Let's just say that Norway did not leave the EU slamming the door after decades of being the difficult child. I'm not sure this kind of agreement will be extended to the UK.
The UK could probably get the norway deal. But that would leave a lot of those things in place that Leave was against while being a less beneficial deal than the UK currently has.
So to fulfill their promises Leave would have to negotiate something with fewer obligations than norway has, which most likely means also fewer benefits.
AFAIK any deal has to be negotiated and ratified by all member countries. What are the chances that all members will be inclined to offer UK a better deal than it had when it was a part of the union?
My impression is that the UK will have to face some border problems before negotiating anything with the EU. Scotland may want to secede, Northern Ireland may want to join R. o. Ireland, Gibraltar may want to move into Spain. And then the situation for many overseas territories of the UK will change, as they did gode some privileges from the EU.
Northern Ireland wont vote to reunify in my lifetime. First, they received about 11 billions pounds a year in transfers from the UK budget, which the Republic could never afford. Second, the Unionist population would never vote for it. Third, and this is the bit most people don't realise - polls in the Republic nearly always are a No to reunification - we esp when the financial and security costs are considered.
I'm afraid to say, that your impressions are incorrect.
Northern Ireland will not be joining Southern Ireland. They still see themselves as British first. Go over there, like I have and you'll see British Flags everywhere.
Also, have you see the situation in Spain lately? Gibraltar is staying put.
I do love hearing these fantasists hoping that the UK crumbles because it left the UK.
You do realise there are whispers within the STRONGER countries in the EU who are now thinking of having their own referendums?
The EU better be be careful as otherwise it's just France, Germany and a whole lot of smaller poorer southern countries and Germany goes bankrupt trying to bail them out!
Lets see what happens when Greece finally explodes!
Don't be afraid to say that, mate, I may be wrong, and I hope that I am. I have relatives that live there, 2nd gen, and some of them do international businesses. If the relations among what will remain from the UK and the EU will be tense, I'd thus be sad.
> [N. Irish] still see themselves as British first. Go over there, like I have and you'll see British Flags everywhere.
I can't be bothered, the UK is not worth the burden of its visa, sorry. Also, you don't want strangers there, do you? But the flag argument of yours mean nothing. There are many areas where there is a flag without a majority identifying themselves with it (turkish Kurdistan, Catalonia, and maybe also N. Ireland?).
> Also, have you see the situation in Spain lately? Gibraltar is staying put.
No, I haven't. But Spain did offer shared sovereignty over Gibraltar, that means something. It will at least be discussed in the near future.
> I do love hearing these fantasists hoping that the UK crumbles because it left the UK.
The UK left the UK, that's a typo, but also a nice coincidence: The UK may indeed have left a part of it, in the EU, we'll see how the things go.
> You do realise there are whispers within the STRONGER countries in the EU who are now thinking of having their own referendums?
> The EU better be be careful as otherwise it's just France, Germany and a whole lot of smaller poorer southern countries and Germany goes bankrupt trying to bail them out!
An examplar of how good the Leave-guys had their facts before voting. I stalked your account too, you're a brexiteer and you try your hand at making some redditesque comments here, and I'd rather not answer, but I do because you're diffonding misinformation.
> Lets see what happens when Greece finally explodes!
Greece has already exploded, what we have is the remains.
Cameron announced the referendum as policy choice in 2013 and at least after the May 2015 election it was clear it would happen. Therefore this was a long time coming. Has any other European country started with a referendum process in the meantime? Do you think just because the UK voted out, suddenly a stampede of referendums will begin, even though it would be much smarter to wait and see how things turn out in the UK? "Fantasists" hoping the other side will crumble exist in both camps... (Let's not forget that Cameron was campaigning for IN. In the future, the only government who would call a referendum must be campaigning for OUT - nobody else would take the risk after what happened in the UK)
The economy prospects are not looking good. Capital is flowing out of the UK, and plans for new investment's are being cancelled all over the place.
Why invest in country that might be behind a trade barrier at any point?
