Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_..

djpbarry wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that it can’t. However, there’s a big difference between “survive” and “prosper”.

I rather assume that it is "survive" and that more so in the light of a very likely new Scottish Independence Referendum which the rest of the UK will also have to "survive".

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

The Swiss situation puts Switzerland into a tricky position, not the EU as far as I can see.

They will have to withdraw from the EEA in order to fulfill their referendum. The people have chosen that cost as worth bearing and so that is what will be required of their Government.

If they are no longer fulfilling their part of the deal with the EEA (by revoking freedom of movement) then the EU has little say in the matter, and can do little else bar remove them from the EEA agreements if they do not do so themselves.

The EU knows that Switzerland is leaving the EEA.

Which would look like another failure of the European project after the UK leaving the EU, especially if no deal/compromise is found with the UK.

If the EU lets this happen, the question will be: "who's next?". I doubt EU leaders want that to happen.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Which would look like another failure of the European project after the UK leaving the EU, especially if no deal/compromise is found with the UK.

What is being asked for is not in the gift of the EU to give. A fundamental undermining of one of the main central tenants of the union at the behest of a small trading partner (that is not part of the EU) is quite simply an impossible request.

Bob24 wrote: »

If the EU lets this happen, the question will be: "who's next?".

Let what happen? Let the Swiss people chose to leave the EEA? They have no choice in the matter!

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Which would look like another failure of the European project after the UK leaving the EU, especially if no deal/compromise is found with the UK.

If the EU lets this happen, the question will be: "who's next?". I doubt EU leaders want that to happen.

Switzerland are not a member of the EU, and them leaving is by no means a failure of the EU imho. The UK are taking a hit to there economy, with experts expecting them to have recession.

I see no reason for the EU to compromise with Switzerland.

Now for the UK, I am sure a deal of some kind will be made, but they are a far more important trading partner, and I doubt that freedom of movement will be greatly compromised for even them. I can see the poor Swiss may be made an example of, but at the end of the day, they chose to leave, and any negative consequences are there own fault, and not the EUs.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

What is being asked for is not in the gift of the EU to give. A fundamental undermining of one of the main central tenants at the behest of a small trading partner (that is not part of the EU) is quite simply an impossible ask.

Let what happen? Let the Swiss people chose to leave the EEA? They have no choice in the matter!

Ending the relationship of the EU with 2 key partners within a few months without being able to find any compromise with any of them. Who is at fault/unreasonable, and who decides to end the relationship doesn't matter: it would look like a failure of the European project and could start a trend.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Absolutely, which is why it is too early to say what the exact red lines are for each camp only 2 weeks after the vote (neither the UK not the EU planned for this and have a proper strategy yet).

Neither side really reckoned with the Brexit and therefore, there are no plans but the Brexiteers should have had one, but failed miserably.

As I said, they just need to make sure there are some kind of exception rules which give the UK a bit more control than it had pre-Brexit and they can say the achieved something (and these rules are needed for Switzerland anyway).

I rather think that the times when the UK got special conditions are over and they have overstressed the patience and goodwill of the other member states by now. The British were never really satisfied and that is their real problem as it always was all along.

Slightly different matter from free movement of EU citizens, but yes there is also push from within the UE (not only Hungary) to give counties more control over immigration policies. I think the EU can't afford to keep saying no.

True, cos it will be her very own institution that will be at stake if they continue the way they acted until the Brexit.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Ending the relationship of the EU with 2 key partners within a few months without being able to find any compromise with any of them. Who is at fault/unreasonable, and who decides to end the relationship doesn't matter: it would look like a failure of the European project and could start a trend.

Give me the alternative. That the EU undermines a core tenant at the behest of two key partners? Is that not quite simply a cost that cannot be borne?

Will that not start the "what next?" ing in just such a fashion?

The Single Market is one of the most important elements of the EU's development. Are they to take it apart now because some are disappointed in how exposed it can make elements of their economy?

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

I rather think that the times when the UK got special conditions are over and they have overstressed the patience and goodwill of the other member states by now. The British were never really satisfied and that is their real problem as it always was all along.

Not sure on that point. EU diplomats must certainly be tired of UK requests for exceptions, but on the other hand they reason they kept granting these exceptions is that many members states saw it as their national interest for the UK to be in the EU. If the UK is leaving, having a "special" relationship will certainly be on the agenda.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Not sure on that point. EU diplomats must certainly be tired of UK requests for exceptions, but on the other hand they reason they kept granting these exceptions is that many members states saw it as their national interest for the UK to be in the EU. If the UK is leaving, having a "special" relationship will certainly be on the agenda.

