Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Hazir]

Yeah you do realise we were members of Europe for most of the seventies? That by the winter of discontent we'd been a part of Europe for nearly a decade?

What changed after the seventies wasn't membership of Europe it was Thatcherism. It was rolling back the frontiers of the state. Or as Thatcher herself put in famously in Bruges
Parts of modern Europe with centralised failures of governance are resembling more and more our centralised failed state of the seventies. Those who refuse to learn the correct lessons from history are doomed to repeat it.

I can assure you that the trips were mostly before your membership. I agree that with Thatcher's reforms you were well set to take full advantage of your EU membership. You almost caught up with The Netherlands.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's why you're so keen on disintegrating your state, or so it seems. Gotcha.

[Hazir]

We will see if you manage to get the phone answered before notification.

[RandBlade]

We will.

[Hazir]

And we will be pushing for notification as of thursday morning. You can forget your fantasies about letting us bungle till the end of next year.

[RandBlade]

We'll see soon enough ...

[Hazir]

The EC isn't even waiting for her formal appointment, with calls for her to speed up things.

Will be so much fun to outvote the UK as we make legislation you only weeks ago could have blocked.

[RandBlade]

Kind of proving the point we were right to leave.

[Hazir]

Kind of proving the point we were right to leave.

Like you can escape the legislation by not voting on it If we keep you outside the EEA after your departure from the EU you'll be looking at upward of 5% of contraction. With a little bit of effort you might even make 7th biggest economy by the end of the decade. So, the reality is that what Brexit most likely will get you is merely a loss of the little influence you had.

[Aimless]

Kind of proving the point we were right to leave.

Not really. In the past you could have not only had a chance to block legislation but also to present better legislation or, failing that, shape the EU's policies behind the scenes before bills are put to the vote. But you've consistently chosen to abdicate more and more of your ability to influence the EU over the years so big shrug. It will be even more interesting to see how you feel about leaving the EU only to join the EEA where you'll have even less influence.

[Hazir]

And of course, as long as you try to stall article 50 notification; all legislation passed still applies to the UK anyway.

[RandBlade]

Like you can escape the legislation by not voting on it If we keep you outside the EEA after your departure from the EU you'll be looking at upward of 5% of contraction. With a little bit of effort you might even make 7th biggest economy by the end of the decade. So, the reality is that what Brexit most likely will get you is merely a loss of the little influence you had.

Which part of your backside did you pull that figure from?

Not really. In the past you could have not only had a chance to block legislation but also to present better legislation or, failing that, shape the EU's policies behind the scenes before bills are put to the vote. But you've consistently chosen to abdicate more and more of your ability to influence the EU over the years so big shrug. It will be even more interesting to see how you feel about leaving the EU only to join the EEA where you'll have even less influence.

We'll need less influence, as we'll not have a lot of EU rules and regulations apply to us anymore.

And of course, as long as you try to stall article 50 notification; all legislation passed still applies to the UK anyway.

Cost/benefit analysis. The benefits of a good negotiation is better than the costs of a delayed A50 vote.

If it was the other way around we could avoid A50 altogether and just unilaterally repeal the European Communities Act and be done with it.

[Aimless]

And of course, as long as you try to stall article 50 notification; all legislation passed still applies to the UK anyway.

I wonder how they'll deal with that. It seems kinda unnecessary to force the UK to implement all new legislation in light of their impending exit.

[Hazir]

I wonder how they'll deal with that. It seems kinda unnecessary to force the UK to implement all new legislation in light of their impending exit.

Given that they refuse to invoke article 50 I think we should insist. If they treat their own referendum as a non event then so should we. Also there's no reason to let them not implement legislation we want them to implement in case they remain in the EEA. Finally, their own legislation says EU legislation takes precedence.

If they would revoke that it would mean a hard drop out of all EEA arrangements. People who consider that have no notion of how devastating that would be for the UK. It could even lead to imposition of visas.

On a different note; academic cooperation with UK institutions and scientist appearantly already is hit by the vote. UK links are considered a liability according to the Guardian report.

[Aimless]

Given that they refuse to invoke article 50 I think we should insist. If they treat their own referendum as a non event then so should we.

I like this line of thinking but in that case it of course means that the Brits should be free to try to influence EU policy through their votes as long as they're members.

Also there's no reason to let them not implement legislation we want them to implement in case they remain in the EEA. Finally, their own legislation says EU legislation takes precedence.

If they would revoke that it would mean a hard drop out of all EEA arrangements. People who consider that have no notion of how devastating that would be for the UK. It could even lead to imposition of visas.

Out of curiosity, how many EEA directives do we expect will change (effectively) in the next two years?