A country that is being consumed by a strong populist movement that is convinced that the EU is worse than the USSR?
Sorry, we have had 70 years of peace and prosperity, and I don't believe that that would be possible if the EU was the monster that the Brexit camp portrays.
The dislocations in the city have begun.[1]
Keep mind that there are 49%+ Britons aghast at what is happening. They didn't vote for this, and don't deserve this.
[1] - FT's pay-wall, just search for "Banks begin moving some operations out of Britain"
and oil dropped in price on the Brexit vote giving some of my fellow North Dakotans a bit of a poor view on the vote as oil was finally back to the "good" range.
I can't see that happening. Gibraltar has had that option for years and they strongly reject it. It causes some international tension - Spain think they should have it.
For one tiny example there are Wikipedia ArbCom sanctions around Gibraltar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... And there are many archives on the talk page. (For a thing with a population of 30,000 people and an area of about 6.7 km^2 that's a lot of discussion and sanction)
I think the assumption is that once UK leaves the EU, Gibraltar will no longer be EU and Spain may try to exercise more muscle by making border crossing more painful and try to use that to pressure Gibraltar. I imagine they import a lot of food from Spain.
Exactly, trade war. Which comes to show how much of a clusterfuck is this Brexit. Who would've talked about trade war a week ago? What about Spain make any bold moves towards Gibraltar?
People laughed when others mentioned potential confrontation and war. I don't think it would happen, but it has just become a bit less improbable.
By the way, the UK can easily win a trade war against Spain; but Spain is part of a bigger trade organisation which is called European Union - does it ring a bell?
The UK is dead in the water against any EU country, because they'll go all together, specially against the UK after Brexit because they're willing to make an example out of the UK.
Either way, this is a fucking shame and I hope after a few years the UK population can take to court all the liars that tricked them into voting Leave. Voting Leave is a right, lying to people so they vote Leave or Remain should be a crime.
It could probably get really messy. Mariano Rajoy has already threatened the status of Brits in Spain in the case of leaving the EU. Amazing what a little patch of land can do. Anyway, I won't try to speculate more than that.
Doesn't Spain already have a problem with part of it (Catalans) trying to leave? I also seem to remember some thoughts of kicking them out due to being in the same boat as Greece. I haven't really kept up on this news, just curious.
The EU is not based on pure direct economical interest, it's also based on a dream. That dream really helped Germany during the reunification, helped some small countries in the east, and that dream did not really help Greece. But it's more than a pure cold economic union.
Which is exactly why I didn't much like Juncker's agressive reaction to the Brexit vote. "This is not going to be an amicable divorce" was pretty much the first thing he said. This kind of hostility towards the result of a democratic referendum is totally uncalled for, especially if the EU wants to pretend to be a promotor of pacifism in Europe.
I have the feeling you are not from Europe. GB had the best deal possible with lot of pre-exemptions. GB profited from the EU, but with their special veto-rights and the cold stance towards EU they were also a source of frustration for the countries that worked hard to make the EU work. GB has always made clear it didn't love the EU but wanted to reap profits from market access, and it was nonetheless welcomed by countries as The Netherlands which have lobbied for GB's membership.
Therefore you can't blame Juncker stating the fact that the marriage between GB and the rest of the EU was a somewhat cold love.
The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality.
I read the British press closely and am astonished by the amount of classlessness many people have regarding this issue. It is in the interest of Europe to not let the trade block crumble. GB knew this was at stake with a brexit.
Now the EU needs to (even if it wouldn't want to) give GB the finger just to make sure this will not become a precedent for many other countries (eg. NL, FR). GB has to pay, even if no one wouldn't want to harm GB.
The risk of a collapsing EU market with investments and trade drying up will have severe consequences world wide.
From a purely rational perspective this was the most stupid action for GB.
I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to.
The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball.
I think you and the UK public are mistaken. The cost of another country leaving the EU far exceeds the cost of punishing [1] GB.
