Edit: I meant this as a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, comment re the Brexit negotiations. It was apparently wrong to do so (?). I even took precious time from the fallacy man (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9).
In oe matter. To act like this means other matter cannot be agreed is a false dilemma.
Id suggest to read about logical fallacies: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
Also, we don't even know that most of the EU is united even on Brexit - they've carefully held off their required votes on the Brexit deal until after the UK gets it through Parliament, which doesn't look like happening any time soon.
Britain triggered Article 50 and decided to leave the EU. There's no deal necessary. From the EU's point of view (and a legal one), this isn't a negotiation, just a (sometimes less clearly defined) bureaucratic procedure.
There is of course the question of what Britain's relationship to the EU will look like after Brexit. And it is the EU's responsibility to negotiate a deal which makes that relationship as beneficial for EU member states as possible.
It's simply not their job to care about Britain any more.
Another point worth remembering is that several EU countries don't really have a significant trading relationship with Britain. Imagine if Britain had remained in the EU and Austria was negotiating a 'Brexit-style' deal, for example. How interested would Britain really be in whether that deal was good or bad?
This is what's most frustrating about Brexiters complaining about the "unreasonable" offer by the EU. It's not "the EU" imposing those terms, it's the interested parties.
After all, with little to lose personally from a poor UK-EU trading deal, those uninterested parties have a much stronger incentive to push for other things they find important (such as freedom of movement).
No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.
It's not the EU's job.
The EU's priority is its members' interests. As you rightly point out, those interests are probably not well served by alienating the UK.
But that by no means implies that the EU shouldn't be seeking the best possible deal for the EU that the UK will put up with.
> No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.
Interesting argument. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. The behaviour of the UK doesn't align with the interests of Scotland. I assume you believe Scotland should therefore be allowed to leave the UK?
That's because full membership was already the best deal the EU had to offer. A lot of UK politicians seem to live inside a dream world where they think the remaining EU members are obliged to make major concessions without anything in return because a no-deal brexit surely hurts them, a little bit, too.
Also the most disliked thing seems to be the backstop, where exactly is the practical alternative proposal for making sure the Good Friday Agreement is not broken?
The UK as a negotiating entity has failed to argue coherently, because the political classes are hopelessly divided and opportunistic.
It's important to note that the EU has not agreed to /anything/ in terms of trade as part of this deal, that's why it's a terrible deal. It's a deal to make a deal, but it includes us agreeing to pay massive outstanding budget commitments. So it's pretty much the UK surrendering their only negotiating leverage (and also the ability to revoke article 50) for absolutely nothing in return.
The EU /can/ enforce this on us, because of their relative size and our political disunity/mismanagement, but it seems obvious that they /should/ not.
An agreement which the British people could agree on would be a comprehensive free trade agreement and customs region(with us paying into budget) but no free movement, no deeper integration, and no ability for the UK to make external trade agreements. There are two fictions preventing this - the EU pretending that this is impossible or unfair (there's no law that free trade has to have free movement, it's a convenient political fiction for the EU), and the right Tories pretending that any external trade agreements would even begin to compensate for the cost of customs checks with the EU.
The UK is screwed but the EU is a malign entity, which seeks to treat us as they have Greece- a banana republic to be screwed by committee. A club which won't allow you to leave is ruler. Sorry for the essay, a remain voter.
edit: The backstop is not at all the most disliked part, it gets the most press because it's the sticking point between T May's attempt to shoehorn her bill through because it seems to lean towards a softer type of deal, which loses her the hard-right Tories and the Irish question loses her the DUP. But it's just a fight between the Tory clans who have power, if you polled the UK population or even parliament, it would not be the most unpopular part of the deal, not even close.
Do they? Nobody wants the UK to leave as far a I know.
> It's important to note that the EU has not agreed to /anything/ in terms of trade as part of this deal, that's why it's a terrible deal. It's a deal to make a deal, > The EU /can/ enforce this on us, because of their relative size and our political disunity/mismanagement, but it seems obvious that they /should/ not.
Why shouldn't the EU act in its own best interest? And why should the EU expect ongoing negotiations would be more productive than what happend the last 2 years and be finished in a pre set schedule? I think the political mismanagement in the UK is fully to blame here. Yes the UK is in no position to simply dictate the terms of an ongoing relationship, everyone knew that (at least who wanted to know). What the EU is willing or able to accept was also known. Despite that article 50 was triggered without a plan, not even speaking of a realistic one while knowing that 2 years are not a lot of time to untangle such a deep relationship even with a solid plan.
> but it includes us agreeing to pay massive outstanding budget commitments.
I think it's reasonable to demand budget commitments already made to be paid for. It's not some arbitrary "exit fee", it's just paying the bill. Would you be willing to sign a new contract with someone who is unwilling to fulfill outstanding obligations of the previous one?