|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On October 07 2016 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:41 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 01:26 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you
The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur. Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics). Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does. There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on. Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc) The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant. CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade. If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional. On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so. I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand. When people talk about a Canada style deal they don't mean copying and pasting CETA, they just mean a bespoke trade deal outside the single market. The EU will be able to negotiate some things in their favour, shout loudly about them and then quietly make some concessions to the UK in return. It will get past all the posturing and rhetoric and get deep into the real details about industries, tariffs and regulations. If/when it gets to this point, the EU actually will have the stronger hand. Again, yes the EU and UK will have a trade deal at the end of the brexit. Be it hard or soft. No one here is denying that. What we are saying is that a normal style trade deal is a terrible thing for Britain because of all the international firms who are based in the UK for the sole reason that it gave them unrestricted access to the EU single market. Aka 0 tariffs/import costs. Many (if not all) of these companies will move large parts (if not all) of their UK business out of the country into another EU countries because the benefit of trading within the EU single market is so great. That will be the big damage to the UK economy and the EU will not feel a single thing from it. It will even be good for the EU because that is new jobs for people inside whatever country they end up relocating to.
If they were in the UK for the sole reason of getting access to the single market, they could have gone anywhere in Europe. They are in the UK because it is an extremely good place to do business and (in some cases) because it gives them access to the single market. Many will have their business protected by the trade deal, especially those from key industries. Of those that don't, many will manage regardless. The government/Bank of England will make adjustments to keep the UK competitive and mitigate as much damage as possible.
And some will leave.
|
On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said.
What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave.
What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave.
What will actually happen: who the fuck knows.
Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Why is no one talking about this lmao.
|
On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao.
Edgy tweet
|
On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will.
The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem.
And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means.
On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao.
The "who the fuck knows" aspect is probably why the Brexit result is such a big deal in the first place.
|
On October 07 2016 02:07 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:On October 07 2016 01:41 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 01:26 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur. Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics). Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does. There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on. Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc) The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant. CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade. If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional. On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so. I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand. When people talk about a Canada style deal they don't mean copying and pasting CETA, they just mean a bespoke trade deal outside the single market. The EU will be able to negotiate some things in their favour, shout loudly about them and then quietly make some concessions to the UK in return. It will get past all the posturing and rhetoric and get deep into the real details about industries, tariffs and regulations. If/when it gets to this point, the EU actually will have the stronger hand. Again, yes the EU and UK will have a trade deal at the end of the brexit. Be it hard or soft. No one here is denying that. What we are saying is that a normal style trade deal is a terrible thing for Britain because of all the international firms who are based in the UK for the sole reason that it gave them unrestricted access to the EU single market. Aka 0 tariffs/import costs. Many (if not all) of these companies will move large parts (if not all) of their UK business out of the country into another EU countries because the benefit of trading within the EU single market is so great. That will be the big damage to the UK economy and the EU will not feel a single thing from it. It will even be good for the EU because that is new jobs for people inside whatever country they end up relocating to. If they were in the UK for the sole reason of getting access to the single market, they could have gone anywhere in Europe. They are in the UK because it is an extremely good place to do business and (in some cases) because it gives them access to the single market. Many will have their business protected by the trade deal, especially those from key industries. Of those that don't, many will manage regardless. The government/Bank of England will make adjustments to keep the UK competitive and mitigate as much damage as possible. And some will leave.
You keep flip flopping between being a part of the single market and not being a part of it..
No the trade deal is most likely not going to protect the London financial district because unrestricted access to the service market is conditional upon the freedom of movement which is unacceptable.
And you can get pedantic all you want but its not going to help your point. Britain was a great place for businesses to be in to access the EU market from. But without the free EU market access many of those businesses will have no reason to stay in Britain.
|
On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao.
Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations.
On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means.
And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense.
|
On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao.
On the radio a reporter said something about his fellow MEP exerting self defense and inflicting the brain injuries in that process,
|
On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense.
Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union.
|
On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union.
'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis.
|
On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis.
It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace.
|
On October 07 2016 04:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis. It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace.