Think about it. What if GB gets nice deals for nothing? I assure you that within two years the EU is over. There are many countries with a large fraction of people that are anti-EU. I think the EU will rather loosen sanctions on Russia than giving the UK a good deal. Im wondering how the US government is thinking at this very moment.
One lesson we can draw is that the EU should advertise their benefits in a better manner. And "wir schaffen das" is a sure way to blow up the continent.
1. actually punishing does mean nothing more than to give no special benefits to the UK. They had it, they will loose it.
The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. They're all talk and no trousers on that front.
I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU.
I think the current EU is toast either way, so the argument of what deal the UK negotiates with it may end up being moot.
The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent.
You keep mentioning the EU can't afford it, but why do you think it can afford to let the EU explode?
I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU.
That is not relevant. Access to the market will have to be paid for, so they still need to be a net contributor. Maybe even more than they did so previously.
The EU is just a political union. It can break apart without necessarily destroying the economies of its member states.
Wrong. What can be sold in what condition is regulated by law. Countries have different preferences of what is allowed and what not. This law requires the governments to sit together, argue and come up with regulations. The single rule for all they decided upon is what makes the single market.
The UK has to at least implement everything the EU decides. Without a say in its proces. Big win.
Im sorry to tell you that you are overly optimistic. Trade deals are a very hairy topic. Look at TTIP, it will likely fail.
You know that the Norwegians pay for access to the common market?
Your statements about regulation do not disagree with my point that the EU is a political union.
It is, fundamentally, a political construct. It has gained legitimacy and law-making powers across its member states, but it could cease to exist tomorrow and its member states would continue to exist.
There is absolutely no comparison between TTIP negotiations and the UK becoming a member of the EEA. The latter is extremely simple to implement. It is effectively the status quo.
There are two important differences between Norway and the UK:
1. Norway is a net exporter to the EU; the UK is a net importer. Norway is effectively paying for the right to sell its goods and services into the EU. By the same logic, the EU should pay the UK to join the EEA;
2. Norway is a much smaller economy than the UK, and the EU could probably cut ties with Norway without destabilising the union. It cannot do so with the UK.
Noted that UK companies selling into the EU would still be subject to EU regulations. I don't see that as an issue.
The EU is just a political union. It can break apart without necessarily destroying the economies of its member states.
You are suggesting the EU member states would be willing to sacrifice their economies (by punishing the UK) to save the union. I believe the opposite to be the case.
Why would access to the single market need to be paid for? All things being equal, the UK would buy more from the market than it would sell into it.
If anything, the EU should be paying the UK to join the single market.
Such is the absurdity of EU officials pretending they can punish the UK.
> The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality.
If the EU is really that unstable why blame the British for it?
And if the British were holding back the EU, maybe we should be happy that they finally got off the fence.
I think this response is mainly to discourage other countries from organizing a referendum soon... UK hasn't been nice in the past and they shouldn't come out of this better than when they were in, because then the EU would fall apart.
UK industry needs the EU market far more than the EU industry needs the UK market, simply due to the size disparity.
Not to mention that while indisputably the UK currently is a net payer into EU funds, if they don't pay money anymore they will get less benefits out of the deal too.
It would be delusional to assume that they will keep all the benefits while ridding themselves of most of the obligations.
That's just not going to happen, something will have to give.
Another point is that the EU has all the incentives to not give the UK a sweet deal, because that would otherwise encourage other countries to exit as well.
The UK will obviously lose the "benefits" of EU membership, but it was a net contributor in financial terms. All else being equal, the UK could replace all EU funds spent in the UK, and have cash to spare.
In trade terms, the EU faces a prisoner's dilemma. It may be beneficial for them as a whole to play hardball with the UK, but major exporters to the UK (e.g. German car manufacturers) won't accept it. There'll be some diplomatic bravado, some tense negotiations, and the UK will be granted access to the common market.
Nope, as I previously commented [1], there is no room for giving new benefits for free as it will cost the EU its existence.
I think a consequence might be that trade with Russia will be reopened. The US influence in Europe has been lessened with the departure of the UK.
