Hacker News Reader

So far negotiations have shown the EU holds most of the important cards. The UK caved in on any negotiation demand.

It’s a fascinating view from Germany:

The UK threatens “No Deal”, the EU informs companies that “No Deal” is a possible outcome and plans contingencies, informs companies that they should too, UK now complains that EU threatens companies.

UK says “Out means out”, EU prepares to move EU institutions abroad, UK complains about EU moving institutions abroad.

I’m also puzzled what’s supposed to happen with such important stuff as rules and agreements for importing nuclear materials for powerplants (currently regulated via Euratom), regulations regarding medicine/medical treatment (currently also handled on a european level) and all of that stuff.

Which other option does the UK realistically have for those things other than just accept the EU rules? Any producer for anything that wants to export to the EU will have to abide by EU rules anyways. Will there be a UK and a EU edition of things?

All of this could be solved with sufficient time, but triggering article 50 was akin to holding a loaded gun to your head and saying “if you don’t do what I want at the end of the next two years, I’ll pull the trigger.”

>Which other option does the UK realistically have for those things other than just accept the EU rules? //

I'm not sure if it was a main driver but the powers that are pushing this whole thing behind the scenes clearly have realised the opportunity to subtely rewrite a lot of regulations/legislation to prefer their interests.

The "sovereignty" part of Brexit is playing out as taking power from a more socialist and green EU and giving it to the hidden capitalist interests behind the Tories.

The incredible sleight-of-hand has been getting the working classes to vote for something that could then be twisted to be so highly detrimental to them.

Anyway, to your question about industry regulations: safety, food standards, and environmentalism costs money. Companies within the EU trading block will sell the stuff that meets the regulations, UK will get to have cheap stuff that breaks easily and no longer have the 2 year 'warranty', or the restrictions on unfair business practices - UK companies will try and foist our lower standards on whoever we can fool in to it, eg with promises of "foreign aid" that end up in developing world officials bank accounts. Bonus, the workers making the stuff will get paid less, have less job security, less rights.

Double bonus, UK environment will be open for capitalists to fuck up if they want to make a quick buck.

> I’m also puzzled what’s supposed to happen with such important stuff as rules and agreements for importing nuclear materials for powerplants (currently regulated via Euratom), regulations regarding medicine/medical treatment (currently also handled on a european level) and all of that stuff.

Obviously there are already emergency plans to set up massive bureaucracies to replace the european ones. Just like there are enormous customs stations being built at the channel tunnel, the construction of which started the day after the election.

Or it isn't.

Because in the end the sheer enormity of the task probably is too much to take in, and even the slightest risk that all of this will somehow "go away" or "be delayed" means politicians aren't really ready to start burying billions of pounds in these projects. And the deadlines creep ever closer.

This at least leads me to think that the outcome of theis "first brexit" negotiaion will be that the Brexit proper will happen in X years. The UK will keep paying nearly all of what it's paying PLUS costs to move EU things from Britain to the rest of europe. The bargaining space is the rebate the UK had before brexit, that is, the EU could possibly concede to let the UK "only" pay what it used to, and not significantly more.

As a Brit working in Europe, one year and a half after the announcement I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen. It makes sense to at least know what the worst possible scenario is.

We have a Prime Minister who was against Brexit pushing for a hard Brexit. An opposition leader who is for Brexit. An uninformed public who were blatantly lied to (350 million a week to the NHS).

The whole thing is an absolute shambles.

I'm in much the same position. Working for a UK-company, getting paid in UK pounds sterling, but living in Europe.

The whole thing is farcical, and I can only imagine it will become increasingly so as we near the deadline.

I hope the UK changes its mind, but even if they do too many things will have been broken in the process.

Is Corbyn for Brexit? He campaigned against it all around the country before the referendum.

Can anyone provide anything close to a first hand source?

Yes. Corbyn has been a long-term left-wing Eurosceptic, who opposed membership of the EC in 1975 and acted consistently with that view until the recent referendum.

While his public statements during the referendum supported remaining in the EU, I would argue that the general consensus among most of the "remain" campaigners was that his support was lukewarm at best (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36506...).

In reality, the Labour Party membership are broadly not Eurosceptic, and it's my view that Corbyn mostly has to toe a non-too-Eurosceptic line, especially given the support he has among generally pro-EU young people that brought him to power in the first place.

