4 ms·

It was the original proposal. Rewind the clock to the start of 2016 and there were leave campaigners and prominent remainer politicians both suggesting that. Th

It was the original proposal. Rewind the clock to the start of 2016 and there were leave campaigners and prominent remainer politicians both suggesting that. The UK is not actually attempting to terminate all economic and cultural collaboration with the rest of Europe. Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it. So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all. This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
I don’t share your view of this. First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end. Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.
- repolfx 8y ago
  I agree that looking for ideological consistency is a dead end in any large group of people, including for those who campaigned to remain. Some supported the EU project for ideological reasons (it's an ideological, utopian project after all) and others had purely pragmatic concerns. Some who argued for one side have switched to the other in the years since. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. Here are some excerpts from recent news articles about Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, which the EU is now unanimous in claiming is the only option available at all, that there are no "different forms the UK's relationship could take". Who should I believe? Them or you? - Germany's Europe minister Michael Roth said:"No deal better than the one on the table can be reached." - Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said .... ""This deal that is now on the table is the best there is. There is no better deal for this" - Brussels said Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was ‘the best and the only deal possible’ and had been ‘approved, established, achieved’. These statements appear to contradict you. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. Indeed your own position appears to contradict itself. On one hand, there are many possible options with varying degrees of commitment available. On the other, the EU will never abandon its principles. Which, lest we forget, they've said repeatedly means "no cherry picking" i.e. no options. Honesty is in short supply. Hmmmm ... (I would reply but of course, Hacker News has now rate limited me because I got downvoted. This debate will have to play out some other time).
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. I won’t quite the rest, but I think you have misunderstood the EU’s position on this. Yes, as I said there are different forms the relationship could take. I described some of them. What there isn’t - as various EU bods you quote point out – is any other deal available at this point. It’s done. If the UK had engaged in this process honestly, from the start, then other deals could have been achieved. Remember this graphic published by Barbier? http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/01006039065/brexit.jpg http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/0100603... I don’t think I’m being at all inconsistent or dishonest here. I’m happy to change my views if I’m wrong. But I haven’t heard a convincing argument that the current situation is the fault of anybody but a comically incompetent UK government.
JAlexoid 8y ago
The original proposal was - UK gets the right to access all benefits of trading with EU, including services and passporting rights(I literally watched this on TV at the time in London)... but skip on the freedom of movement and customs union. You know... Cherry pick which of the four core principles of EU UK wanted to participate in. So... Maybe your Brexit mind wishes to ignore the fact of the matter, but just because you ignorantly assign a different meaning to single market - doesn't make your recollection any less of a falsehood.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

I don’t share your view of this. First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end. Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.

repolfx 8y ago
I agree that looking for ideological consistency is a dead end in any large group of people, including for those who campaigned to remain. Some supported the EU project for ideological reasons (it's an ideological, utopian project after all) and others had purely pragmatic concerns. Some who argued for one side have switched to the other in the years since. Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. Here are some excerpts from recent news articles about Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, which the EU is now unanimous in claiming is the only option available at all, that there are no "different forms the UK's relationship could take". Who should I believe? Them or you? - Germany's Europe minister Michael Roth said:"No deal better than the one on the table can be reached." - Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said .... ""This deal that is now on the table is the best there is. There is no better deal for this" - Brussels said Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was ‘the best and the only deal possible’ and had been ‘approved, established, achieved’. These statements appear to contradict you. The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement. Indeed your own position appears to contradict itself. On one hand, there are many possible options with varying degrees of commitment available. On the other, the EU will never abandon its principles. Which, lest we forget, they've said repeatedly means "no cherry picking" i.e. no options. Honesty is in short supply. Hmmmm ... (I would reply but of course, Hacker News has now rate limited me because I got downvoted. This debate will have to play out some other time).
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. I won’t quite the rest, but I think you have misunderstood the EU’s position on this. Yes, as I said there are different forms the relationship could take. I described some of them. What there isn’t - as various EU bods you quote point out – is any other deal available at this point. It’s done. If the UK had engaged in this process honestly, from the start, then other deals could have been achieved. Remember this graphic published by Barbier? http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/01006039065/brexit.jpg http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/0100603... I don’t think I’m being at all inconsistent or dishonest here. I’m happy to change my views if I’m wrong. But I haven’t heard a convincing argument that the current situation is the fault of anybody but a comically incompetent UK government.

JAlexoid 8y ago

The original proposal was - UK gets the right to access all benefits of trading with EU, including services and passporting rights(I literally watched this on TV at the time in London)... but skip on the freedom of movement and customs union. You know... Cherry pick which of the four core principles of EU UK wanted to participate in. So... Maybe your Brexit mind wishes to ignore the fact of the matter, but just because you ignorantly assign a different meaning to single market - doesn't make your recollection any less of a falsehood.