Thread: UK out of EU

Originally Posted by Bruno

Absolutely. Perceptions and emotions are what caused the vote to swing this way. Not facts.

It is politics and most of the time it boils down to perceptions and emotions once things get past a certain point. The trick is for those in charge to see these things coming and change the perception before it gets to that point. In both cases they had an epic failure to do so.

Bob

I am of course only "armchair quarterbacking" here being an American, but perhaps GB leaving the EU will end up being a benefit to the EU?

ChrisL

Unifications are generally better than splits.

For example, do you think if Texas splits from US it'll benefit US, or Texas? Or if your state splits off as its own country to rule itself without being subject to Washington?

It's easy to focus only on the positives, or on the negatives, so that's how political campaigns operate - paint everything as a simple no-brainer choice - but reality is completely different and smart decisions involve thorough understanding of the issue and careful analysis to make a choice which has more benefits than drawbacks.

In any case people deserve to get their wishes no matter how careful they've made them and how smart or dumb those are. If they've made a good choice they'll be well, and if not they'll have the opportunity to reflect on what went wrong and perhaps do better the next time.

Originally Posted by gugi

Unifications are generally better than splits.

For example, do you think if Texas splits from US it'll benefit US, or Texas? Or if your state splits off as its own country to rule itself without being subject to Washington?

I see what you're saying. I agree with you that there are no easy yes or no answers with this. Many variables at play. I don't know enough about GB's ability to produce and trade on its own. It seems through time that there's been a significant number of Texans that feel Texas could secede and thrive? Whether it would benefit the U.S. Who knows. The only reason I posed my question is that Bruno was saying that based on Article 50, GB may possibly suffer very negative impacts and the EU would be in a position of power (ie in relation to having the upper hand in trade agreements, etc). If the EU has the upper hand in trade agreements with a potentially disadvantaged GB, then therein lies the basis for my rhetorical question. Perhaps the EU may benefit in that regard.

ChrisL

This is certainly true - the exit process does not favor the leaving party. But it is what they have already agreed to so it will be next to impossible to change it - after all what is the incentive of EU to simply give up the leverage they have by the book.

Trade agreements are complicated and take a long time - the one between EU and Canada has been developing for about a decade and it's pretty much done but it probably won't become a reality in the next 6 months.
Two years is an extremely short time to put in place reasonably good agreement and at the end of it the old one is null and void and UK will trade with EU under the regular WTO rules, just like any other country.

These are simply the economic realities and the political choice of leaving EU has very significant economic cost, at least in the medium term. It is very clear that the British people got unpleasantly surprised by this, but that's on them and they are going to have to figure it out. EU has plenty of problems on its own and the Brexit vote is exacerbating some and creating new ones, but those are things EU has to figure out.

Originally Posted by gugi

Trade agreements are complicated and take a long time - the one between EU and Canada has been developing for about a decade and it's pretty much done but it probably won't become a reality in the next 6 months.

The negotiations for the new trade deal between Canada and the EU, CETA, began in 2009. Even though there were signatories to the agreement in 2014 it still has not passed approval by the EU parliament and all the individual national parliaments making up the EU. It really is not likely to get such approval in the next 6 months. It might take much longer since the second largest economy in the EU has decided to separate from the EU. Settling that may have priority over any trade deal that is in the works.

Bob

Then again they are both going to need more trade partners :<0) And somebody is going to need to borrow from somebody else if they exclude the UK from everything. I don't think anybody has the upper hand here. Why else would the EU have been so against the exit. I think they both have a lot to lose if everyone doesn't keep their heads on straight.
And no country needs mass immigration as far as the working man is concerned. To many people means lower wages and fewer jobs to go around. You don't have to take off your shoes to figure that one out. What the immigrants need is to have peace and stability in their own country so they can live their culture on their land.

It still seems to me the ones crying the loudest are the ones with the most (perceived) to lose.

Originally Posted by 10Pups

What the immigrants need is to have peace and stability in their own country so they can live their culture on their land.

I'm not sure you will still see it that way if you had to apply for a visa every time you wanted to take a break from the Mickey Mouse culture and if everybody who wanted to experience it would've had to obtain one from your state.

Originally Posted by 10Pups

I don't think anybody has the upper hand here. Why else would the EU have been so against the exit. I think they both have a lot to lose if everyone doesn't keep their heads on straight.

Yes, in the medium term is a net loss for UK and EU, which is completely unrelated to the UK's weaker negotiating position after invoking article 50. You don't even have to understand it - simply notice that the first order of the proponents after winning was to stall. There is a reason for the delay - if splitting would've been beneficial for them they'd be rushing to get it done.

Originally Posted by gugi

I'm not sure you will still see it that way if you had to apply for a visa every time you wanted to take a break from the Mickey Mouse culture and if everybody who wanted to experience it would've had to obtain one from your state.

I don't know if that is a good example, requiring visas to go between different States/Provinces or whatever you want to call them. Normally the control of immigration and visitors is at the federal level and is between Countries.

The EU was composed of 28 individual countries with another level of government imposed upon them all. The imposition of that extra level of government was voluntary of course. That took away member countries rights to formulate their own border controls if it violated the EU's policies on those matters. The same would apply to other matters normally controlled by sovereign countries of which 28 make up the EU.

Really not hard to see where a situation like could rankle a large portion of the population of a supposedly sovereign country. You could view, if you were so disposed to, the EU as a new type of colonial empire/super state where membership was voluntary rather than physically forced.

Bob

It seems very analogous - the states in the federation of USA gave up their right to formulate their own border control when they decided to join together and have common market with free movement of goods, capital and people.

The culture of California and Disneyland in particular is very different from the culture of many other states, so I don't see a fundamental reason to not be able to spin that off as an independent sovereign country. Other than people having gotten used to the way things are now. But those things happen over time - in Canada the more time it passes the less realistic an independent Quebec becomes. Same thing in Europe - the more time passes, the more integrated it becomes and more artificial and painful any splits.

In the old days one of the ways to increase the likelihood of peace between countries was royal marriage. The current British dynasty is essentially Saxe-Coburg-Gotha i.e. they are naturalized Germans.

The EU is no more imposed to the 28 member countries than the federal government of USA is imposed on the individual states or the Canadian federal government is imposed on the provinces.
They chose to form the union on their own volition and any member can chose to leave it by invoking that article 50. It's a weaker union than Canada or USA which afaik do not have any provision for any province or state to leave (and the last time some states in US tried it it didn't end well).
That's the big difference - EU was formed in a far more civilized time than Canada and USA were, and problems can be resolved in a peaceful manner and they are. Brexit still comes with a cost, but that's nothing compared to the cost of splitting USA or Canada, which is also why the later is next to impossible.