71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European Union wants to maintain centralized power. A Country like the UK leaving weakens their authority. Meanwhile the uk wants to remain sovereign, but doesn't want to lose the benefits of the EU. Its essentially a power play. Freedom is the better choice imo
This is a pure opinion based comment with no fact and a naive conclusion. This extremely complex topic deserves better, especially on HN.
Brexit is bad for the UK. We can all agree on that? But it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. They've lost one of their principal contributors, as well as prestige and status. This is generally not talked about. The EU are negotiating HARD. Why? Because they are in a position of weakness. If they were in a position of strength then they would let the UK go easily. Everyone knows this. The complications are that the UK poli…
EU sells the single market at the cost of sovereignty, UK decided to go shop around.
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.
Then you get the international problems directly connected to that, what can you import into Britain and at which tariffs. Plus, how do you cooperate between air traffic control across the channel and across the Irish sea. (While we are at it, is British Airways allowed to fly over France, without EU law?)
And that is just the things Britain has to figure out on their own. Ireland, France and the rest of the EU have interest in British tariffs and if Britain sets tariffs unilaterally they will respond in kind, a situation sometimes known as trade war.
So yes, in principle Britain could just state a position on terms of trade, a hard Brexit, but that would mean that the EU responds in kind. Neither the EU nor Britain wants to do that, but the thing is the EU is something like 10 times as big as Britain and so the EU can very comfortably wait for Britain, because Brexit only affects something less than 10% of the EU trade, not over half of all trade as for Britain.
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.
1. UK has obligations to the EU for the 2020 (already have deals & contracts), other than that they're free to leave. Of course you can just leave and end up with a chaotic situation where nobody knows how trading works, there are tariffs. Opinion : UK is going toward vassal state status to the EU by not having a say but still having to follow their rules.
I'm not sure that the debate here is very sensible or measured.
I think that Brexit is a tragedy, and dearly hope it doesn't actually happen. That is my opinion. But it seems difficult if not impossible to have a reasoned argument about any aspect of it; people are entrenched in their corners.
Brexit is bad for the UK. We can all agree on that? But it's also a TRAGEDY for the EU. They've lost one of their principal contributors, as well as prestige and status. This is generally not talked about. The EU are negotiating HARD. Why? Because they are in a position of weakness. If they were in a position of strength then they would let the UK go easily. Everyone knows this. The complications are that the UK poli…
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 Poland and Hungary and so on), an annoying magnet to EU money flows and institutions, one of the main conduit for tax evasion across the Union... And all this without having to concede on anything, because Brits just did it all themselves!
The net difference in contributions to the EU budget is minor, even without an agreement it would be easily absorbed. The insistence on the principle of paying for the agreed budget was just because they could. In fact, haggling on that was much shorter than on things like ECJ role and Irish border, which are not really settled yet. Nobody really cared about the money.
> This is generally not talked about
Guess why? Because it's not really the case.
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 They can, but then travel and trade becomes ~illegal between the UK and pretty much everyone else, the powder keg of NI starts heating back up, you've got a bunch of britons illegally present in mainland EU and likewise mainland residents in the UK, … Oh and the UK becomes known for having no respect for international deals, which makes…
That's bullshit. WTO trade rules would still apply if the UK left the EU without a deal, and freedom to come and go outside the EU could still remain unchanged regardless of what Brussels wants to impose.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I then want to leave the dinner which is only right But you would at least pay for what you ordered. Anyone just upping and leaving would be considered very rude, and nobody would invite him ever again.
But he's already paid for far more than what he's eaten. If anything, the others at the table should be giving him money back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brexit isn't about Farage. As you say, he is a clown, a distraction, and a totem for the anger of middle-class metropolitans. Brexit was about the working-class of the UK who voted to leave the EU, and their reasons for doing that.
Again, not true. Voting percentage was - 1. Majority leave in poor areas 2. Majority leave in the older population. 3. London voted remain. Reasons? We all know the reasons, and I'm not even going to go into the superiority complex that these people have.
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?