Also, did you think about the buying power of the UK? The mortgages stand, but the prices will going down as the pound looses it value. In periods of uncertainty trade will fall as will investments. Those we can afford quality goods from EU might still want to buy it (eg. luxurious cars from Germany).
If the pound loses value in the medium-run, foreign investment in the UK will increase.
Brexit, if negotiations are acrimonious, will be worse for the EU than it will be for the UK, so I don't expect much of a long-term shift in the GBP-EUR exchange rate.
Outside the EU, the UK can make itself an even more attractive place to do business, no longer hampered by EU laws and regulations.
In any case, I think Brexit will be curtains for the current incarnation of the EU. It will either have to reinvent itself significantly, or collapse and be replaced by a new union.
One thing to keep in mind is that Norway do have the option to not implement various EU Directives. But the politicians are skittish about doing so, fearing EU sanctions.
The most hotly debated directive in recent history was the postal directive.
Norway could also have remained outside Shengen, except that there was an existing agreement with Denmark and Sweden (dunno about finland) allowing citizens of either to visit without passports. This agreement would have been ended had Norway not joined Shengen.
Generally, no, it did not. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had travel without passport since 1952, and Iceland joined 1955, Faroe Islands in 1966. Svalbard (that belongs to Norway) is still excluded.
(In Schengen, you still need to have a passport or identity card, even if there are usually no checks; within the Nordic passport union area, that is not necessary for citizens.)
There are some checks in the ferries/trains between Denmark and Sweden. But I can step in my car and drive from here to Haparanda to Narvik and no one will stop me to ask for a passport.
There is also an internal check by the Swedish police at Hyllie station on the Swedish side, which is done by government officials.[1] (They said in the long term, they hope to replace this system to instead have Swedish border police on the Danish side, in order to have one check instead of two [2]). But yeah, you can still avoid the ID controls by taking a car across the border instead of the train.
Yes and no. There are now ID controls when you travel from Denmark to Norway and Sweden, and from Sweden to Norway. The currently applied laws are temporary in both Norway and Sweden as far as I understand, and also only requires a national ID card or drivers license from one of the Scandinavian countries.
There is obviously always a risk that temporary measures become permanent, at least between Sweden and Denmark it is not very likely as the mumber of people crossing the strait each day for work is quite high, and the ID checks increase the travel time significantly.
The major parties were all about getting the DRD implemented, but ended up being constantly postponed because of costs etc. Then it turned into a shit storm within EU and basically vanished.
the postal directive on the other hand got a much bigger resistance from the parties.
Norway still allows free movement of EU citizens to their country, which was one of the primary reasons for the Leave vote.
There are a few details which differ slightly (you have to leave Norway after several months without finding a job, whereas the UK will merely pull your benefits), but I don't think that's nearly enough to satisfy the demands of those who wish to drastically cut immigration.
Yes, for the UK case it would be an exit in name only.
But some in the leave side are for this (e.g. Hannan), with free movement and fees. They are openly conceding that having a tight control over EU migration is not feasible, and that it was an empty campaign promise (and keep in mind that UK does not have all that many migrants, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, and others have more).
Anyway, maybe we will get deadlock.
Britain will refuse to invoke article 50 without a deal. And the EU will refuse to negotiate before Britain invokes article 50.
> Britain will refuse to invoke article 50 without a deal. And the EU will refuse to negotiate before Britain invokes article 50.
Article 50 invocation marks the start of formal negotiations. They can negotiate behind the scenes for as long as they can before political pressure compels them to pull the trigger.
> 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Norwegians pay for access to the common market (I think even more per capita than other EU countries), still participate in Schengen, and have no say in the EU.
Hardly seems like what the Brexiters wanted. But an arrangement like that might allow UK to be more free to negotiate trade deals with Asia and other parts of the world and have a bit more flexibility in their immigration policy than they had under the EU.
I do not understand how British elderly doesn't see the damage they are doing to their younger population... It seems pretty obvious that even if you haven't been able to adapt to globalisation you should at least not interfere in the way of the newcomers