Might be in the UK where the EU was blamed for absolutely everything by both your press and your politicians, but no in the rest of the EU the idea of fundamental instability and inevitable destruction is not commonplace. Greece has gone through infinitely worse and has remained a member, no one has a stronger case to claim that the EU fucked them than they do.
|
On October 07 2016 04:26 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 04:16 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis. It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace. Might be in the UK where the EU was blamed for absolutely everything by both your press and your politicians, but no in the rest of the EU the idea of fundamental instability and inevitable destruction is not commonplace
Maybe not in Romania where the benefits of membership are incontrovertible, but there's plenty of scepticism spread throughout the EU and the wider world. There are difficulties ahead with the migrant crisis, banks and the euro requiring deeper integration that is generally not wanted by the people. Real question is does anyone actually believe this artificial federation of starkly different nations can survive indefinitely?
|
The refugee crisis is something of a stress test for the EU and to some extent the Lisbon Treaty EU, and so is the financial situation including the Greek crisis. Nine years is not a long time on the scale of political movements, so we will see where it all leads. That the EU dealt with the issues like a blundering fool, makes me and many others wonder if the current framework (and ideals, which are symbolic but directly relevant even if not written into law) can survive the current and future waves of political discontent.
Though this is starting to stray far enough from the topic of the U.K. specifically that the Europe thread is probably the better place to continue the discussion.
|
A free trade agreement is something different than access to the single market btw. A free trade agreement is usually about goods and mostly leaves out services. That fits the EU just fine since goods is where the EU is strong while we're weak at services compared to the UK. The UK will also lose passporting rights when leaving the single market which will cause some firms to transfer activities.
|
On October 07 2016 01:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 01:26 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 01:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:11 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:54 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:36 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament. Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates. They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic. Our leverage is simple: we're willing to leave, to the economic detriment of both ourselves and the EU. That applies to both the majority of the population and to the key figures involved in the negotiations. We don't care about their threats because we have already made the decision that our sovereignty is worth more than the damage they can inflict. We don't think we'll end up somewhere worse if the landlord kicks us out. We'll move to an area with a nicer view. Maybe it will need some renovations, but we're up for a project. So the ball is in their court. Be vindictive, hurt everyone, foster resentment - or don't. And yes, we're a huge net contributor to the EU budget. It's not going to be as easy as you seem to think to replace that money. Germany is already paying a stupid amount and nobody else can afford it. Then there's the fact that we are a huge market for Germany, and France's best trading relationship is with us. There are also significant forces within the EU, both in terms of the populace and nation states, who would also like to see controls on free movement. The parliament, council, people and commission all have different aims, not to mention disagreements within all those different groups. I like how you seem to create your own moral high ground that crumbles under scrutiny but still like to pretend you are sitting there anyway. Its not going to be easy to replace the EU budget but its not as painful as you are thinking. You are basically saying we refuse to be a net contributor but still want access to one of the biggest if not the biggest benefits to being in the EU that is the single market. So you want them to break a fundamental tenet that makes that is pivotal in making the EU what it is and give you special treatment otherwise they are being vindictive and hurting everyone. Coming from the one who chose to leave that is some real cognitive dissonance. I dont want you guys playing on my field unless its ok with me, but I want to play on yours all I want. What a joke. Penny for the Guy, much. I'm quite happy for the UK to pay into the EU in return for access to the single market. I'm not willing to pay in sovereignty though, sorry. It's really simple: Britain having access to the single market creates wealth and jobs in both Britain and the EU. It's mutually beneficial. The EU get to decide now if they want that pragmatic benefit, or an ideological price. That doesn't make any sense. Access to the single market means having to adhere to the rules of the single market, thus a little loss of sovereignity, as it is in all trading agreements. Stop your delusion already that UK will have access to the single market, yet retaining every single preferences you desire. At this point you are just typing out wishful thinking without reason as if this will occur. Ok so let me also explain why a Canada style deal is absurd for Britain, (as someone who works in brokerage and logistics). Firstly. Britain is in Europe and Canada is not, obvious duh but the geography here is a pretty important factor in terms of transit times and the appeal of most merchandise/commodity trading. No surprise then that Britain probably has like 10 times the volume that Canada does. There are 10's of thousands of British firms that are closely integrated with the EU, Canada basically just has like multinationals. Your Wolsely's, your Philips and so on. And believe it or not after 25 years of single market alot of these thousands of firms have developed their operations to rely on the specialization and the division of labour that the EU has provided. These companies dont need a trade agreement, they need integration because thats what they are modeled on. Canadas agreement is a casual trade agreement at best. Its what you do when you both have some trade but not really enough to tighten controls. Its mostly large commodity and multinational merchandise to hasten movement of essential merchandise (agriculutral products, building materials etc) The movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is massive compared to that and also alot more service oriented. And so therefore the possibilities of losing and gaining are alot more significant. CETA overall is pretty insignificant to job growth and creation. It benefits both countries in a limited capacity and doesnt really harm anyone. That is simply a function of the volume of trade. If someone thinks they are going to get a CETA style trade agreement with the UK thats an absolute joke and actually quite delusional. On October 07 2016 01:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them. This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. This dog/landlord analogy is getting out of hand. It was an anology about the ridiculousness of bardtown's claims. Why stretch it into something it isn't? Legalord, tell me, how does your stretching of the initial analogy relate to UK and the EU? The UK needs the EU, in that in the current state of affairs the disruption of their trade arrangement will be very painful for the UK. The EU needs the UK, in that it is a large contributing member whose loss would not go unnoticed, to put it lightly. The EU makes the correct observation that the UK has the weaker hand in these negotiations because while the EU will suffer badly, the UK will suffer much worse from a bad break. However, the mistake here is in assuming that because the UK will suffer worse, that it will necessarily fall in line to avoid the damage of a bad break, and therefore the EU should take a hard line on negotiations. That's a mistake because it clearly isn't true - the EU needs the UK and it will either have to realize that it needs to make a deal, or suffer the consequences of failing to do so. I think its a false expectation that the EU really really wants the UK to fall in line. At this point they just want to move on and if the UK wants to leave they have to operate like someone whose moved on and not have a toxic on/again off/again where are we at relationship. Either you stay or its a clean hard break. Its not complicated to understand. When people talk about a Canada style deal they don't mean copying and pasting CETA, they just mean a bespoke trade deal outside the single market. The EU will be able to negotiate some things in their favour, shout loudly about them and then quietly make some concessions to the UK in return. It will get past all the posturing and rhetoric and get deep into the real details about industries, tariffs and regulations. If/when it gets to this point, the EU actually will have the stronger hand.
If you are talking about Bespoke trade details then call them bespoke trade deals. CETA is a miserable example and also misrepresents your point for anyone who actually knows what it is.
Trade agreements regardless of what kind you get will be a no go for alot of businesses especially ones that provided tertiary services because they pretty much sat in England because it was the perfect place to be with access to the single market.
If you take the single market away England becomes alot less attractive and moving the centers for these businesses is significantly easier for them rather than going through the red tape and processes that they will have to adhere to under any kind of trade agreement. Trade agreements no matter how loose they are at the end of the day still have alot of bureaucracy and red tape both for companies to establish themselves in and then operate under. They would have to create entire divisions that specialize in brokering the movement of goods, services and people in and out of the to the EU along with the relative uncertainty of the processes. Which is painful to do and then even more painful to maintain as a business.
Add to this the fact that EU countries are chomping at the bit to get companies to move there and the incentive schemes they will enable after an expected "hard brexit" you are in a very very weak negotiating position im afraid.
|
On October 07 2016 04:32 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 04:26 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 04:16 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis. It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace. Might be in the UK where the EU was blamed for absolutely everything by both your press and your politicians, but no in the rest of the EU the idea of fundamental instability and inevitable destruction is not commonplace Maybe not in Romania where the benefits of membership are incontrovertible, but there's plenty of scepticism spread throughout the EU and the wider world. There are difficulties ahead with the migrant crisis, banks and the euro requiring deeper integration that is generally not wanted by the people. Real question is does anyone actually believe this artificial federation of starkly different nations can survive indefinitely?
I don't think that's the real question, even proper countries can't survive indefinitely. As for the foreseeable future, it takes more than vanilla flavored euroscepticism to expect an imminent breakup, it takes a hell of an optimistic eurosceptic.
This has strayed enough, my point was that the UK leaving is not necessarily symptomatic of fundamental issues within the EU, the UK is leaving despite receiving an exemption from the euro and being mostly shielded from the refugee crisis due to its location, while countries that suffered from one or both of those don't exhibit the same will to leave. Now this doesn't mean that they never will, but we would need blinders to pretend that this discrepancy is stemming from EU itself rather than from the massively different public discourse regarding the EU between the UK and the rest of the members.
|
On October 07 2016 04:32 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 04:26 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 04:16 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 00:35 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence. Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?" Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis. It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace. Might be in the UK where the EU was blamed for absolutely everything by both your press and your politicians, but no in the rest of the EU the idea of fundamental instability and inevitable destruction is not commonplace Maybe not in Romania where the benefits of membership are incontrovertible, but there's plenty of scepticism spread throughout the EU and the wider world. There are difficulties ahead with the migrant crisis, banks and the euro requiring deeper integration that is generally not wanted by the people. Real question is does anyone actually believe this artificial federation of starkly different nations can survive indefinitely?
