The Schadenfreude of seeing this predominantly Brexit crowd getting stuffed is tinged with sadness that the price of cod & chips will soon be through the roof.
I want to digress, though. For several decades, Britain's approach to negotiations was to let the EU do it, and sometimes get an excetption that the Germans pay for. That's been a lot simpler than "real" negotiations between states, and it sounds as if they're really out of practice.
As was also visible last week, when an Australian minister was to be put "on an uncomfortable chair" and made to sign a deal. Of course the Australian arrived with a ready offer and willing to sign at once, and of course the British signed what the Australian wanted.
Experienced negotiators do not signal being in a hurry.
I don't understand the issues about state aid, we were already at the bottom of the league table interns of doling out aid to business. We had plenty of room to expand that already if we wanted.
Right now the most likely outcome of the whole thing is the break up of the United Kingdom. The whole thing was a mess from beginning to end (not that it has ended yet).
Wholly? Or just Scotland?
I can't see anyone else leaving, and I'm not sure the scots will either.
Of course, it might not happen, but odds are rather better, in both cases, than they were pre Brexit.
Ninja Edit: This isn't to try and minimise the importance of Wales, just a recognition that at the time of the creation of the UK, the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica entry (For Wales, see England) wouldn't have been controversial in most of the UK. But even in Wales, Plaid have done very well, and become much more radical, as a result of Brexit.
In any case, they'd have to adopt a hefty bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_fiscal_defici...
I honestly think I will see a united Ireland and an independent Scotland within my lifetime.
The British approach to making a deal was "this is a disaster, we should have be given at least twice that". After 30 years of that, a divorce was for the best solution for both sides.
So whatever the cost, it was worth it.
- The City of London risks losing clearance/passporting rights
- The Ireland/Northern Ireland issues are on fire again
- Yes they got control of "immigration" (that they always had) and to the shock of some UK retirees in Spain that is reciprocal
- Anyone that exports/imports from the EU (especially more regulated stuff like food, etc) is having to work around the bureaucracy (which shouldn't have surprised anyone that knows a bit about how exports/imports work) https://www.politico.eu/article/a-brexit-lesson-eus-benefits...
- I've been seeing more job offers from the UK listed as remote (hah so you mean no more EU developers in place without visas? Good luck then)
So I guess the voters thought it couldn't get any worse. Perhaps people will be able to afford a house again in 20 years.
Firstly they didn't get free trade - there are tariffs, rules of origin, and a lack of equivalence for SPS & product safety rules. The last one is especially egregious currently, because the UK still has exactly the same agricultural rules it did when it was a member.
Secondly, there is now a customs border in the UK. That's a fairly gigantic offensive ask for the E.U., which they largely succeeded in.
Thirdly, the UK got significantly less freedom on state aid than it wanted (which is of course, not surprising, given that the freedom they wanted was "We do whatever we want").
They got control over immigration. Of course, as a consequence of this, so did we, and if you read the UK press, they're currently finding out that that's a thing that cuts both ways (and they're not massively happy about this).
How badly the UK did in the negotiations can be seen in the concessions won by the EU with the NI protocol. The actual trade deal covers goods where the UK has a large trade deficit and does not cover services at all.
Also the EU is starting to impose tariffs and checks on goods coming out of the UK, while the UK won't do the same for some time as their border control systems aren't ready and they're missing some 40 000 customs agents. So even as exporters are feeling the pain, the actual mangling of supply chains for british importers is still to come.
While the best case scenario for the EU would've been the UK staying in the customs union, with that option closed this is as good as it gets. There are no winners in Brexit, only relative losers.
BTW, I don't agree about those checks. Skipping those would not be doable for the EU. Dozens of countries have MFN treaties with the EU. If the EU were to offer Britain anything that those countries aren't offered (such as not checking imports/exports) then all of those trade treaties would need to be renegotiated, because those countries would no longer be most favoured.
IIRC some sixty countries' parliaments would have to vote on the resulting treaty changes. That's too much to be doable.
Also the last time UK had to negotiate on their own it's economy was still bigger than China's. The world has changed and Brexiteers hadn't noticed that their lack of influence was not the EU's fault but rather a general shift of power to Asia.
Something which large parts of the British public and reportedly even of the politicians didn't really realize or appreciate, because Brussels was always a derided side-show, to a higher degree than for most other countries.
I'm getting sick of people talking on behalf of brexiters, or what they know/think/believe - this colonial reference is just another "little Englander" smear.
Which again, is worse. Or do you have insight into what could be "motivating" enough to negate the aforementioned downside?
We got a taste of what's inside that Pandora's box with Farage.
Apparently he was a loud mouthed joker at school too, who just wanted to say something that would grab people's attention. I'm somewhat thankful for him highlighting the racist, xenophobic streak in certain parts of the UK - it just happened to be the topic that got him the most attention.
Honestly, if he thought supporting immigrants would get him the most controversy/support/attention, he'd be doing that in a hurry.
Nonetheless, despite him being skewered by the UK Tory party successfully cosplaying as UKIP, he's a sure sign that a competent populist fascist could command a dangerous level of support - especially among military personnel.
This doesn't bode well for British democracy.
Also, why is this Schadenfreude? Should people only vote out of short-term self interest, and to be sneered at if they don't?
Not the brexit party? Arguing which of the established parties was "most supportive" is like arguing who is the tallest hobbit.
> they were also the ones who made it happen
barely. It was the electorate that made it happen.
> They are the Brexiters, more than anyone else
That "anyone else" are the people that voted for it.
Don't worry... Australia came to its rescue last week, ready for us to be shoved around by the mother country in "uncomfortable chairs".
You can have schadenfreude without comeuppance, though that can verge into just plain sadism or gloating. Schadenfreude usually has a connotation that the misfortune is deserved.
So yes, Remain voters (and those who sympathize with them) may definitely be experiencing some schadenfreude watching the Tories hoist by their own petard.
All people who voted in their long-term interest voted remain. There is no realistic scenario where a Brexit is better long-term for anyone.
Whether the others deluded themselves into thinking that Brexit is better in the long-term or voted out of their own short-term self interest doesn't matter very much.
The "everyone will be worse off out of the EU" argument sounds a lot like the flip-side of trickle-down economics; Some may be worse off, but more equal given the spoils of remain are certainly not equally distributed.