2 ms·

There are no soft brexit options. Anyone who thinks this hasn't been paying attention and isn't aware of the facts (ironic, considering how often such people ac

There are no soft brexit options. Anyone who thinks this hasn't been paying attention and isn't aware of the facts (ironic, considering how often such people accuse others of not knowing the facts). No such offers are on the table anymore, not even to Switzerland, which has been told by the EU that there will never be any more negotiations unless they agree to replacing their current arrangements with a new one that's basically EU membership by another name. Additionally the Swiss also voted to impose immigration quotas years ago and the deadline for that referendum (a legally binding one) is February. The EU have told them to vote again. The Swiss Parliament is now desperately pretending that a law change that doesn't involve quotas is sufficient to satisfy a referendum that specifically asked the population about implementing quotas. Even Switzerland is no longer able to get a Switzerland style agreement. The chances of the UK getting one are zero. The UK has to accept that the EU is now an enemy of the country and is fully committed to the impoverishment and exclusion of the British people. There won't be any cooperation on anything with the EU ever again, and not because the UK doesn't want it but because the EU is held together by fear.

_delirium 10y ago
Isn't the current Swiss controversy just a simple case of Switzerland abrogating the treaty? Switzerland and the EU member states signed a treaty agreeing that Switzerland would be given access to the common market, on the same footing as if it were an EU member, in return for following the EU's common product labeling/regulation, and allowing free movement of labor between all signatories of the treaty. Then, recently, the Swiss voted in a referendum to curtail the free movement of labor. That's their right to do, but it means they're no longer honoring the treaty, so naturally they can't expect the other side to continue honoring it either.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  The treaties, like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". There is no need for this type of thing - it's a pure power play. Switzerland is heading for what could be a potentially nasty constitutional crisis, if things go wrong. Parliament is legally bound to implement referendums because they work by adjusting the constitution. Swiss MPs are apparently more scared of the EU than they are of their own courts. This is not a sustainable situation for a democracy. Even if it doesn't blow up now, eventually it will. Switzerland will eventually go through its own "Swexit", due to a referendum that involves wishing to withdraw from one part of one agreement and the EU insisting that it withdraws from all of them simultaneously.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    I sort of agree as regards the very general guillotine clause, but I don't think it would make a huge difference in this case, because the Swiss referendum hits at the core of the common market agreement. The common market is made up of a few things that all go together to attempt to produce an integrated economic zone: free movement of labor, equal treatment of foreign and domestic companies, regulatory harmonization, etc. If countries can choose to honor some parts and not others, then you end up with a very fragmented market that fails to achieve the objective. Maybe France passes labeling laws designed to exclude Danish dairy products, Switzerland decides to restrict free movement, Greece decides to tax foreign companies at a higher rate than domestic companies, etc., etc. So it makes sense to me that the treaties over the common market are written such that countries only retain membership as long as they continue to honor each of these factors.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Free trade deals outside of Europe never involve changes to visa policies, as far as I'm aware. This is not some sort of natural or unavoidable thing - it's the result of political choices. Very many other things are like that, such as the various courts that you have to agree to obey, agreeing to automatic implementation of laws created by the Commission, etc.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    >like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". I'm sorry, what? You sign a bilateral agreement bringing you massive wealth and advantages then you try to avoid doing your part of the deal So EU is now evil because it will not take shit from a tiny country?

_delirium 10y ago

Isn't the current Swiss controversy just a simple case of Switzerland abrogating the treaty? Switzerland and the EU member states signed a treaty agreeing that Switzerland would be given access to the common market, on the same footing as if it were an EU member, in return for following the EU's common product labeling/regulation, and allowing free movement of labor between all signatories of the treaty. Then, recently, the Swiss voted in a referendum to curtail the free movement of labor. That's their right to do, but it means they're no longer honoring the treaty, so naturally they can't expect the other side to continue honoring it either.

zigzigzag 10y ago
The treaties, like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". There is no need for this type of thing - it's a pure power play. Switzerland is heading for what could be a potentially nasty constitutional crisis, if things go wrong. Parliament is legally bound to implement referendums because they work by adjusting the constitution. Swiss MPs are apparently more scared of the EU than they are of their own courts. This is not a sustainable situation for a democracy. Even if it doesn't blow up now, eventually it will. Switzerland will eventually go through its own "Swexit", due to a referendum that involves wishing to withdraw from one part of one agreement and the EU insisting that it withdraws from all of them simultaneously.
- _delirium 10y ago
  I sort of agree as regards the very general guillotine clause, but I don't think it would make a huge difference in this case, because the Swiss referendum hits at the core of the common market agreement. The common market is made up of a few things that all go together to attempt to produce an integrated economic zone: free movement of labor, equal treatment of foreign and domestic companies, regulatory harmonization, etc. If countries can choose to honor some parts and not others, then you end up with a very fragmented market that fails to achieve the objective. Maybe France passes labeling laws designed to exclude Danish dairy products, Switzerland decides to restrict free movement, Greece decides to tax foreign companies at a higher rate than domestic companies, etc., etc. So it makes sense to me that the treaties over the common market are written such that countries only retain membership as long as they continue to honor each of these factors.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Free trade deals outside of Europe never involve changes to visa policies, as far as I'm aware. This is not some sort of natural or unavoidable thing - it's the result of political choices. Very many other things are like that, such as the various courts that you have to agree to obey, agreeing to automatic implementation of laws created by the Commission, etc.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  >like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". I'm sorry, what? You sign a bilateral agreement bringing you massive wealth and advantages then you try to avoid doing your part of the deal So EU is now evil because it will not take shit from a tiny country?