At present, the Labour Party's position on Brexit is hopelessly muddled, something along the lines of "We don't want to remain in the single market but we kind of want something maybe sort of similar". There is no discussion about remaining in the EU.

I'm sorry I can't provide you with a much better source at the moment, but it's more complex than a quote saying "I love Brexit".

Theresa May for example spoke for Remain prior to becoming PM, I wasn't really expecting an "I love Brexit" quote ;o)

I'm aware Corbyn was against the EC 30 years ago, but that didn't really seems pertinent. He did campaign around the UK for Remain (which was not really reported at the time, I presume those controlling the media felt that best for them not to report) - which presumably was not required of him.

Personally I don't think it matters how personally convinced he is - the party as a whole is the Opposition. But the OP must have something better to state categorically that "Corbyn is for Brexit".

FWIW I Don't understand how Corbyn saying he's for the EU in your linked quote bolsters the contrary assertion.

>>> He campaigned against it all around the country before the referendum.

He absolutely did not nor did he participate in any of the public debates prior to the referendum. He strategically remained quiet.

Even worse than that, 18 months later and we have absolutely no idea what anybody wants to happen!

"Brexit means Brexit", whatever that actually means.

> The article reads a little bit like a remain fantasy - Brexit will be a disaster and then people must come around to my way of thinking!

The article makes its prediction based on higher rates of death in old people.

Which, given the state of the NHS, means the Conservative party are literally eroding their own base.

Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set by the UK government.

Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely but doesn't have any provisions for services.

> Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards?

Quite possibly, but I'm not familiar enough with CETA to know the answer to this question - does CETA restrict Canada's ability to enter other trade agreements with third-party nations?

The partial Single Market membership mentioned in the article does come with that proviso - that the UK cannot make trade deals with other nations, which is why I think it's an untenable position.

Do you think UK is open to leaving with no deal then?

Granted, if the EU position is sabotaged by some members (as the Polish PM was hinting towards), maybe the UK can get a better deal than what implied by the article. But if the EU stands together, I see little reason for them to be considerate to quitters.

> Granted, if the EU position is sabotaged by some members (as the Polish PM was hinting towards)

The biggest problem of the EU is also its biggest strength. It needs unity for this. So if Poland goes rogue nothing happens, article 50 kicks in and no deal happens. That indirectly strengthens the EU now quite a bit ironically enough.

this is incorrect: Article 50 states that the withdrawal agreement only requires a Qualified Majority, not unanimity

Poland's consent is not required

> this is incorrect: Article 50 states that the withdrawal agreement only requires a Qualified Majority, not unanimity

But a trade deal with the UK does not. We just went through this with CETA.

trade deals under the Common Commercial Policy also are under QMV: this is the entire point of the EU being delegated responsibility for trade

CETA is a mixed agreement: 99% of it is covered under the CCP and went into effect before it had even been voted on by most national parliaments

you can confirm for yourself from the EU's own website on CETA (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/index_en.htm):

    On 21 September 2017 CETA entered into force provisionally. As such most of the agreement now applies.
    National parliaments in EU countries – and in some cases regional ones too – will then need to approve CETA before it can take full effect.

"full effect" refers to the remaining 1%, which requires unanimity -- and the 99% can go into effect even if the 1% is rejected

You are correct that basic trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval. The assumption however here would be that the UK wants more than that the EU can just hand out itself.

so, what I described above: another mixed agreement, where 99% doesn't require unanimity

The Canada solution would take services off the table and that would hit London hard hard.

Yeah this seems like the most reasonable option.

Even not having service trade isn’t a great disaster. Companies with sizeable EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere).

(Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU requires to be based within the EU,)

Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right now, they just sell everywhere in USD (and at some point when they’re big enough create an EU subsidiary).

The goods thing would be a real issue, if everything on supermarket shelves became 1.5x as expensive. So as long as that’s solved it’ll be fine.

> Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU requires to be based within the EU

What kind of services does the UK export which do not fall into the finance category?

Software contractors?

Isn't the UK a net importer of software contractors?

I don’t know, but if it’s exportable, it’s exportable.

> Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right now, they just sell everywhere in USD (and at some point when they’re big enough create an EU subsidiary).