I would rather advise you to not omit the fact that in the case at hand, it is also about to set up an example to deter other countries who have such right-wing populists stirring up anti-EU sentiments to do the same.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Give me the alternative. That the EU undermines a core tenant at the behest of two key partners? Is that not quite simply a cost that cannot be borne?

Will that not start the "what next?" ing in just such a fashion?

The Single Market is one of the most important elements of the EU's development. Are they to take it apart now because some are disappointed in how exposed it can make elements of their economy?

How good is a single market if members start leaving it one after the other because they are not happy with some of the conditions attached to it?

Politics requires to be pragmatic and to plan for the future. And it is clear there will be more and more demand for national control over immigration within the electorate of member states. Doing nothing and going for the "business as usual" attitude after Brexit is going to damage the EU and the single market.

murphaph

wes wrote: »

I don't see the position being tricky at all. The Swiss want access to the club, and they decided to change there position, and not the EU. I see no reason why the EU should have to compromise on one of there most fundamental rules for such a small trading partner. What exactly is in it for the EU? What are the Swiss offering to make up for asking the EU to change one of the fundamentals of the single market?

No one has a right to trade with anyone else, and the EU wouldn't be the one who kicked the Swiss out, it would be them leaving, as they decided on the change. If they are unable to offer anything to make up for such a huge request, that is not the fault of the EU. I don't see the Swiss having a lot to bargain with really. Sure the UK, maybe able to get something, due to there size, but the Swiss don't have any leverage really.

I'm not sure about that. They control many key trade routes that connect large parts of the EU.

oscarBravo

Bob24 wrote: »

Who is at fault/unreasonable, and who decides to end the relationship doesn't matter: it would look like a failure of the European project...

This is unfortunately a common theme in any conversation about the EU: "Facts don't matter; the EU should make fundamental changes to its core principles to address perceptions."

Bob24

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is unfortunately a common theme in any conversation about the EU: "Facts don't matter; the EU should make fundamental changes to its core principles to address perceptions."

Not sure I you went from my post to this conclusion.

Is it not a fair statement to say that if the UK leaves without a deal and the Switzerland leaves they EEA it will be a blow to the European project?

molloyjh

smjm wrote: »

The same can easily be said of the EU. It's hardly booming!

We're just out the other side of a global recession. There aren't many can say they are in a boom period at the moment, certainly not in the Western World at least.

wes

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. They control many key trade routes that connect large parts of the EU.

Ok, and they are surrounded by the EU. Leverage wise, the EU has a hell of a lot more. There leverage isn't anywhere near enough for the EU to compromise one of the fundamental tenets of the single market.

molloyjh

Bob24 wrote: »

Not sure I you went from my post to this conclusion.

Is it not a fact that if the UK leaves without a deal and the Switzerland leaves they EEA it will be a blow to the European project?

Just because there is a negative effect on something doesn't make that a failure on their part. If I was mugged and put in hospital because someone else chose to attack me is that a failing on my part? Of course not. Bad things happen sometimes. Some are in the EUs control (and those could be looked upon as failings) and others are not (those things are not failings of the EU because they were not something they could control).

swampgas

Bob24 wrote: »

How good is a single market if members start leaving it one after the other because they are not happy with some of the conditions attached to it?

Politics is being pragmatic and planning for the future. And it is clear there will be more and more demand for national control over immigration within the electorate of member states. Doing nothing and going for the "business as usual" attitude after Brexit is going to damage the EU and the single market.

Maybe, but there is a serious lack of pragmatism in the UK right now. They want the impossible from the EU.

It's not pragmatic to hold a referendum on leaving, have no plan for leaving, have both major political parties implode into leadership battles, while the markets are wobbling and the currency is dropping.

If you want pragmatism you have to look to Europe!

Bob24

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe, but there is a serious lack of pragmatism in the UK right now. They want the impossible from the EU.

It's not pragmatic to hold a referendum on leaving, have no plan for leaving, have both major political parties implode into leadership battles, while the markets are wobbling and the currency is dropping.

If you want pragmatism you have to look to Europe!

Certainly agree with the part in bold. But are you sure the EU is handling this much better?

