There are many similarities between the vote on Brexit and the vote on Trumpjoke.
The main argument for Trumpjoke was that deporting illegal aliens would improve American employment, but 72% of the states with a below-average portion of illegal immigrants voted for Trumpjoke. Only 31% of the above-average states did.
Look, this isn’t difficult to understand. The EU cannot give the UK an exit on favourable terms because that would encourage other states within the EU to leave. Do you understand? It’s not because Juncker is a big meanie who sneaks down your chimney at Christmas and steals the roast beast from your fridge; it’s a very basic political reality.
Furthermore, it’s a reality that was well-understood even before the referendum, even by those people who were happily telling you “We’re going to get the bestest trade deal EVAR from the EU after we leave”, because lying to you got you to vote Leave like they wanted.
To put it a different way, the UK has so far had a bespoke membership deal. As a non-member it cannot have a deal as good as members. The question is how much worse the deal is going to be, and if it can be compensated for through legislative freedoms. So far I got to say that it does not seem promising.
The obvious one is that the UK will allow EU citizens already resident in the UK to remain in the UK in return for UK citizens resident in the EU to remain in the EU.
Beyond that, I don’t know.
But the UK does have the ability to walk away. There are plenty of countries - principally the old British Empire - waiting to do business.
There’s been a really good series of articles in the FT by David Allen Green (an EU sceptic) about how the UK and EU have approached the process of Brexit. What becomes very clear as he goes through the public papers and speeches in which each side has set out its position is that the EU is on top of the process, understands what the big issues are and has constructed an approach which will deal with these in consistent and orderly fashion, while the UK… isn’t, doesn’t and hasn’t.
You can find them here, hereand here(there’s a registration wall).
From the latest, discussing the EU’s draft negotiation guidelines:
From the translation of the FAZ article in Forbes:
Those articles are well worth reading in full. The picture they paint isn’t of mafia-like extortion, but just good negotiation: work out what you want, make a plan for getting it, and stick to the plan. You might call it strong and stable leadership.
Too simple. Different member states want different concessions made to the UK because of their circs, and because opportunity begs. Spain needs the trade and the 900,000 residents, a bunch need the UK influence on liberalisation, the Scandies need closer military cooperation, Germany has a 50 billion euro surplus to preserve which translates into 100,000s of jobs, etc, etc.
Really, how easy is it to negotiate on behalf of 28 different sets of interests?
Also, as a partner, how much do the EU *collective of countries *want easy access to irreplaceable London financing expertise and sourcing, how much does the EU value Intel cooperation on a scale that essentially preserved the French electio, how much do they rely on UK diplomatic influence in the anglo-sphere - and around the world, etc.
Honestly, it’s like the UK should take a begging bowl and ask Mr Juncker and Mrs Merkel to be merciful. FFS, get a grip.
I look forward to reading those. Thank you.
Fwiw, I still believe Brexit is a negotiating tool and not an end position. The EU has to be reformed, on that most are agreed. If Brexit engineers enough change, esp. on freedom of movement, then there is scope for everything,
…and just published, a post on why the status of EU and UK citizens will require more than one high level meeting, as apparently suggested by May:
I’ve quoted at some length from a very lengty article to emphasise its main point - that there’s a lot of detail to cover here, and someone in the UK is going to have to master it. Ideally, that will be someone who can give Theresa May an honest brief to which she will pay close attention.
NB - The author goes on to point out that just because this is the EU’s position does not mean it is valid - but this is the starting point for negotiations, and the above lays out the complexity that a British counter-offer will have to address. The obvious question of what entity will be responsible for adjudicating on whether both sides of the deal are honouring their commitments to each other’s citizens is, all by itself, something that will take quite a bit of detailed thrashing out, one would imagine.
Another response empty of substance and filled with ad hominems. I’ll take your apparent inability to provide an actual rebuttal to points made to be a concession on the issue.
To others: I agree that the EU will need to - and indeed be willing to - compromise on certain points to facilitate the process and to meet the interests of some individual and influential members (particularly Germany). That does not mean that the end position will be a better one than the UK currently has and, as noted, there are very strong motivations for the EU to ensure that it is not. Please also note that even Germany will not sacrifice their long-term economic interest in a stable EU for a short-term trading benefit with the UK.
Sure, but without trade agreements in place, that will be difficult.
And zero evidence those trade deals will be better than what we already have.
Given that part of the UK’s attraction is (was) being a common law State within the EU, we’ll need to think of another way to sell UK Plc, and Brexiters aren’t coming up with ideas.
The EU has plenty of experience in this field though decades of negotiating trade deals with foreign countries. EU countries also firmly rebuffed Trump recently in trying to bypass the EU Commission on trade.
Hang on, UTJ - are you now saying the EU isn’t a German racket?
By the same way that Brexiter propose to handle the irreplaceable Single Market, I suppose - replace it.
I’ll start feeling confident once I see evidence that deserves my confidence. Until then you’re just wishful thinking to epic proportions.
I’d say it’s the other way aroung: all the EU countries have issued a Statement of Standing together - so no deals with indivdiual countries; and they have said that the EU is ready to accept that a deal may fail and will then walk away.
This is a drastic Change to all the previous tantrums GB threw to get Special concessions (“I want my Money back”) by threatening leave - now GB is leaving, so goodbye, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I don’t see how anybody can expect a better deal than the Special deal GB had before.
I also don’t see how limiting GB to trade with Commonwealth countries will be better than trading with all of the EU, and through the EU, Special deals (because of the combined power) with non-EU, non-Commonwealth countries.
Also, Trump suddenly reversed again and no longer offers a Special GB-USA deal. (Though with Trump, you never know what his opinion might be next week. Why don’t you offer him a Special deal to build a Hotel? That seems to help other countries getting favourite friend Status).
The UK is basically just a gigantic financial services provider, which is about to lose one of the three major reasons it became a gigantic financial services provider (access to the common market; the other two are the common law tradition and inertia).
The UK is currently below the OECD average in both median income and wealth, despite being propped up by the City. Once all that foreign investment is gone, what will be left? Wind farms, Formula 1 and Premiership football are not exactly going to prop up a national economy. BAE is only profitable because of the UK’s above-grade defense spending, and Oxford and Cambridge are unlikely to remain global research and education hubs when they’re not being heavily subsidized.
All this stuff about how there are lots of other trade partners out there is silly. Shipping lamb to South Africa is going to be just a little less efficient than shipping it across the Channel.