Dare we speak about "Brexit?"

Status
Closed

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
Ok, but a matter is to reject a request motivating the refusal ... a different matter is to start saying "you cannot ask that!".
Yet such things have always existed and will continue to exist. Neither does the at times stated 'need to compromise' hold true on certain matters. Say if i demand you give me 100€ for nothing in return and you refuse would you then accept as a fair compromise that you give me 50€ for nothing in return? Of course that is reductio ad absurdum but it still underlines the point. The point was that EU has been willing to give any level of access to the UK but it needs to shoulder the respective responsibilities and consequences as well without trying to break up the fundamental building blocks of the EU (like the single market). In other words it is back to the old TANSTAAFL principle.
Then, exceptions exist and there is always the possibility to create something new.
No one has denied that. The problem here is that the UK aims to divide things which the EU said already prior even to the start of the negotiations that could not be divided like the four freedoms of the single market. That is not trying to create something new. It is about trying to get a preferential access to the EU market without having corresponding responsibilities.



I couldn’t open the link. I’m too idle to get to grips with the complicated issues involved but I find it crazy that the UK has to be excluded from the likes of Galileo because we’re not in the EU.
In Galileo's case the matter is about the security questions related to the Galileo system and of the ability to take part in its building. In other words: Guardian: Security row over EU Galileo satellite project as Britain is shut out - the likely answer is that the EU does not want to outsource that outside of the EJC's jurisdiction in case of treaty violations especially since the legal status of the UK towards the EU & Galileo project is still uncertain at this point. Since there is no agreement on Brexit on security or even Galileo the UK is excluded at least until such agreement is made. Some relevant parts:
A majority of member states have turned against the UK and voted in favour of pushing forward on the next round of contracts for the £8bn project, despite requests for a delay to allow negotiations over British involvement to progress. UK firms are being blocked from bidding for contracts.

EU diplomats were quick to point out that the commission is not blocking the UK’s military from access to Galileo’s secure signal, just proprietary knowledge of its codes, design and development. In restricted circumstances, UK companies could also manufacture the receivers for the military-grade signal.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,635
I avoid to consider the possible scenarios coming from possible agreements because it would be just a mere exercise of economical estimate. Anyway I would start from a GN [Great Number]: the 44% of UK exports go to other EU members [2017 Everything you might want to know about the UK's trade with the EU] and the 53% of UK imports come from other EU members. In this there is a technical aspect: part of the UK exported goods pass through EU, but they go elsewhere. Anyway it seems that it's about the 2% of the exports.

This means that UK buys from EU more than what EU buys from UK [in particular Germany and Spain, among the big EU members, sell a lot more to UK than what they buy from UK]. Also Italy generates a negative trade balance for UK, but not that big.

So, from a general perspective EU could lose more than UK in case of a bad deal [or a no deal] with new customs duties. But anyway UK would see those customs duties applied on exports for £274 billion. Then there would be, on both sides, natural economical dynamics of substitution: if French cheese becomes more expensive for the consumer UK citizens will buy more British cheese [or Canadian ... or ...]. Like if British tea becomes more expensive, EU consumers will buy directly Indian tea ... just to say. Some internal producers will gain advantage subsituting the imported goods ...
This is known. Which is the reason why the EU would prefer that the UK would either remain in the EU, or in the SM, or in the CU, or in an FTA. Yet despite of that the EU is not forcing any of those on the UK. The problem with regards to the partial access suggested by the British is that such a move could (and hence in all likelihood would ) compromise the single market and/or the customs union and end up costing to the EU much more than what the predicted benefit from the agreement would be.
I repeat, usually it's the smaller entity to suffer more in case of customs duties war.
Indeed, both parties will suffer from it. Given the close existing relations between the EU and the UK there will be no winners at all in such. That has long since been acknowledged by the EU Commission, Barnier, Juncker, etc. However it is UK's sovereign decision to leave and the EU will honor that.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,886
Wirral
In Galileo's case the matter is about the security questions related to the Galileo system and of the ability to take part in its building. In other words: Guardian: Security row over EU Galileo satellite project as Britain is shut out - the likely answer is that the EU does not want to outsource that outside of the EJC's jurisdiction in case of treaty violations especially since the legal status of the UK towards the EU & Galileo project is still uncertain at this point. Since there is no agreement on Brexit on security or even Galileo the UK is excluded at least until such agreement is made. Some relevant parts:
Thanks for the explanation, which makes sense. Perhaps renaming it the European and British Court of Justice would resolve the issue. A solution should be possible with goodwill on both sides but - and I hope I’m not being party political - some see any involvement by the ECJ in Britain’s affairs at completely out of the question.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,254
Welsh Marches
Isn't there a slight contradiction there, my friend?

If there's an "Eurocentric attitude" , then delegating sovereignty to an European supranational organisation would be rather logical, not totally crazy, don't You think?
I don't think it'ds crazy for a nation to delegate sovereignty to an organization to the EU, it might be a rational decision, but it is crazy to suggest that there is anything exceptional for a nation to run its own affairs outside any such organization, just as most countries in the world do. In that respect, the UK is in fact returning to normality. Only in Europe would anyone think anything different.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,988
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I don't think it'ds crazy for a nation to delegate sovereignty to an organization to the EU, it might be a rational decision, but it is crazy to suggest that there is anything exceptional for a nation to run its own affairs outside any such organization, just as most countries in the world do. In that respect, the UK is in fact returning to normality. Only in Europe would anyone think anything different.
This is historically true, it was particular to see the United Kingdom jumping into the European Community. But it happend decades ago and Europeans have got a habit about UK in EC/EU.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,236
Europix
but it is crazy to suggest that there is anything exceptional for a nation to run its own affairs outside any such organization, just as most countries in the world do. In that respect, the UK is in fact returning to normality. Only in Europe would anyone think anything different.

IDK.

Personally, I never thought that British attitude is "crazy", and it isn't what I generally hear around me. The general idea I hear could be summarised in: "why did You guys get into it, if it doesn't suit You?".

If You think about, that question imply the conscience of the existence of a difference of vision between British and continentals.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,615
Sydney
"a difference of vision between British and continentals"
that is the crux of the matter ,
Britain has also quite a reputation as being a reluctant European , even a feisty one
I can only smirk at the British press bemoaning the Brexit vote after the decades passed gleefully dumping outrage on Europe institutions
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,988
Lago Maggiore, Italy
At UN they are saying that we've got 12 years to save the world from Global Warming, so probably Brexit is not that important ...

If we are not thinking that Brexit is accelerating Global Warming ...

Theresa May dancing causes a Global Chill, so I don't think that the two processes are connected. But this was climatic satire.

Now ...

When UK entered EU Europe didn't change and the world carried on as usual. Why should we expect something incredible after that UK will leave EU? Europe will not change and the world will carry on as usual. Let's not give too much importance to a regional event.
 
Jun 2016
1,666
England, 200 yards from Wales
"a difference of vision between British and continentals"
that is the crux of the matter ,
Britain has also quite a reputation as being a reluctant European , even a feisty one
I can only smirk at the British press bemoaning the Brexit vote after the decades passed gleefully dumping outrage on Europe institutions
Let's not generalise too much, after all it was a very close vote for leaving.
The press is also divided, the papers (Mail, Express etc) that have spent the last 40 years blaming practically everything on the EU aren't bemoaning anything, except if they think the Brexit won't be uncompromising enough for them. The papers that don't like the referendum decision are those that were always more positive about Europe (Guardian, Independent).
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,254
Welsh Marches
"The papers that don't like the referendum decision are those that were always more positive about Europe (Guardian, Independent)." Goodness me, can that really be true?
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions