If you want to reply to me reply to me, don’t reply to Scott so you can attack a straw man and pretend it’s my position.
EDIT: To clarify, since @scottagibson is muddying the waters further below, you effectively responded to my post in which I said “any deal would be clearly worse than membership” with a long explanation of why any deal would be worse than membership.
Obviously the EU needs a deal less than the UK, and would certainly never agree a deal that was better than or even comparable to membership, but a failure to reach a deal would seem to me to a be a much worse outcome than Chequers for the EU in most respects. If the EU was saying “These are our problems with Chequers, this is how we could change it” that would be different.
It seems clear to me that the EU is using an interpretation of the Good Friday agreement regarding the requirements on the border that was only adopted by the Irish government after the A50 notification (c.f. The Enda Kenny article linked above) to insert a poison pill into any deal that doesn’t keep the UK in both customs union and free market. Maybe punitive deal is wrong - it really is more like either they are pressing for no deal, OR they believe that Corbyn will be in a position to agree continued Customs Union/Free market membership.
I mean, how can I strawman your position by quoting your position?
I think that argument would have more force if you would actually describe the kind of deal you think the EU ought to offer that would be acceptable to all of its member states including Ireland; and do so without resorting to euphemisms like ‘virtual border’ which simply elide the problem.
I’m just an ignorant colonist over here across the pond, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. The EU doesn’t want the UK to stay in either the customs union or the free market (unless they rescind Brexit entirely and remain EU members). The EU wants the UK to pay a hefty price for leaving, and that means having to set up customs borders and pay tariffs like other non-EU members. The EU is rejecting deals that do keep the UK in the customs union and the free market (in name or in practice) not the other way around.
No, I disagree. I think the EU would be happy with that outcome with a suitable accommodation for free movement between Ireland and NI. The problem is that such an outcome is unacceptable to the Brexiters and, by extension, May’s government.
The EU absolutely does want this, as it would mean the UK market would effectively be regulated by the EU, with the UK having minimal say. Free movement would continue across the entire UK.
Huh, ok, I still don’t understand why but you guys know more than I do about it. It just seems to me that the UK basically doesn’t get penalized (economically) for Brexit at all if they stay in the customs union and free market. EU regulation doesn’t seem like much of a win for the EU in light of that.
Because the EU considers the various freedoms of movement indivisible. Any deal that allows free movement of goods will have to include the same for people and capital as well.
It wouldn’t get penalized economically, but would lose all (or almost all) ability to influence the EU, still have to pay and follow EU rules. So, that would be a good result for the EU, something to show nationalists on other countries, “taking back control, LOL”…
Not that I expect such a deal to stay in place for long, I don’t see how Britain could deal with being a rule taker when being a slightly more equal than the rest in the EU went as well as it did…
Ah, so the idea is that “stay in the customs and free market but lose representation” is worse for the UK than “get kicked out entirely”. Still seems a bit counter-intuitive with the free market part being so valuable, but since that value is going to both sides it does make sense. Thanks for the explanations!
It depends on who is looking at it. Determined Brexiters don’t like staying in the customs union and free market because it looks like they never left the EU at all. So for them, it’s worse politically. For the EU, that would be the best solution because it creates the least upheaval for EU countries; which gives the lie to the idea that they want to punish the UK.
I would add the reason , which is sadly overlooked as it has been such a success.
Namely, to keep the peace.
That didnt come out of nowhere, Europe is not all cute cuckoo clocks & baguettes. Europe has been the most dangerous region in the world for most of modern history.
After the last world war Europe finally decided to end the killing and it worked. Probably it worked too well as now the spectre of war was not even brought up during the Brexit debate. We all have short memories I guess :(
This! I am always sad this very important aspect of it is so frequently forgotten. Freedom of movement is non negotiable if you want access to the market.
Sorry, I managed to overlook that part of your reply, because everything else you write pretty much contradicts it. I’m not quite sure you understand what “not getting a better deal outside the EU” implies.
What do you think Chequers is? The UK is essentially asking for the key benefits of membership - the single market - without ECJ governance and without freedom of movement. That is essentially the definition of a “better deal” - picking and choosing what parts of the single market to be a part of. What exactly is the UK offering the EU in return for this huge concession?
No.
Why? May basically made an ultimatum to the EU that it was 100% predictable that the EU would turn down, and that is exactly what happened. The EU has made very clear what the red lines over and over in the past few years wrt the single market.
Here’s the thing. The EU doesn’t care who is in power in the UK. It does care about preserving the foundations of the EU. The UK is not going to get a deal that undermines those principles - no matter how much kicking and screaming and “accept this or no deal” threats the British government makes.
I wonder if May could get the EU to agree if she threatened to nuke Argentina?
Jokes aside, I’m not really convinced that EU membership guarantees peace. Hypothetically, I would guess that Ukraine would have had a better chance of keeping Crimea if they were members of NATO (preventing Russian invasion by MAD) and not EU (or even OECD). Even if the argument is that EU membership guarantees peace only between its members it rings a little hollow because the logical conclusion would be that the EU should expand to every country in the world (and become the Federation?) to achieve world peace.
I’m also Danish but still living in Denmark. I’m a sceptic of the EU but I recognize that there are some good policies/rulings coming from Bruxelles/Strasbourg/Luxembourg e.g. shutting down the Double Irish and ruling Traffic Data Retention illegal (that our government continues to ignore, sigh). However most of the time the EU seems to react so slowly that it is up to unions/courts in the individual countries to fight back against despicable companies like Uber and Ryanair. It took the European Commission 5 years to propose a bill to protect whistleblowers. Not to mention how the EU top officials seem to be easy targets for Goldman Sachs. Anyways I guess I’ll have to stock up on scotch before march so I don’t have to resort to irish whiskey.
Nothing guarantees peace, but the EU is surely an attempt to prevent war between France and Germany, with the certainty that others would be embroiled in that same war as they always have been. I guess I don’t know if the EU includes a strong mutual defense pact. I thought NATO accomplished that.
