Why would it be? I'm sure the UK would be quite happy with a reciprocal arrangement - UK imposes immigration quotas on Europeans and the same is true in reverse, but trade continues and other forms of cooperation continue as well. That would be best for all sides. It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.