Comment by cisstrd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cisstrd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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... (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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Isis.

> 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.

> 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".

It's because the powers-that-are in Brussels have actually fought against the airline industry's oligopoly, unlike what happens in DC. That's why we have more decent airplane prices compared to the States. That's why we have low-cost carriers being allowed to compete in the market, unlike what happens in the US (with one exception , I think). That's why I said EU is behind all this.

I looked up the distance from Bucharest to Rome it's 700 miles. The same distance as Minneapolis to Denver. The cheapest price I found quickly booking 2 months in advance was $34 (eu) and $90 (us) respectfully.

Interesting price difference. It seems after a little bit of research this has to do with reduced demand for air travel in the us. But if it were to be something the eu has done, which largely generally surrounds higher regulation and the suppression of competition. How has it done so?

Does the EU do anything anymore other than threaten "consequences" on various countries?

No wonder everybody hates it.

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.

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!"

> 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!

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.

Why do you want a treaty with a failing institution?

> 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.

> 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!

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)

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-borde...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Exactly. If they held the referendum next week we'd probably get a different result. What a farce.

Many of the 48 % might also have wanted to change the status quo but were afraid of the economical consequences.

It seems that the vote is actually not binding. The parliament might still decide to stay in. While this would be another hit against the trust in democracy, I wouldn't bet GB is actually leaving. Very similar to Switzerland and the "foreigners out" vote.

Which talking head demagogues - the ones scaremongering in support of Remain, or the ones favoring Leave?

And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?

It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."

Both!

I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!

"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."

Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com