6 ms·

Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? I realize this may sound nai

• pimmen 9y ago
  You absolutely can just leave! Now, lets say the five times larger economy doesn't accept your unilateral trade position, who just happens to be by far your largest and closest trading partner, what do you think happens then to your companies who are reliant on the EU market? Even if you don't work for such a company, what do you think would happen to your employer's clients? And if you work in the public sector, what do you think will happen to the tax revenue from those companies? More than 20% of the UK's GDP is made up of exports to the EU. What do you think will happen to the government that cost the country millions of jobs because of one stupid decision to appease populists come election year? That's why the government can't just leave because it would be extremely popular in the short term but within a few years bring about very dire consequences.
• selectodude 9y ago
  The negotiations are mostly the UK trying to maintain some of the trade and immigration agreements they had while in the EU. They're welcome to just go "fuck you" and leave, but they will be absolutely destroyed by doing so.
  • Zhyl 9y ago
    In the current parlance, this is called the 'No Deal'.
• Scorponok 9y ago
  Because the EU could then reject those terms and not having a trade deal would be vastly more damaging to the UK than the EU.
  • gaius 9y ago
    No it can't - it's as bound by Article 50 as the UK is.
    • Scorponok 9y ago
      So what happens if the EU and UK don't reach an agreement before the article 50 time limit expires? It doesn't make sense that the UK just gets to do what they like, otherwise they wouldn't need to negotiate at all.
      • gaius 9y ago
        As I say in other comments, WTO rules automatically apply - to both sides. The EU is fully bound by its own laws. It cannot unilaterally decide to reject WTO rules.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      Article 50 means that no deal happens without unanimity in the EU. The only way that binds the EU is in limiting the ability to make a deal, not obligating them to accept a unilateral UK demand.
    • PeterisP 9y ago
      Article 50 doesn't require a free trade deal to exist after the Brexit, the "no deal" scenario is what happens if Britain exits without a replacement deal, and it's considered (by both sides) an outcome that's bad for UK.
• AndrewDucker 9y ago
  Who would sign a trade deal with a country which reneged on its agreements?
• juandazapata 9y ago
  Because relationships between countries don't work in the same way as relationships between teenagers?
• sz4kerto 9y ago
  Because _everything_ that happens between countries (and between the UK an the EU) is driven by treaties and agreements. Simple example: if UK leaves without agreements and treaties then there can be no flights from the UK to the EU. This sounds crazy but we have tens of thousands of bilateral agreements that drive even the most fundamental things, and they can be (and are) affected by e.g. the EU membership. Or UK citizens would not be able to buy products from the EU because there would be no agreements in place that'd allow companies in the EU to export goods. Yeah, as soon as you BMW breaks down that's it, because no spare parts would be available. Yes, it's this important.
  • tzahola 9y ago
    Buy a Jaguar then ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    • ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Jaguar is owned by an Indian company.
      • jjoonathan 9y ago
        When did India join the EU?
        • ZenoArrow 9y ago
          Look at the context in which the comments were made. The point sz4kerto made was about issues surrounding the import of BMWs and BMW parts. tzahola followed up with a comment about Jaguars. Jaguar is known for being a British car brand. The suggestion of importing from non-EU countries was not made clear, the implication I took from it was that British people could buy British goods, so I made the comment about who now owns Jaguar. Make more sense?
      • mikestew 9y ago
        Cars are still built in Coventry regardless of who takes the profit.
• gaius 9y ago
  Article 50 specifies exactly what will happen: WTO rules will apply. I think most people now are assuming WTO and considering anything else to be a bonus.
  • interdrift 9y ago
    WTO deals can take years to negotiate. The U.K's land of heaven is lobbying in Brussels so they can get a fair to everyone deal. As my British friends say, can't have your cake and eat it.
    • gaius 9y ago
      No, it takes years of negotiations to change WTO rules, but the rules as they are will apply automatically in the absence of any other deal
  • Tomte 9y ago
    „WTO rules“ are just a framework for trading rules. Those rules itself still need to be negotiated. For example, „which form do you have to fill with which information in how many copies, in order to export pastry?“. That‘s much faster than a real trade deal, because it‘s mostly administrative, but it is still a hurdle to clear before you can trade under „WTO rules“. And now do that for a gazillion sectors and special cases. With every trading partner.
• dboreham 9y ago
  Convention that you don’t break treat obligations (presumably because consequences of doing so would be very bad)?
• Dayshine 9y ago
  For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
  • gaius 9y ago
    For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. What about if you refuse to split the bill for the next dinner, to which you aren't invited?
    • catdog 9y ago
      It's more like already having placed a binding order for that next dinner which is already in progress of being made but then refuse to pay.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • 1undo 9y ago
    > For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. What if you had very little choice on what was ordered for dinner? and ate almost nothing at dinner. You wouldn't want to pay right?
    • namelost 9y ago
      You say to your friends, "Let's share the cost of dinner". Then when you decide you don't like the dinner, walk out halfway through, leaving your friends to pick up the bill for what you ordered. Once word gets round, not only your friends but nobody is going to go out to dinner with you ever again.
      • 1undo 9y ago
        Yes, I agree to "share the cost of dinner". But I don't get the food that I ordered, and eat very little of it. And I watch others eat a lot of food without contributing to the tab. I then want to leave the dinner which is only right
• interdrift 9y ago
  1. UK has obligations to the EU for the 2020 (already have deals & contracts), other than that they're free to leave. Of course you can just leave and end up with a chaotic situation where nobody knows how trading works, there are tariffs. Opinion : UK is going toward vassal state status to the EU by not having a say but still having to follow their rules.
