Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#101

Post by dogma1138 »

jjaredsimpson wrote: post #61
jstanley wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or UK citizens would not be able to buy products from the EU because there would be no agreements in place that'd allow companies in the EU to export goods. This is where you and I fundamentally disagree about how trade works. If I want to trade with a person in a foreign country, I don't see why our governments need to even know, let alone come up with some agreement. If the foreign person and I can agree a deal,…

This isn't a real argument. What if you agreed to buy slaves from a foreign person? Governments obviously have a real interest in what their citizen do regardless of where that activity takes place.

That’s a really bad example the US has a trade agreement with Mexico it doesn’t mean that one can buy cocaine from a Mexican cartel.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#102

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

doktrin wrote: post #97
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge the world to do something about it. One way would be to institute unilateral border restrictions not unlike the ones just passed in the US. Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that th…

> Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way. I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort. Also, the US comparison is m…

The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it.

A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach.

An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#103

Post by polotics »

jstanley wrote: post #89
jjaredsimpson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a real argument. What if you agreed to buy slaves from a foreign person? Governments obviously have a real interest in what their citizen do regardless of where that activity takes place.

What if I'm buying non-slaves from a foreign person? What if I tried to buy slaves from a non-foreign person? I'd argue the former is fine and the latter is still not fine. So international trade agreements are surplus to requirements, since basic decency is enforced anyway.

Wow Stanley, where do you live? You really believe that (quote) "basic decency is enforced anyway" ?

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#104

Post by doktrin »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #102
doktrin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way. I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort. Also, the US comparison is m…

The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their…

> A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain.

What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping?

> An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own

Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually can in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept.

Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#105

Post by ZenoArrow »

interdrift wrote: post #100
ZenoArrow wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We all know the reasons" Do we? Are you getting your information from the mainstream media? Are you aware of how much they distort the facts to suit their own narratives? Why do you think Brexit would be any different?

Does it matter? Britain wants to leave the EU. I know what the EU represents and what it doesn't. That's enough.

It matters. Immigrants have been made to feel unwelcome from the way the press have handled their coverage. Their coverage has also stifled debate by unnecessarily polarising people against each other. The damage they've done and continue to do to the UK, both during Brexit and in other matters, is pretty clear.

Aside from that, what does the EU mean to you?

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#106

Post by dguaraglia »

jstanley wrote: post #60
dguaraglia wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really a new norm, where troll accounts are created to push bigoted talking points? This account is 9 minutes old. The other day I had a similar “interaction” with a 30 minute old account. Who is paying for this campaign?

Exactly what was bigoted about that comment?

This comment in particular wasn't super bigoted, but it could bet taken as "the UK needed to leave the EU because of immigration." On the other hand, a comment down the page by the same account seemed to suggest at least they were engaging in conversation not just using a throwaway account.

Mind you, when I flagged the comment I was extrapolating based on a similar interaction I had the other day, when a newly created account with no previous history posted a comment implying that rape was a problem "with a certain culture". A few other comments on that thread were nuked, and a comment from dang (a moderator) seemed to suggest that type of behavior is relatively common.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#107

Post by PeterisP »

ufo wrote: post #93

Is undoing brexit (fully or partially) still an option? If not, is it because the UK government is still committed to brexit or is it because what has been done so far is irreversible?

I recall statements from EU that they'd accept "take-backsies" of the Article 50, so from that perspective it would be an option; however it seems politically implausible for any UK government to do so after the referendum, at least without some serious mandate from the population i.e. a landslide election victory on a Remain platform paving the way for a repeat referendum, but scenarios like that are more similar to fiction than reasonable speculation.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#108

Post by PeterisP »

interdrift wrote: post #100
ZenoArrow wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We all know the reasons" Do we? Are you getting your information from the mainstream media? Are you aware of how much they distort the facts to suit their own narratives? Why do you think Brexit would be any different?

Does it matter? Britain wants to leave the EU. I know what the EU represents and what it doesn't. That's enough.

You're saying this as if there's an unified consensus within Britain. A bit more than half of Britain wanted to leave, and a bit less than half of Britain wanted to remain. They'll still honor the democratic process and do what the general population chose to do, but it's an overstatement to say that Britain wants to leave when it's rather that Britain was highly undecided and has(had?) a mild preference towards leaving.

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#109

Post by PeterisP »

dahdum wrote: post #83
toyg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. Lol, this is something only the British press peddles. Across Europe the overwhelming feeling, for people without UK interests, is of relief . Finally they got rid of a recalcitrant member, the main opponent to "ever closer union" projects, the leader of the free-trade gang that is now in ruins (also embodied in the attacks on Ireland and Luxembourg tax affairs, the harshness on Pola…

I'm not in the UK or EU, so I don't know what the mood is or have opinions about how the vote was conducted. But most economists I've read are not bullish on the EU doing better after Brexit, and it seems like "leave" parties have been coming to power over the past year. Is that view so incorrect?

Of course, UK leaving EU is a negative factor for EU economics. But it's not a huge factor, and for common people (e.g. except businessmen in certain industries) it will mean less impact than all kinds of random local issues.

Also, UK leaving EU is nearly a certainty now and all the discussions are between the different kinds of "deal" or "no deal" after UK leaves - and the difference between these deals is highly important for UK voters but not particularly meaningful for most EU voters (again, except some with a particular interest e.g. expat workers living in UK).

Re: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU

#110

Post by Anderkent »

jstanley wrote: post #90
Anderkent wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works on reciprocity. If you never consider disallowing trade with some countries, you cannot use it as an argument when negotiating access to other country markets; and so you open yourself to exploitation via dues etc. And maybe if no one hindered trade in any way, everyone would be better; but you have no ability to decide what everyone does - only what you do yourself. Plus, there's actual reasons to think com…

But we have open unhindered and uninspected trade within countries, and we don't have out-of-control human trafficking within countries. Why is it different just because it crosses an imaginary line drawn on a map?

Because countries are the units that humans organise themselves. Why do laws differ between countries? Why is international policing difficult? Because within a country you have a fairly (not very, but to a functional degree) unified mode of operation; you have laws, organisations, policies. But coordinating those between countries is hard.
Post reply on HN