Brexit

[Que]

It seems the new dealine is now Sunday....

If a deal is still struck, it would have to be applied provisionally - pending ratification by the national parliaments of the member states. An emergency session of the European Parliament is pencilled in between Christmas and New Year.

Of the major European leaders, only Angela Merkel has some patience left and is still keen to avoid the economic and geopolitical fall out of a no-deal. Bless her!

Unlike Macron, she isn't interested in fish and is willing to compromise on that.

She has made very clear that her main problem is that the British refuse to agree on a mechanism that enables the EU to respond to future UK regulatory divergences that would undermine fair competition.

And she is right, because that is exactly what the Brexiteers in the UK are aiming for. Their main possibility to beef up the UK economy will be to undercut the EU on the European and global market. Without that there wil only be economic downside and no upside to Brexit...

I guess they thought the "continentals" would actually buy into such an onesided arrangement? 

Boris is now caught between a rock and a hard place: both options will mean severe damage to the UK economy and the end of his political career...

Q

[Mandryka]

Tell me, Que. What do you think the EU's vision for a working relationship with the UK post Brexit is? I mean, here we are, just a stone's throw away, a major military and nuclear power. The EU has kept the peace in Europe, we're not part of it any more.

[steve ridgway]

I don't see why the UK should be spending money on defending the EU countries against Russia; 27 of them ought to be able to manage it themselves. I can see the rationale behind taking a certain amount of action in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria though, it keeps the troops experienced and toughened up and ensures the equipment and procedures are properly tested.

[Mandryka]

I think the EU would want to avoid making an enemy of the UK, if they did that the EU's enemies would say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But to not make an enemy of the UK, the EU has to be sure that the economy here doesn't fail. If it did, popular sentiment would blame it on the EU. And don't forget, we already have an Alt-Right populist government in power, and no serious opposition.

[steve ridgway]

Military enmity sounds rather unlikely though, even if people like to moan about the European Court. And trade with Russia is fine, as with China, just with appropriate caution in areas like potentially spying technology.

[Que]

Tell me, Que. What do you think the EU's vision for a working relationship with the UK post Brexit is? I mean, here we are, just a stone's throw away, a major military and nuclear power. The EU has kept the peace in Europe, we're not part of it any more.

The EU will try to establish a constructive working relationship with the UK whenever it can and when this would be in its best interest.
Particularly in security & defence. Another (political) priority is fishing.

If it ends up with a no deal, I'll bet that separate treaties on those topics will be a top priority for the EU.

Q

[Mandryka]

The EU will try to establish a constructive working relationship with the UK whenever it can and when this would be in its best interest.

And does its best interests mean working to make things as hard as possible for the UK to discourage other net contributor countries from exiting?

[Que]

And does its best interests mean working to make things as hard as possible for the UK to discourage other net contributor countries from exiting?

I'm sorry to brake this to you, but this is a myth kept alive by anti-EU populists in the UK and other member states.

My previous response when this came up:

I have to - strongly - disagree. And that assumption is the root of the whole lack of trust...
The aim of the EU is to minimise the economic damage by forming a new economic relationship with the UK that is as
close as possible without undermining the integrity of the internal market.

The EU doesn't have to make any effort whatsoever to make the UK "worse off"... The UK has already done that to itself by leaving the EU and deciding to leave the internal market as well.

Full economic benefits are only possible if you're part of the internal market - and a country can't be 
simultaneously "in" and "out". That should make any sense... at least that is what Theresa May discovered.
A country can however be outside of the EU, but still be part of the internal market (without participating in the EU decision making process) - an option that the UK has rejected (after the referendum).

What the EU won't agree to is a "free rider" status for the UK. This would, given the size of the UK economy, severly disrupt the level playing field within the internal market. Apart from the fact that other countries might want the same - which is quite impossible, since it would mean the end of the internal market. If every member state would turn into an economic parasite, there wouldn't be anything to feed on...

Of course the UK was a net contributor - but let's not go overboard: the UK had a huge rebate negotiated by Thatcher.
In absolute numbers, the UK came after Germany, France and Italy. To put this in perspective: the economic benefits of membership for these large economies is much bigger than any net contribution they make...
Nobody needs to discourage them to leave the EU: leaving just doesn't make any economic sense whatsoever! It's a lose-lose situation.