On a different note; academic cooperation with UK institutions and scientist appearantly already is hit by the vote. UK links are considered a liability according to the Guardian report.

Unsurprising consequence of uncertainty. I can understand the frustration.

[RandBlade]

I like this line of thinking but in that case it of course means that the Brits should be free to try to influence EU policy through their votes as long as they're members.

Absolutely, fair is fair. For as long as we are a member we can attempt (no compulsion) to influence policy, but have to enforce it whether we want to or not. That is the quid pro quo of membership and until we're not members, we still are.

[Hazir]

Absolutely, fair is fair. For as long as we are a member we can attempt (no compulsion) to influence policy, but have to enforce it whether we want to or not. That is the quid pro quo of membership and until we're not members, we still are.

Yes, you can try all that, but invoking vital interests would get your representatives laughed out of the room. Which is a bit different than the effect doing the same would have had a couple of weeks ago. An appeal on the Luxemburd Accord is a non-starter for a country whose leader started her term in power with 'Brexit is Brexit'. Also you may find it impossible anyone in the room willing to take your side.

In the meanwhile pressure is piling on May to finally start talking business.

[Hazir]

I just read a nice suggestion to make the Brexit negotiations a sounding success; we give you full access to the common market and in exchange you get to set a cap of 450 million a year on migration from the EU.

[RandBlade]

We'll see soon enough how far that "pressure" goes. It is eminently reasonable to negotiate first and see who is France's President who will sign a deal, so no wonder you don't want to do that which is sensible.

[Hazir]

You don't sign a deal with the president of France. You sign a deal with the collective of the EU. You are deluding yourself if you think any election in a EU country will get you a government that puts your interests before those of their nation or the EU.

Interesting again you implicitly set your hope on getting a rabid nationalist elected.

[RandBlade]

We sign a deal with all leaders of the EU including but not limited to the President of France. Given the nature of the EU, France and Germany are two absolutely critical nations to deal with.

I don't want a rabid nationalist elected, who do you think I want elected? I don't expect Hollande to win re-election, I think that given the historic rivalry between our nations any deal we start with Hollande, his successor (regardless of who it is) will try to make worse for us as a "success" for them. If we simply negotiate with someone who is actually going to be in charge the whole negotiation then we can have a more honest negotiation. Any time spent talking seriously with Hollande is time wasted.

[Loki]

Apparently, national interests exist only for Britain. Pray tell what you're going to do when you fail to reach an accord with the EU before the next French president leaves office? Start over?

[Khendraja'aro]

He also overlooks the tiny matter of the veto powers of the various member countries.

[Hazir]

He also overlooks the tiny matter of the veto powers of the various member countries.

That depends a bit on the form the negotiations take. If it's merely an exit deal there is no veto. If there's a mixed deal there is a veto. And of course there's the vote in the EP, a place where they are even less inclined to tinker with the basic tennets than in the capitals of the memberstates.

[RandBlade]

Apparently, national interests exist only for Britain. Pray tell what you're going to do when you fail to reach an accord with the EU before the next French president leaves office? Start over?

The next French President's term is over 2 years, not just a few more months. If we start now we end up having to start over in a few months time anyway, everyone knows that.

[earthJoker]

Well Frankurt is already insisting on giving London a good deal. This could very well turn out in a Germany vs France problem.

[Hazir]

Well Frankurt is already insisting on giving London a good deal. This could very well turn out in a Germany vs France problem.

As such that doesn't even make sense. What are you talking about.

[earthJoker]

Frankfurt Pushes for U.K. to Access Single Market in Financial Services
U.K. access in financial services would bring benefits after the Brexit vote, says Frankfurt Main Finance

FRANKFURT—Frankfurt will push for the U.K. to be allowed the maximum possible access to the single market in financial services following the country’s vote to quit the European Union, even as it hopes to attract jobs from a Brexit fallout.

Frankfurt officials said that while U.K. cannot be given unconditional access to the single market, it will benefit Frankfurt to see London maintain its status as global heavyweight located in the region.
(...)
The French government has insisted U.K. financial services would lose single-market access if the British government refuses to play by the rules of the EU. Frankfurt will press policy makers in Berlin and Brussels to grant the U.K. the maximum access possible, conditional on what trade agreement London reaches.

“We clearly disagree with any sort of punishment,” Mr. Väth said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/frankfur...ket-1468250684

[Aimless]

That is quite literally the exact same position almost everyone has had since forever. Conditional access. Follow ze rules.

[Hazir]

I am pretty certain that Frankfurt has no say in the future role of London. I can imagine why you would want to keep Geman banking the cosy clique it is today but even without punishment there are morcels to be had too juicy to say no to them.