4 ms·

"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their ex

"Our UK friends need to say what they want, instead of asking us to say what we want, and so we would like within a few weeks our UK friends to set out their expectations for us, because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications," - 14 December If the UK will offer something new, such as staying in the single market, then the EU is willing to reopen negotiations, extend article 50 etc. If the UK just says "this isn't good, we want something better" - then the EU won't renegotiate. She voted Remain, and decided that implementing Leave was the only way to be Prime Minister and it was worth it. Also, she has such a thin majority, the Brexiters will topple her unless she toes to their line (restricting immigration, avoiding ECJ etc).

hardlianotion 8y ago
This thinking is narrow. There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for an EEA-style solution.
- pjc50 8y ago
  But the DUP have vetoed it, and they're all that matters unless someone can assemble the alleged EEA majority into a government.
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    All it would take would be someone in government to suggest it, the position would have cross-party support. DUP would be irrelevant in this situation. Having said that, DUP are actually agnostic to the form of exit the UK takes. Their red line is that they will not be treated differently to the rest of the UK. People often forget that. I actually think this is the most likely outcome right now.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Remember that EEA now requires a hasty renegotiation of the deal, including continuing ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Someone has to tell the kippers that the Poles will stay.
      - hardlianotion 8y ago
        True. The situation is very shit. ECJ jurisdiction is - strictly speaking (and I know I am fudging a little here) - over. EFTA-style court is what would rule instead, and that would cover a much smaller set of legislation than we currently enjoy from the EU. As for kippers, there were 17 million votes for leave and a surprisingly large number don't have immigration as their major concern. Also, if we take Switzerland as an example, free movement doesn't seem to have precisely the same implications for an EEA member outside the union, but there is a tradeoff as to the access you get if you try to restrict movement. This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy.
        davidgay 8y ago
        > This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy. The people voted (constitutional amendment) to limit free movement. The EU said "hmm, no", so they basically fudged it. There's a summary (in French) at https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/fr/home/dossiers-prioritaires/libre-circulation-personnes.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/fr/hom... which basically says the Swiss parliament passed a law that respected the requirements of that constitutional amendment while still meeting Switzerland's free-movement treaty obligations.
        pjc50 8y ago
        Hmm, that is a huge fudge; it's not been implemented at all as written, but there's some changes to make sure that Swiss jobseekers get first pick of the available jobs. At least the Swiss are clear on what they're trying to achieve.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for an EEA-style solution. But is there unanimous support among the remaining EU members? Because, I mean, every single UK politician (or citizen) could agree on an EEA-style solution, and it still wouldn't be a real option without that required support in the EU.
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    The problem is the possible need for an extension, and it is late. I believe that this would be given the time it needs. Nobody wants a crisis and even now, the UK is not an international pariah.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Nobody wants a crisis “Nobody wants a crisis” is a far cry from “everyone supports this as a mitigation of the otherwise pending crisis”.
      - hardlianotion 8y ago
        I understand that. Nevertheless, I believe this is the likely outcome.

hardlianotion 8y ago

This thinking is narrow. There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for an EEA-style solution.

pjc50 8y ago
But the DUP have vetoed it, and they're all that matters unless someone can assemble the alleged EEA majority into a government.
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  All it would take would be someone in government to suggest it, the position would have cross-party support. DUP would be irrelevant in this situation. Having said that, DUP are actually agnostic to the form of exit the UK takes. Their red line is that they will not be treated differently to the rest of the UK. People often forget that. I actually think this is the most likely outcome right now.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Remember that EEA now requires a hasty renegotiation of the deal, including continuing ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Someone has to tell the kippers that the Poles will stay.
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      True. The situation is very shit. ECJ jurisdiction is - strictly speaking (and I know I am fudging a little here) - over. EFTA-style court is what would rule instead, and that would cover a much smaller set of legislation than we currently enjoy from the EU. As for kippers, there were 17 million votes for leave and a surprisingly large number don't have immigration as their major concern. Also, if we take Switzerland as an example, free movement doesn't seem to have precisely the same implications for an EEA member outside the union, but there is a tradeoff as to the access you get if you try to restrict movement. This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy.
      - davidgay 8y ago
        > This was something the Swiss experimented with a few years back. Not altogether happily, I seem to recall, but I am hazy. The people voted (constitutional amendment) to limit free movement. The EU said "hmm, no", so they basically fudged it. There's a summary (in French) at https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/fr/home/dossiers-prioritaires/libre-circulation-personnes.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/fr/hom... which basically says the Swiss parliament passed a law that respected the requirements of that constitutional amendment while still meeting Switzerland's free-movement treaty obligations.
        pjc50 8y ago
        Hmm, that is a huge fudge; it's not been implemented at all as written, but there's some changes to make sure that Swiss jobseekers get first pick of the available jobs. At least the Swiss are clear on what they're trying to achieve.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> There is a parliamentary majority, and a majority within her own party, for an EEA-style solution. But is there unanimous support among the remaining EU members? Because, I mean, every single UK politician (or citizen) could agree on an EEA-style solution, and it still wouldn't be a real option without that required support in the EU.
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  The problem is the possible need for an extension, and it is late. I believe that this would be given the time it needs. Nobody wants a crisis and even now, the UK is not an international pariah.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Nobody wants a crisis “Nobody wants a crisis” is a far cry from “everyone supports this as a mitigation of the otherwise pending crisis”.
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      I understand that. Nevertheless, I believe this is the likely outcome.