
Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU - merraksh
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/09/swallow-the-lot-and-swallow-it-now-britain-is-and-was-deluded-about-its-negotiating-power-with-the-eu/
======
unchocked
Delusions are hard to get rid of. Leave campaigned on lies, voters swallowed
them, and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.

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.

~~~
auxbuss
> and the government is now bound to try and live by those lies.

This is a false assessment. The European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16[0]
specifically states:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It
does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the
results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the
EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-
legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion
which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

[0]
[http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...](http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf)

------
temp-dude-87844
It's truly ironic (and unfortunate) that the UK's tribulations to leave the EU
have such close parallels to its difficulties joining its predecessor. In many
ways, it demonstrates the weakness (both now and then) of the British economy
and (peaceful) political force projection when pit against a united
continental core -- led then by France and Germany, nowadays by Germany and
France.

The UK has much more military leverage than economic leverage. The question of
the common market is an economic matter, but the free movement of peoples can
go either way. There are factions in all states that would rather treat the
latter issue as a matter of civil defence, but that would require the UK
engaging in force projection so close to home, which it has for almost half a
century closely avoided.

~~~
doktrin
The UK may be one of the only European countries to take military spending
seriously, but attempting to leverage that advantage in any kind of "direct"
manner would probably backfire. Aside from lacking the political will to
actually press the issue, they're not really _that_ superior to their
neighbors :

[https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-
detail....](https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-
detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=france&Submit=COMPARE)

Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This
obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I _personally_ would put higher
stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the
fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not
the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even
China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their
neighbors.

I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable
negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear
of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could
successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.

~~~
temp-dude-87844
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 they can throw their weight around,
framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a
supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and
economic punishment, they will get their way.

~~~
doktrin
> 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 mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way
the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi
Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore
economic realities.

~~~
temp-dude-87844
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.

~~~
doktrin
> 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.

------
marze
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.

~~~
1undo
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

~~~
goneri
This is a pure opinion based comment with no fact and a naive conclusion. This
extremely complex topic deserves better, especially on HN.

~~~
junkscience2017
and how does your jab advance that?

------
osullivj
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.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "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.

~~~
osullivj
The Greek Govt wanted to negotiate a restructuring of the debt. That outcome
would have yielded economic growth, and real servicing of the restructured
debt. But that rational and realistic outcome was ruled out by the political
requirement for EZ unity, the need to make good FR & DE banks holding GGBs,
and the will to impose Schauble & Djisselbloen's economic views. The parallel
is the misguided hope of the weaker negotiating partner hoped that pragmatic
realism would prevail over the stronger partners politico-economic agenda.

------
ufo
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?

~~~
PeterisP
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.

------
junkscience2017
the EU is rapidly turning in to a union with few willing and satisfied
participants

the EU would be much better off letting disgruntled states go, even if it
diminishes the size and prestige of the remaining union, unless the
bureaucrats relish spending the next fifty years in endless, pointless debate
and hand-wringing

the UK isn't alone. I doubt the EU will see 2030 in its current form.

------
coldtea
Or, the EU is deluded about its worth in the modern world.

~~~
pimmen
But not about its worth to the UK. The EU is by far the UK's largest market
and still has a lot of growth potential (especially in the southern and
eastern member states).

~~~
coldtea
They're some assumption here that because of Brexit UK will not be able to
export to the EU?

They'll sort it out just fine, just like the EU is trading partner with China
and all kinds of countries that are not in the EU.

In fact, the UK not being in the EU could give it extra leverage (on labor
laws, taxes, etc) to attract businesses in the ways the EU could not. Like
Ireland that got in trouble with EU for its tax breaks.

~~~
pimmen
No, they will be able to export under WTO rules just fine, with all the
tariffs that entails which would favor importing from another EU member rather
than the UK. That will hurt the UK a lot, especially the financial services.

------
Myrmornis
Note that this article was published on Nov 9th. That's old on the timescale
relevant to this topic.

------
WhirlingBirdz
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 political establishment and business
community don't actually want to leave the EU. Hence the desperate attempt by
UK negotiators to keep as much of the old system as possible, to the anger of
the proletariat.

~~~
interdrift
This is not true. Brexit is good for the UK and the EU. Now finally clowns
like Farage will be exposed for their 'rebel for good' fake ideals. The
British public will either accept it's own sentence following decades of 'the
bad bureaucrats in Brussels' fake news or come to realize that cooperation at
both economical and political on large scale is the way to move forward.

~~~
WhirlingBirdz
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.

~~~
interdrift
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.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "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?

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

~~~
PeterisP
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.

