21–30 of 118 posts
Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? I realize this may sound naive, but I’m just curious.
Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? I realize this may sound naive, but I’m just curious.
For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
What if you had very little choice on what was ordered for dinner? and ate almost nothing at dinner. You wouldn't want to pay right?
Like all delusions, this will continue to entrench itself against reason. When the negotiators fail to reach their delusional goal, the deluded will formulate a conspiracy narrative to protect their delusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because _everything_ that happens between countries (and between the UK an the EU) is driven by treaties and agreements. Simple example: if UK leaves without agreements and treaties then there can be no flights from the UK to the EU. This sounds crazy but we have tens of thousands of bilateral agreements that drive even the most fundamental things, and they can be (and are) affected by e.g. the EU membership. Or UK c…
Buy a Jaguar then ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article 50 specifies exactly what will happen: WTO rules will apply. I think most people now are assuming WTO and considering anything else to be a bonus.
WTO deals can take years to negotiate. The U.K's land of heaven is lobbying in Brussels so they can get a fair to everyone deal. As my British friends say, can't have your cake and eat it.
Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? I realize this may sound naive, but I’m just curious.
Before 20th century, breaches of treaties were grounds for war. Now we don't do that anymore, we simply cut off trade.
So the U.K would be ostracized, International companies would move out, it would probably face high tariffs on goods (or outright ban) etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. What about if you refuse to split the bill for the next dinner, to which you aren't invited?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. There are literally hundreds of collaborations between UK organisations and EU organisations. If we just stop our promised contributions to all of them they're not going to trust us again.
> For the same reason your friends will refuse to go to dinner with you if you skip on the bill. What if you had very little choice on what was ordered for dinner? and ate almost nothing at dinner. You wouldn't want to pay right?
Once word gets round, not only your friends but nobody is going to go out to dinner with you ever again.
Why can’t the U.K. just leave? Say we are gone, we are not giving you any money, and unilaterally state a position on trade terms? I realize this may sound naive, but I’m just curious.
The UK can just leave—that’s what happens automatically with no deal, it leaves the E.U. and is in the same position as any other non-member country with no trade agreement with the E.U.
A lot of business in the UK has been dependent on its trade position in Europe, and there are even political stability issues tied in with that (the Irish border and it's relation to the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly.) So the UK can't afford to walk away, though they are perfectly free to do so.
Well argued POV. However, the article overlooks the role of the Profumo Affair in ending the MacMillan govt. Another relevant precedent is the EZ negotiations with the Greek Govt over the sovereign debt crisis.
How is that relevant here? The Greek government wanted to declare bankrupcy, but after some initial resistance their own ministers bottled it. They had the power to walk away if they wished.