It's not all about the money, e.g regulations like DPD and soon GDPR can affect this. Legal departments of our customers won't touch anything non-EU based with a 100 mile pole.

>Companies with sizeable EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere). //

Or anywhere ... Why would you go to the bother and expense of being in UK, puppeteering a company in the EU. You just move to the EU and save yourself the cost/hastle.

OK - but tell me how that would work for cars for example, to be sold in the EU they need to have a certain percentage assembled in the EU. So really all those jobs will need to jobs to Ireland to be sold in the EU.

It's not at all clear though how compatible a Canada-style deal is with not having any sort of border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

We don't have bilateral work agreements with Canada. Americans and Canadians still need visas to live and work in the other country. Depending on the deal, UK/EU citizens may lose the ability to work in the others' area.

Interestingly enough, Australia and New Zealand have a bilateral work agreement, allowing citizens of either country to be instant residents of the other State upon arrival.

I'm curious: what are the cards UK is holding?

Trade with one of the world's larger economies. There is clear mutual interest in continuing trade on an open basis.

I'm not saying the EU is not in a stronger position, nor am I trying to make any claims that Brexit is good or bad, nor that it is being pursued competently by the current government (far from it). But the assessment of the process as being entirely one sided seems to me to be simplistic.

The EU is more than an economic union. In fact, economic integration was/is only one of the strategies to foster lasting European stability, peace and path towards harmony among warring neighbours.

To face these negotiations only on the basis of economic gains/lost is ignoring the political and less tangible goals of the union.

But lack of war in Europe is costing us so much in lost revenue for UK arms manufacturers!

Not to rain on your parade, but the last "European" war almost bankrupted the UK. And back then European countries didn't have nukes while the UK still had an empire.

I know you're being sarcastic :)

My point was indeed to highlight the EU as a source of peace/stability.

But, excess profit taxes are a thing, used to prevent the perverse incentives of capitalism during wartime.

Bankrupting the country and bankrupting corporate interests are different things.

So far as I can tell the major arguments about in/out are almost always hinged on the economics, because everything else is much more subjective.

I don't know that a lot of people in the UK are sympathetic to the idea that our membership of the EU is what's keeping the peace.

UK membership may not be the keystone of peace (which is good, IMHO) but it does not mean its membership does not contribute to said peace. I agree it is subjective. But I'd argued most people would think this subjective goal is worth of the effort it costs.

The UK has a population of 65M. Thus there is a big market for all kinds of exports. As far as cards go this is a big one, but its the only one I can identify.

It goes both ways though; if UK citizens are importing goods it's not because they love the EU and want to support it in any way possible, it's because they want the goods. Making those imports more difficult or more expensive is obviously disadvantageous to the EU exporter, but it's also not exactly brilliant for the UK consumer.

and by 2050 will be the largest in Europe, whereas Germany's is predicted to fall by about 10%

Which propaganda outfit did you get that from, Zerohedge?

ah yes, the old "fake news" argument

the data is from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_...

Note that is from 2015 - long before brexit. 'if' the UK stops immigration then that number will no doubt be smaller.

Quote: Between 2015 and 2050, the top net receivers of international migrants (more than 100,000 annually) are projected to be the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, the Russian Federation and Italy.

presumably some level of political change in the 35 year period is accounted for in their model

regardless, under both the Conservatives and Labour immigration would never "stop", regardless of leaving the EU

Not just good, but skills. Remember there is a work agreement for EU nations. Right now, essential skilled human resources can easily be grabbed from both sides of the channel, with little to no immigration paperwork.

The EU can unilaterally allow British people to work in th EU, no UK consent required. The UK does want to curb immigration, so that’s not exactly a route they want to take. No card for the UK.

Russia has 144M, and EU is not exactly folding their cards and giving up in regard to trade deals or sanctions.

Population size don't seem to be that important.

Smaller population, but bigger disposable (credit based) income? Not that I am pro brexit - quite the opposite. I think the idea that we have them over a barrel, and that we can 'have cake and eat it' is bonkers.

Versus an EU population of c.750 Million.

We in the UK need the EU (eg for trade) more than they need us.

I don't think 750M is correct, its more like 510M. But I concur with your last statement.

You're right, Wikipedia says 510 Million. The former figure is Google's quick-info for Europe. Thanks for the correction.