4 ms·

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

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.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    I did have a big reply typed out yesterday but couldn't post it. Today I'll just observe that - again - what actual member state and Brussels officials are saying is that this is "the best and only deal that could have been achieved". Not - "it's alright but with more time we'll find something better" which is what you're claiming. Again, I don't see how your position matches the reality of what is being said by the people in power. So I think I'm not the one who's misunderstood their position.
    - matthewmacleod 8y ago
      No, that is not what I'm claiming. The EU folk you are quoting are clear that this is the only deal that is available, and that is correct – but those statements are in the context of the red lines established by the UK, and the point in the negotiations that we are now at. First, please refer to the graphic I linked to. It outlines how the conditions established for an EU exit deal by the UK limited the options that were available. These choices were almost entirely on the UK, and they are obvious to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the various bodies and constructs involved. The UK decided what conditions it was not willing to accept – free movement, ECJ jurisdiction; shared trade policy etc. – and the deal which has been achieved is the best deal possible given those constraints. Second, realise that we are now at the end of the negotiation process. There is no appetite for renegotiating a deal under these circumstances. The UK and EU have negotiated for two years; if a different approach had been taken at the beginning of those negotiations, a different deal would have been possible. That is now no longer the case. Both my statement that "a better was possible", and the EU's statements that "no better deal is now possible" are true.

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.
- repolfx 8y ago
  I did have a big reply typed out yesterday but couldn't post it. Today I'll just observe that - again - what actual member state and Brussels officials are saying is that this is "the best and only deal that could have been achieved". Not - "it's alright but with more time we'll find something better" which is what you're claiming. Again, I don't see how your position matches the reality of what is being said by the people in power. So I think I'm not the one who's misunderstood their position.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    No, that is not what I'm claiming. The EU folk you are quoting are clear that this is the only deal that is available, and that is correct – but those statements are in the context of the red lines established by the UK, and the point in the negotiations that we are now at. First, please refer to the graphic I linked to. It outlines how the conditions established for an EU exit deal by the UK limited the options that were available. These choices were almost entirely on the UK, and they are obvious to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the various bodies and constructs involved. The UK decided what conditions it was not willing to accept – free movement, ECJ jurisdiction; shared trade policy etc. – and the deal which has been achieved is the best deal possible given those constraints. Second, realise that we are now at the end of the negotiation process. There is no appetite for renegotiating a deal under these circumstances. The UK and EU have negotiated for two years; if a different approach had been taken at the beginning of those negotiations, a different deal would have been possible. That is now no longer the case. Both my statement that "a better was possible", and the EU's statements that "no better deal is now possible" are true.