Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerven | Hacker News Reader

Its not even that the EU really wants to make the UK pay. It's just that the UK had so many advantages that it negotiated before. Now they basically reset themselves back to 1972, but the problem is the EU is much bigger at 27 members today then in 72. Making it extremely unlikely that the re-negotiation is going to end up as well today. Also the UK will want a super fast negotation, the rest of the EU are not so much in a hurry. The UK is negotiation in a position of relative weakness. The professionals on the other side will of course take advantage of that.

In the end I doubt the UK will get as nice a deal as Swiss or Norway nor at such a fast rate. The main deal of the EU is free movement, that is not on the table due to the UK. Without free movement of people, free movement of goods and money are going to be difficult.

View on HN

If I'm not mistaken UK is one of the larger economies, and therefore should have more influence over the negotiations than there smaller, and less significant countries.

As for free movement of things, I believe it is in the best interest of the EU to allow lenient trade with UK, insofar as it doesn't damage its reputation as a legitimate institution.

However if reputation does take precedence over economic sense, then the UK has plenty of other new opportunities, on a global scale, negotiate trade freely with little EU intervention.

It was one of the larger economies; as it will now be an isolated island with no automatic access to the European market, it's value will be lost to a lot of businesses.

Well yes, and no. It now depends all on how the trade deals are negotiated.

What I'm arguing is that the UK has plenty of bargaining chips, and can trade elsewhere if it doesn't feel like it's getting a fair deal in the EU.

Except previously it was negotiating with a number of smaller entities.

Now it will be negotiating with a block of them. The UK just willingly decreased their leverage so they had free will.

Thank you, from all of America. You managed to be completely embarrasing in your 2016 election cycle, before we are really able to be shockingly shameful in front of you.

Brits are polite to the end.

Trade with whom? There aren't that many regions the world with a similar per capita income like the EU. The UK already trades extensively with the US and Canada, so that's an unlikely growth engine. Granted, the UK is a large economy, and may have some bargaining chips, but it needs the EU more than vice versa.

I don't think so, nor do the UK people. Good trade deals can be achieved regardless of EU membership, unless UK is can be substituted, which, I don't think, it can.

> Also the UK will want a super fast negotation, the rest of the EU are not so much in a hurry.

It seems to be rather the opposite. The EU is calling for fast negotiations whereas the UK is taking it easy.

You're confusing the start of the process of leaving and the following negotiations. Britain and the EU have symmetrical, opposed interests there:

The EU wants a fast official declaration from the UK that they want to leave. They want to start the clock running. If after two years there is no agreement, so what, let's negotiate for however long it takes.

Britain wants fast negotiations, because their economy depends on results, but they don't want to formally start the process. Because if they can't get a deal in two years after article 50 invocation they are in a very, very bad position.

It's not that simple:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36631518

What do you mean? I don't see anything in that article that might have a connection with what I wrote. Except that it's about Brexit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com