4 ms·

>At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all

by akerro 6y ago

>At least we're not the only country wanting to violate international agreements at present Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. UK government is planning and making first successful steps towards breaking withdrawal agreement before it's even in place. So why would EU even bother continuing wasting time and resources in this stupid game where they won't be the losers?

Voxoff 6y ago
Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in counterexamples) International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the EU. The EU really needs to bother...
- akerro 6y ago
  Just googling for: France breaks international law https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-violates-international-law-by-selling-arms-to-egypt/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-vi... Spain breaks international law: https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-violates-human-rights/ https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-v... Poland breaks international law https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-violates-international-law-by-blocking-entry-of-asylum-seekers-from-belarus/ https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-viola... I don't think I need to search for any about USA, each of us remembers at least 5 from very recent history.
  - chki 6y ago
    The very important difference being that these countries did not explicitly say: "We will break international law". You might think that's a technicality but in international law that's really an important distinction.
  - Voxoff 6y ago
    I mean I did explicitly say the West vs the West. And self-determination is definitely a special case so none of these apply. Again, the US vs the West? I'd be surprised if its never happened. But the ensuing uproar is part of the politics - It's an extra hurdle for countries in a political maneuver. And a broadly positive hurdle.
Brakenshire 6y ago
The EU probably will lose the same in absolute terms, but it will be spread over 400 million people not 60 million. So in terms of rational policy making the EU should want a deal as much as the UK, but of course in practice if the impact is less diffuse it’s just less politically important.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  European politics in 2021 will be interesting to watch. During the endless Brexit debates in the UK prior to the referendum itself, IIRC the more credible analysis tended to have the EU27 combined losing more than the UK in absolute economic terms, maybe even twice as much, in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The argument was made that the EU could afford to take that bigger hit anyway and was still in the stronger position in negotiations, because as you say even a somewhat greater cost would be distributed over many more people. Then the counter-argument was that the distribution of any costs to the EU would be far from uniform. For example, one member state in the EU27 was all but guaranteed a catastrophic outcome if there is a no-deal Brexit: Ireland. This is part of the reason the NI border issue was such a sensitive topic during the negotiations. But more generally, some member states are much more dependent on the UK than others, or more dependent than others in some specific area(s). Another common examples is that the Mediterranean tourism destinations get a huge amount of revenue from the Brits each summer (under normal circumstances at least, maybe not so much this year) and in certain cases this represents a significant fraction of their entire national economy. The EU and the Europhile leaders that most of the larger member states have had in recent times have been very good at showing a united front when it comes to Brexit, but as we've seen with other issues like the immigration/refugee situation and the pandemic, that solidarity can rapidly give way to realpolitik when times get tough. A lot of the EU27 member states are going to take a hit if we leave the transition period with no deal at the end of the year, and I wonder how well their faith in and support of the EU will hold up once real money and real jobs start being lost on both sides of the Channel. At this point, I do not expect there to be a deal, at least not a comprehensive one that is useful for the long term, by the end of this year. It won't surprise me at all if the cracks start appearing on the EU side soon afterwards, though whether they will spread as quickly and as deeply as those likely to form concurrently in the UK is anyone's guess. It also won't surprise me at all if some important issues that are, in theory at least, EU competences start to get dealt with more directly by national governments looking to protect their own interests. Time will tell.
throwaways885 6y ago
> Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. [Citation needed.] Plus, the government's argument (today at least) is that the EU broke the agreement first, so it's nil and invalid.

by akerro 6y ago

Voxoff 6y ago

Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in counterexamples) International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the EU. The EU really needs to bother...

akerro 6y ago
Just googling for: France breaks international law https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-violates-international-law-by-selling-arms-to-egypt/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-vi... Spain breaks international law: https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-violates-human-rights/ https://www.icj.org/spain-conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-v... Poland breaks international law https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-violates-international-law-by-blocking-entry-of-asylum-seekers-from-belarus/ https://www.ecre.org/human-rights-organisations-poland-viola... I don't think I need to search for any about USA, each of us remembers at least 5 from very recent history.
- chki 6y ago
  The very important difference being that these countries did not explicitly say: "We will break international law". You might think that's a technicality but in international law that's really an important distinction.
- Voxoff 6y ago
  I mean I did explicitly say the West vs the West. And self-determination is definitely a special case so none of these apply. Again, the US vs the West? I'd be surprised if its never happened. But the ensuing uproar is part of the politics - It's an extra hurdle for countries in a political maneuver. And a broadly positive hurdle.

Brakenshire 6y ago

The EU probably will lose the same in absolute terms, but it will be spread over 400 million people not 60 million. So in terms of rational policy making the EU should want a deal as much as the UK, but of course in practice if the impact is less diffuse it’s just less politically important.

Silhouette 6y ago
European politics in 2021 will be interesting to watch. During the endless Brexit debates in the UK prior to the referendum itself, IIRC the more credible analysis tended to have the EU27 combined losing more than the UK in absolute economic terms, maybe even twice as much, in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The argument was made that the EU could afford to take that bigger hit anyway and was still in the stronger position in negotiations, because as you say even a somewhat greater cost would be distributed over many more people. Then the counter-argument was that the distribution of any costs to the EU would be far from uniform. For example, one member state in the EU27 was all but guaranteed a catastrophic outcome if there is a no-deal Brexit: Ireland. This is part of the reason the NI border issue was such a sensitive topic during the negotiations. But more generally, some member states are much more dependent on the UK than others, or more dependent than others in some specific area(s). Another common examples is that the Mediterranean tourism destinations get a huge amount of revenue from the Brits each summer (under normal circumstances at least, maybe not so much this year) and in certain cases this represents a significant fraction of their entire national economy. The EU and the Europhile leaders that most of the larger member states have had in recent times have been very good at showing a united front when it comes to Brexit, but as we've seen with other issues like the immigration/refugee situation and the pandemic, that solidarity can rapidly give way to realpolitik when times get tough. A lot of the EU27 member states are going to take a hit if we leave the transition period with no deal at the end of the year, and I wonder how well their faith in and support of the EU will hold up once real money and real jobs start being lost on both sides of the Channel. At this point, I do not expect there to be a deal, at least not a comprehensive one that is useful for the long term, by the end of this year. It won't surprise me at all if the cracks start appearing on the EU side soon afterwards, though whether they will spread as quickly and as deeply as those likely to form concurrently in the UK is anyone's guess. It also won't surprise me at all if some important issues that are, in theory at least, EU competences start to get dealt with more directly by national governments looking to protect their own interests. Time will tell.

throwaways885 6y ago

> Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders. [Citation needed.] Plus, the government's argument (today at least) is that the EU broke the agreement first, so it's nil and invalid.