Bob24

molloyjh wrote: »

Just because there is a negative effect on something doesn't make that a failure on their part. If I was mugged and put in hospital because someone else chose to attack me is that a failing on my part? Of course not. Bad things happen sometimes. Some are in the EUs control (and those could be looked upon as failings) and others are not (those things are not failings of the EU because they were not something they could control).

Agree with that. But in my view saying the referendum result and will happens after Brexit has everything do with the UK and nothing to do with the responsibility EU would be complete denial.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

How good is a single market if members start leaving it one after the other because they are not happy with some of the conditions attached to it?

Exceptionally good. As both the UK and Switzerland will see in coming years if they don't secure access.

Bob24 wrote: »

Politics requires to be pragmatic and to plan for the future. And it is clear there will be more and more demand for national control over immigration within the electorate of member states. Doing nothing and going for the "business as usual" attitude after Brexit is going to damage the EU and the single market.

Destroying the Single Market at the behest of misinformed and anti-establishment electorates is far from pragmatic.
(And that's not even considering the subset of UK 'Leave' voters who would have been happy to have taken a Norweigan option)

swampgas

Bob24 wrote: »

Certainly agree with the part in bold. But are you sure the EU is handling this much better?

Well the rest of the EU have a clear idea of what they want the EU to be. If the EU can be blackmailed into compromising a core pillar - free movement of people and services - then it's the road to ruin. Every other member with an axe to grind would try the same trick, looking to change the EU into something more suited to its own narrow national interests.

Right now I think they have to stand firm on principle and let events work themselves out. If we end with a slightly smaller EU so be it.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

Certainly agree with the part in bold. But are you sure the EU is handling this much better?

The EU is completely powerless to do anything while the UK is sitting on Article 50. All they can do is push to have it invoked and clear up the uncertainty, which is what they're doing. You can't really blame individuals for getting exasperated at the complete lack of direction from the UK policy makers.

smjm

swampgas wrote: »

Well the rest of the EU have a clear idea of what they want the EU to be. [...]

Not quite sure I'd agree with you on that.

Zubeneschamali

smjm wrote: »

The mechanism for control will, of course, be up for debate.

Here's the debate speech from the EU team: "Free movement for EU citizens and their families is non-negotiable. Call us when you want access back to the single market. Ciao!"

swampgas

smjm wrote: »

Not quite sure I'd agree with you on that.

Fair point. At least they have a clear idea what it is right now!

smjm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here's the debate speech from the EU team: "Free movement for EU citizens and their families is non-negotiable. Call us when you want access back to the single market. Ciao!"

And from the UK: "Okay, but we'll still trade with each other, like we do with the rest of the world. Bye now!"

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Ending the relationship of the EU with 2 key partners within a few months without being able to find any compromise with any of them. Who is at fault/unreasonable, and who decides to end the relationship doesn't matter: it would look like a failure of the European project and could start a trend.

Who´s in charge of the European project and who´s the one who is the most unable leader when it comes to reformation attempts of the whole institution? I know one person and that is Mr Juncker.

If there is anything to be removed to get the EU on a reformation track than it is to have Mr Juncker resign from his post as President of the European Commission. He´s the one who likes to run this entire EU as if it would be his own small country that he once led.

Even some MEPs have got the wake up call and demanded the EC to not waste more time doing nothing and being subborn. Like the former Belgian PM and MEP Mr Verhofstadt recently said, that it is not that the People in Europe don´t like Europe they just don´t like "this Europe", by which he was referring to the current status of the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

it would look like a failure of the European project and could start a trend.

There are many people within Europe who have always felt the UK were a drag on the project, they were never committed and have slowed it down for a generation. These people are not thinking of how to accommodate the UK, they are thinking how to accelerate integration once the UK have fecked off.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

it is clear there will be more and more demand for national control over immigration within the electorate of member states.

Especially if people see the UK get a sweetheart deal giving them immigration control while keeping the economic benefits of the single market.

Absolutely no chance the EU will go there.

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are many people within Europe who have always felt the UK were a drag on the project, they were never committed and have slowed it down for a generation. These people are not thinking of how to accommodate the UK, they are thinking how to accelerate integration once the UK have fecked off.

The UK under her Thatcherists didn´t even wanted to be "accommodated", they mostly wanted to get their way with cherry picking and now have reached the end of the road by kicking themselves out of the club by the Brexit. In other words, they´ve shot themselves in the foot.