  • WhirlingBirdz 9y ago
    Similar to the other "vassal states" such as Norway and Switzerland. I'm not sure that the debate here is very sensible or measured. I think that Brexit is a tragedy, and dearly hope it doesn't actually happen. That is my opinion. But it seems difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned argument about any aspect of it; people are entrenched in their corners.
    • tremon 9y ago
      Well, that depends on what Britain wants. Norway and Switzerland still have to abide by the free movement rules of the EU (which also includes air space regulations btw), and I though that Britain didn't want that? Maybe read up on the EEA's Guillotine Clause [0] to understand the negotiation room that Britain will have when trying to curb free movement. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine_clause
• neaden 9y ago
  Because the EU will say no and Britain will be screwed. It wouldn't be great for the EU either, but it would hurt them a lot less.
• jballanc 9y ago
  Because the U.K. is not self-sufficient. Actually, I'm fairly certain that no country in today's world is self-sufficient. That means that for people to get by, day-to-day, the U.K. will need to import "stuff". If they were to simply up-and-leave the EU, chances are that the EU would retaliate by: * closing borders with the U.K. * embargoing or imposing severe tariffs on U.K. exports * raise prices on U.K. imports to cover the monies not paid by the U.K. So the U.K.'s choices are to: * pay, in effect, what they owe (in the forms of tariffs and penalties) with zero bargaining position * find enough other countries to trade with (who are willing to also thumb their nose at the EU) to make up for the goods and services they had been getting from the EU * negotiate a clean exit
  • toyg 9y ago
    > embargoing or imposing severe tariffs on U.K. exports They don't even have to actually do anything to achieve that. WTO rules basically establish such tariffs already. > raise prices on U.K. imports to cover the monies not paid by the U.K. Same here. Also, additional tax revenues would likely be collected on business "redirected" from the UK towards internal companies. I still hope we'll get another referendum before we reach a point of no return.
• 1undo 9y ago
  The European Union wants to maintain centralized power. A Country like the UK leaving weakens their authority. Meanwhile the uk wants to remain sovereign, but doesn't want to lose the benefits of the EU. Its essentially a power play. Freedom is the better choice imo
  • goneri 9y ago
    This is a pure opinion based comment with no fact and a naive conclusion. This extremely complex topic deserves better, especially on HN.
    • junkscience2017 9y ago
      and how does your jab advance that?
  • interdrift 9y ago
    You're portraying things a black and white and this is not even remotely the case.
  • ubersoldat2k7 9y ago
    Actually, the other way around. Without the UK blocking many integration policies, the EU will have an easier road ahead to approve them, like military, legal and tax integration.
• 317070 9y ago
  The UK can do that. The most likely consequence will be the EU not accepting those trade terms. As a consequence, almost all trade with the UK will stop and trade with the UK will effectively be under near embargo due to the high tarrifs from parts of the world (the EU and areas it has trade agreements with).
• pm90 9y ago
  You could say this about any treaty, any agreement. And technically, a Sovereign Nation, by its very definition, is allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants. Before 20th century, breaches of treaties were grounds for war. Now we don't do that anymore, we simply cut off trade. So the U.K would be ostracized, International companies would move out, it would probably face high tariffs on goods (or outright ban) etc.
• dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? The UK can just leave—that’s what happens automatically with no deal, it leaves the E.U. and is in the same position as any other non-member country with no trade agreement with the E.U. A lot of business in the UK has been dependent on its trade position in Europe, and there are even political stability issues tied in with that (the Irish border and it's relation to the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly.) So the UK can't afford to walk away, though they are perfectly free to do so.
• masklinn 9y ago
  > Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else, the powder keg of NI starts heating back up, you've got a bunch of britons illegally present in mainland EU and likewise mainland residents in the UK, … Oh and the UK becomes known for having no respect for international deals, which makes their positions weaker in every future international agreement. > and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? And the EU unilaterally states "no" and then what?
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else Reverting to WTO rules and hard (but not closed) borders isn't trade and travel being illegal, but it is a lot less free than the state when the UK was in the EU.
  • ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else" That's bullshit. WTO trade rules would still apply if the UK left the EU without a deal, and freedom to come and go outside the EU could still remain unchanged regardless of what Brussels wants to impose.
• yk 9y ago
  Details. So for starters, the EU currently regulates a lot of what may be sold as food, regulations that just no longer apply if UK leaves. So they have to go through all the EU regulations first just to determine which are necessary to keep safe food in British supermarkets. Then you get the international problems directly connected to that, what can you import into Britain and at which tariffs. Plus, how do you cooperate between air traffic control across the channel and across the Irish sea. (While we are at it, is British Airways allowed to fly over France, without EU law?) And that is just the things Britain has to figure out on their own. Ireland, France and the rest of the EU have interest in British tariffs and if Britain sets tariffs unilaterally they will respond in kind, a situation sometimes known as trade war. So yes, in principle Britain could just state a position on terms of trade, a hard Brexit, but that would mean that the EU responds in kind. Neither the EU nor Britain wants to do that, but the thing is the EU is something like 10 times as big as Britain and so the EU can very comfortably wait for Britain, because Brexit only affects something less than 10% of the EU trade, not over half of all trade as for Britain.