4 ms·

It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’r

It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’re pissed that they’re not getting what think they deserve. Whatever control issues exist are due to a treaty the UK freely entered into, and choices (like getting married) have predictable consequences. If you decide freely to marry me, then unilaterally decide to divorce me, you wouldn’t be shocked if the result was a compromise between what you wanted in terms of property and rights, and what I wanted right? Of course the EU is going to push for every inch, and since they don’t even want Brexit that gives them a lot of power. That was (or should have been) obvious from the get-go.

ineedasername 7y ago
Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.
pergadad 7y ago
Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.
accnumnplus1 7y ago
Having a veto on whether the UK can leave is control.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  They don't. They have a veto on whether the UK can leave on the terms that the UK wants.
  - accnumnplus1 7y ago
    No-deal has no terms, hence no veto. The WA enables a veto.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      No-deal is not the terms the UK wants. If it did, it would’ve already left.
      - accnumnplus1 7y ago
        By UK you mean Theresa May. No-deal is what leavers want. Remain is what remainers want.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. The vote was on Leave (with the specifics completely unspecified) vs. Remain. Within those who favor Leave, no-deal may be what the majority want. That isn't the majority of the country, though. If you said that May's deal and no deal were the only two flavors of Leave available, then I think it would come down to 48% Remain (using the figure from the previous vote), at most 35% for no-deal, and at least 17% for May's deal. Even if the exact numbers are off, there's no way that no-deal has so much support among leavers that it has more total support than remain. Worse, of those who support something like May's deal, some would prefer remaining to a no-deal exit. So it's unclear, if the only options on the table are specifically a no-deal exit and remaining, that a no-deal exit is what the people want. That's of the voters. In Parliament... who knows.
        ben_w 7y ago
        No, I mean the UK. Theresa May is so tone-deaf she’s made 80-90% of voters think she’s on the opposite team to themselves, where half of the population think that means “Remainer” and half think it means “Leaver”. Unfortunately, that 10-20% support for her deal means that literally no option has majority support. No-deal and Remain both independently beat May’s deal in a direct competition. If you put the question “do you want no deal?” to the population, almost all the supporters of May’d deal say “no”, but if you put the question “do you want to cancel Brexit and remain?” to the population, almost all the supporters of May’d deal say “no”. If you make it a normal three-way referendum, I’ve seen Leavers complain that would split the vote. If you make it a three-way vote with single-transferable-vote, you end up with a real-life version of Arrow’s impossibly Theorem, where voter preferences are non-transitive.

ineedasername 7y ago

Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.

pergadad 7y ago

Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.

accnumnplus1 7y ago

Having a veto on whether the UK can leave is control.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
They don't. They have a veto on whether the UK can leave on the terms that the UK wants.
- accnumnplus1 7y ago
  No-deal has no terms, hence no veto. The WA enables a veto.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    No-deal is not the terms the UK wants. If it did, it would’ve already left.
    - accnumnplus1 7y ago
      By UK you mean Theresa May. No-deal is what leavers want. Remain is what remainers want.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. The vote was on Leave (with the specifics completely unspecified) vs. Remain. Within those who favor Leave, no-deal may be what the majority want. That isn't the majority of the country, though. If you said that May's deal and no deal were the only two flavors of Leave available, then I think it would come down to 48% Remain (using the figure from the previous vote), at most 35% for no-deal, and at least 17% for May's deal. Even if the exact numbers are off, there's no way that no-deal has so much support among leavers that it has more total support than remain. Worse, of those who support something like May's deal, some would prefer remaining to a no-deal exit. So it's unclear, if the only options on the table are specifically a no-deal exit and remaining, that a no-deal exit is what the people want. That's of the voters. In Parliament... who knows.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        No, I mean the UK. Theresa May is so tone-deaf she’s made 80-90% of voters think she’s on the opposite team to themselves, where half of the population think that means “Remainer” and half think it means “Leaver”. Unfortunately, that 10-20% support for her deal means that literally no option has majority support. No-deal and Remain both independently beat May’s deal in a direct competition. If you put the question “do you want no deal?” to the population, almost all the supporters of May’d deal say “no”, but if you put the question “do you want to cancel Brexit and remain?” to the population, almost all the supporters of May’d deal say “no”. If you make it a normal three-way referendum, I’ve seen Leavers complain that would split the vote. If you make it a three-way vote with single-transferable-vote, you end up with a real-life version of Arrow’s impossibly Theorem, where voter preferences are non-transitive.