Please don't make stuff up.
Name a country that has not and does not profit from the EU whilst being a member state.
Seriously.
|
On October 07 2016 05:32 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 04:32 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 04:26 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 04:16 bardtown wrote:On October 07 2016 03:39 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 02:15 Laurens wrote:On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:
[quote]
No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:
[quote]
Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said. What you claim: Punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What we claim: NOT punishing the UK for leaving will cause member states to leave. What will actually happen: who the fuck knows. Also: https://twitter.com/stephenjmchugh/status/784011106842992640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Why is no one talking about this lmao. Not me, the way I see there isn't and shouldn't be any 'punishment' involved. If they want to stay in the single market they keep all the benefits and obligations that membership entails, in they want to leave the single market they lose the benefits but also no longer have to abide to the obligations. I don't consider it a punishment to not agree with giving a member a pass on their obligations. On October 07 2016 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 07 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On October 07 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Some people want a dog, others are troubled by the dog, others want to paint their walls, another says "why should they get a dog if I don't?"
Meanwhile the landlord would really like to collect rent and for everyone to just fall in line, and will mostly just cite "the rules" for everything. A scenario which makes more sense for a landlord-tenant relation than a union-nation one. For crying out loud, it's the other tenants that cite the rules. It's the elected representatives of the other member states that unequivocally reject the idea of making an exception more so than the commission (landlord). Put aside your feelings on EU/EEA and look at this as any international agreement. If a member tells the WTO I want to stay a member and enjoy all the benefits but I don't want to abide to the anti-dumping regulations anymore because my people don't like that you have a say in how low the prices of our exports can be. There are 4 options here: - convince the other members to make an exception for you - convince the other members to remove anti-dumping provisions altogether - continue to abide the anti-dumping provisions - leave The top 2 options are politically unfeasible, our imaginary country knows this and does't even try to go the convincing route. Instead it buys time back home by claiming it will obtain both until it is the time when a choice between the bottom 2 can no longer be delayed. There is no option for WTO higher ups to compromise the provisions without it being its members' will. The "other tenants" part is where your analogy starts to break apart. The EU is a union of nations rather than a central and separate entity like a landlord, so no shit it's going to be the tenants who have a problem. And let's say that the EU is a 100-floor apartment complex that everyone shares. Some countries rent a few rooms, or a floor or two. The UK rents 20 whole floors worth of rooms. Would they expect special treatment? Probably so. Large multinational agreements are similar - small and economically weak countries abide by the rules and are punished if they don't, large and powerful nations are party to the agreements and will often bend the rules in their favor. It's an asymmetrical arrangement by any metric and that's a reality of countries of varied means. And yet in this case they are not important enough to bend the particular rule they want bent, precisely because the other members care more about that rule than about a big guy's membership. Considering that to be some great injustice or the death of the EU makes no sense. Well you're not wrong, and Brexit alone won't kill the EU. The EU's internal instability as an attempted ever-closer union of countries with shared interests but also highly divergent political goals will at the very least eventually force the union to reform, or force it apart when its current structure fails, and the U.K. issues are symptomatic of that fundamental instability. Some form of union of European nations is likely to survive but I'm not sure the EU is that union. 'Ever closer union' is symbolic, it has no legal basis that would need to be changed in order to stop it. The UK signed several treaty changes on its own accord and its compatibility issues with single market principles were noted even in the 60s before they joined. Divergent political goals exist at every single organizational level, you have a very 'out there' view of the EU and its stability. There hasn't been any large change in how the EU operates in 9 years, the public opinion issues faced in the last few years are largely due to the handling of the refugee crisis. It's not an 'out there' view. It's pretty commonplace. Might be in the UK where the EU was blamed for absolutely everything by both your press and your politicians, but no in the rest of the EU the idea of fundamental instability and inevitable destruction is not commonplace Maybe not in Romania where the benefits of membership are incontrovertible, but there's plenty of scepticism spread throughout the EU and the wider world. There are difficulties ahead with the migrant crisis, banks and the euro requiring deeper integration that is generally not wanted by the people. Real question is does anyone actually believe this artificial federation of starkly different nations can survive indefinitely? Please don't make stuff up. Name a country that has not and does not profit from the EU whilst being a member state. Seriously.
Uh, Greece?
|
That assumes they would've done better if they'd be out of the EU. They would've been screwed regardless of what the EU did or did not do. The euro is probably a net negative for them but that's something different than the EU.
|
Probably 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
