5 ms·

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

by 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
      > Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything. You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements. But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to. You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too. > Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club. The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
  - blablablame 10y ago
    Actually, the migrant camp agreement is between UK and France, not UK and EU. (Hard to find the reference now since 90% of the results are related to brexit when you search and I don't have much time)
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      You are right but: > “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-border-treaty-brexit-what-is-france-saying https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
      - blablablame 10y ago
        I know about that, which sorta validates the gp post. This isn't a EU thing but UK-France thing which shouldn't matter if the UK is or is not in the EU and France threaten to cancel the agreement if the Leave campaign wins.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        It seems it matters. It seems that having a hugely conflicting refugee camp in your territory is something you are prepared to do for a close ally, but nothing you will risk for a comercial partner. The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
      - tremon 10y ago
        How many other countries police their egress borders though? When I cross a country line, I fully expect to be greeted by the border guards of the country I'm entering, not the one I just left.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        Exactly. That was a favour France was doing the UK as a sign of good will, internally risking huge amounts of political capital. It seems leaving the EU will reduce the amount of good will France is ready to spend for Britain. We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
- mablap 10y ago
  The problem here is that most talking heads are demagogues piggybacking on popular sentiment and ignorance, unfortunately. The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you. The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut. So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
  - cm2187 10y ago
    Being unsure would favour the statu quo. The statu quo is not what won. You have 52% who wanted to change the statu quo, and the 48% who would be divided between unsure and in favor of the EU.
    - mablap 10y ago
      Yes, to an extent. 52-48 is quite too close to mean anything other than "the Leave vote won". A lot of voters could have changed their minds either way had the vote been a week ago, tomorrow morning, or in a month.
      - estefan 10y ago
        Exactly. If they held the referendum next week we'd probably get a different result. What a farce.
    - chappi42 10y ago
      Many of the 48 % might also have wanted to change the status quo but were afraid of the economical consequences.
  - davrosthedalek 10y ago
- CM30 10y ago
  But does it matter what Obama threatens the UK with? Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...

by cisstrd 10y ago

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
    > Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything. You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements. But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to. You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too. > Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club. The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
- blablablame 10y ago
  Actually, the migrant camp agreement is between UK and France, not UK and EU. (Hard to find the reference now since 90% of the results are related to brexit when you search and I don't have much time)
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    You are right but: > “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-border-treaty-brexit-what-is-france-saying https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
    - blablablame 10y ago
      I know about that, which sorta validates the gp post. This isn't a EU thing but UK-France thing which shouldn't matter if the UK is or is not in the EU and France threaten to cancel the agreement if the Leave campaign wins.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        It seems it matters. It seems that having a hugely conflicting refugee camp in your territory is something you are prepared to do for a close ally, but nothing you will risk for a comercial partner. The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
    - tremon 10y ago
      How many other countries police their egress borders though? When I cross a country line, I fully expect to be greeted by the border guards of the country I'm entering, not the one I just left.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        Exactly. That was a favour France was doing the UK as a sign of good will, internally risking huge amounts of political capital. It seems leaving the EU will reduce the amount of good will France is ready to spend for Britain. We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
mablap 10y ago
The problem here is that most talking heads are demagogues piggybacking on popular sentiment and ignorance, unfortunately. The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you. The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut. So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
- cm2187 10y ago
  Being unsure would favour the statu quo. The statu quo is not what won. You have 52% who wanted to change the statu quo, and the 48% who would be divided between unsure and in favor of the EU.
  - mablap 10y ago
    Yes, to an extent. 52-48 is quite too close to mean anything other than "the Leave vote won". A lot of voters could have changed their minds either way had the vote been a week ago, tomorrow morning, or in a month.
    - estefan 10y ago
      Exactly. If they held the referendum next week we'd probably get a different result. What a farce.
  - chappi42 10y ago
    Many of the 48 % might also have wanted to change the status quo but were afraid of the economical consequences.
- davrosthedalek 10y ago
CM30 10y ago
But does it matter what Obama threatens the UK with? Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...