5 ms·

It's not about getting revenge, more so about making an example out of the UK to send a clear signal to other countries where nationalist anti-EU movements [1]

by cisstrd 10y ago

It's not about getting revenge, more so about making an example out of the UK to send a clear signal to other countries where nationalist anti-EU movements [1] are on the rise. If the UK does not suffer serious consequences, other countries might get some ideas about maybe doing the same. This is the dilemma, I don't think the EU does want the UK to suffer just out of spite, but they can't give them a generous deal considering EU stability. By the way: Berlin and London Stock Exchange markets want to merge, the UK leaving the EU is more of a problem in that regard http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees-to-merge-with-german-rival-to-create-european-titan http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees... (though they said they want the deal to go along no matter the vote) [1] Front national (FN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Party for Freedom) in Netherlands, nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, ... Election in Spain might also not turn out to result in a EU-friendly government... (seriously could go on...)

powera 10y ago
Does the EU do anything anymore other than threaten "consequences" on various countries? No wonder everybody hates it.
- cisstrd 10y ago
  I don't think they threatened, they warned, they chose their words wisely and it's not just a problem for the UK, but also for Europe. It's normal that when you leave a single market of that size, basically abandon established trade agreements with such an important partner, that the consequences are severe. That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    No they threatened. Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal. France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants. Germany threatened of no trade agreement. People, and Brits in particular, always respond to threats the same way: "fuck you!"
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      > Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because? > Germany threatened of no trade agreement. Same here > France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them. Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club. When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
      - sbmassey 10y ago
        We shall see how these threats pan out. To me, they look like desperate attempts to prop up a failing institution, rather than serious statements of policy.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        Why do you want a treaty with a failing institution?
      - sverige 10y ago
        > Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because? Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything. > When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate! Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
        gonvaled 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
shrewduser 10y ago
the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well. even the remain arguments seem to be, yeah sure it's not great but it's still better than nothing. what a ringing endorsement.
- 13tales 10y ago
  Show me a human institution that's not "better than nothing"; it'd be charitable to call the governing processes of the world's wealthiest and most stable countries "messy", on a good day.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Isis.
- paganel 10y ago
  > the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well. The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
  - ctrl_freak 10y ago
    > For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US. How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".
sbmassey 10y ago
If the EU behaves in that way, given its current state, it will break apart all the more quickly: you need an army to be able to bully your client states into submission.
- cisstrd 10y ago
  Sorry that I have to say this, but that's very simplistic. If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
  - sbmassey 10y ago
    In my opinion, the EU needs the UK more than vice versa: it has spent decades stumbling from failure to failure, both economically and politically, and has very few member states with support strong enough for it to count on. Attempting to punish the UK now would be suicide.
    - Scarblac 10y ago
      One reason the EU stumbled so much was that there was one large member country that opted out of many of the bigger EU projects. Maybe with the UK gone, it will be easier for the EU to get things done. But it's more likely to lead to a complete disintegration of the EU with more countries leaving.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- aerique 10y ago
  This is already happening, the UK leaving is a symptom of that. By the logic of your parent posters the UK wouldn't have left because of Greece, which has been used to set an example last year.

by cisstrd 10y ago

powera 10y ago

Does the EU do anything anymore other than threaten "consequences" on various countries? No wonder everybody hates it.

cisstrd 10y ago
I don't think they threatened, they warned, they chose their words wisely and it's not just a problem for the UK, but also for Europe. It's normal that when you leave a single market of that size, basically abandon established trade agreements with such an important partner, that the consequences are severe. That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
- cm2187 10y ago
  No they threatened. Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal. France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants. Germany threatened of no trade agreement. People, and Brits in particular, always respond to threats the same way: "fuck you!"
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    > Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because? > Germany threatened of no trade agreement. Same here > France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them. Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club. When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      We shall see how these threats pan out. To me, they look like desperate attempts to prop up a failing institution, rather than serious statements of policy.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        Why do you want a treaty with a failing institution?
    - sverige 10y ago
      > Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because? Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything. > When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate! Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

shrewduser 10y ago

the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well. even the remain arguments seem to be, yeah sure it's not great but it's still better than nothing. what a ringing endorsement.

13tales 10y ago
Show me a human institution that's not "better than nothing"; it'd be charitable to call the governing processes of the world's wealthiest and most stable countries "messy", on a good day.
- tremon 10y ago
  Isis.
paganel 10y ago
> the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well. The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
- ctrl_freak 10y ago
  > For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US. How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".

sbmassey 10y ago

If the EU behaves in that way, given its current state, it will break apart all the more quickly: you need an army to be able to bully your client states into submission.

cisstrd 10y ago
Sorry that I have to say this, but that's very simplistic. If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  In my opinion, the EU needs the UK more than vice versa: it has spent decades stumbling from failure to failure, both economically and politically, and has very few member states with support strong enough for it to count on. Attempting to punish the UK now would be suicide.
  - Scarblac 10y ago
    One reason the EU stumbled so much was that there was one large member country that opted out of many of the bigger EU projects. Maybe with the UK gone, it will be easier for the EU to get things done. But it's more likely to lead to a complete disintegration of the EU with more countries leaving.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
aerique 10y ago
This is already happening, the UK leaving is a symptom of that. By the logic of your parent posters the UK wouldn't have left because of Greece, which has been used to set an example last year.