In others words: no country would want to leave the EU unless it wants to purposely inflict damage to its economy for some higher end, like the British. Which is absolutely fine if that's what the choice is, dont get me wrong.

But the "Britain is punished to set an example" myth seems to sound a lot more attractive than: "we made a stupid choice, and stuck with it to the extreme and till the bitter end". Destroying a mutually beneficial relationship in the name of self-determination and then blaming the EU for not agreeing to a new relationship that is not in its best interest, is rather peculiar to say the least.

Q

[steve ridgway]

And does its best interests mean working to make things as hard as possible for the UK to discourage other net contributor countries from exiting?

Wouldn't another net contributor country thinking they might want to leave realise that strategy and veto it?

[Que]

UK and EU say no-deal Brexit is now most likely outcome

No-deal Brexit: markets brace for big hit to UK company shares and sterling

Iceberg, right ahead.....


https://youtube.com/v/bYOn3-PhA9c

[Que]

https://youtube.com/v/YaRfGzee6EU

[Madiel]

https://youtube.com/v/YaRfGzee6EU

Rather interesting.

[Iota]

https://youtube.com/v/YaRfGzee6EU

Thanks for posting, that's very helpful. And Anand Menon's name attached to it, normally implies for me thoughtful and balanced assessment.

(As for your iceberg metaphor, in Brexit just as in the Titanic, it is the first class, monied passengers who will be best protected from the icy economic waters, and Johnson and his cohorts steering us towards no deal of course amongst them, so in that sense they can afford (literally) to be reckless.
It may of course mean political harm for him, but as he's never really seemed that keen on the job anyway, I wonder how much that really bothers him. The Tory party are no slouchers when it comes to replacing leaders they no longer consider useful though, and Rishi Sunak or Jeremy Hunt, who seem possible replacements, would certainly be an improvement at least.)

[Que]

(As for your iceberg metaphor, in Brexit just as in the Titanic, it is the first class, monied passengers who will be best protected from the icy economic waters, and Johnson and his cohorts steering us towards no deal of course amongst them, so in that sense they can afford (literally) to be reckless.

Some of the first class pasengers:

THE BREXITERS Who Fled Britain

After manipulating and riling up the little man and the elderly, they're abandoning ship.
They really have no shame....

Q

[Iota]

Even for the ones that stay, a conversation might run like this:

UK resident: It's terrible! I'm losing my job and my home!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know! There's even a possibility I might have to trim the fleet of Rolls!


But as Iain Duncan Smith says in that vid, Brexit long ago ceased being about the economy, and became about autonomy, almost a synonym in this instance for patriotism ( and in some cases worse), and thus outside the scope of rationale. It just becomes an itch that has to be scratched whatever the consequences.

[Que]

But as Iain Duncan Smith says in that vid, Brexit long ago ceased being about the economy, and became about autonomy, almost a synonym in this instance for patriotism ( and in some cases worse), and thus outside the scope of rationale. It just becomes an itch that has to be scratched whatever the consequences.

Quite agree with that analysis. 
I must admit: stirring up patriotism without any outside threat, and successfully painting allies and friends as enemies is quite an achievement.

[Florestan]

I must admit: stirring up patriotism without any outside threat, and successfully painting allies and friends as enemies is quite an achievement.

One that even Dr. Johnson couldn't have foreseen. 

[Que]

One that even Dr. Johnson couldn't have foreseen. 

These times, I'm not surprised by any utter nonsense that is successfully sold to the masses.

People seem to be more dumb/insecure/scared/lost/self absorbed than ever before.

[Florestan]

These times, I'm not surprised by any utter nonsense that is successfully sold to the masses.

People seem to be more dumb/insecure/scared/lost/self absorbed than ever before.

Isn't democracy supposed to be about the masses / the people deciding? 

[Que]

Isn't democracy supposed to be about the masses / the people deciding? 

The masses are in many cases manipulated and lied to, and then mobilised to serve particular (minority) interest.

Is that democracy or the degeneration of democracy?

Q