Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlangenauer | Hacker News Reader

The problem is, of course, that how "hard" Brexit is, is not really up to the UK, or its parliament.

It'll depend what sort of deal the rest of the EU is willing to strike, and unless either the UK is willing to compromise on allowing free movement of people, or the EU is willing to compromise on the indivisibility of the "four freedoms" - neither of which seems likely - then the Brexit is, in fact, going to be quite hard.

View on HN

There are a reasonable number of MPs who support compromise on free movement, i.e. leave the EU but reach an agreement with the EU similar to the ones that non-EU members Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have signed. That's one of the "soft Brexit" options. It's not guaranteed that the EU would accept this proposal, but it's something the British government could choose to seek.

Whether this is consistent with the referendum result is arguable either way I think. The majority of pro-exit campaigners, and most likely of Leave voters, were against free movement, with regaining exclusive UK control over immigration being one of the foremost demands. So a soft Brexit that retains free movement could be seen as not following the spirit of the outcome, even if it follows the letter of it (by formally leaving the EU). On the other hand, the Leave majority was quite slim, and a subset of the Leave voters, probably at least 10%, in fact did think they were voting for a soft exit to more of a Switzerland-style status. So it is probably the case that while Brexit, when asked about in general terms, had 52% support, if you explicitly specify "hard Brexit" including exit from the common market, support would drop. But none of this was made precise in the referendum question, so what the referendum outcome gave a mandate for is what's now being debated.

There are no soft brexit options. Anyone who thinks this hasn't been paying attention and isn't aware of the facts (ironic, considering how often such people accuse others of not knowing the facts).

No such offers are on the table anymore, not even to Switzerland, which has been told by the EU that there will never be any more negotiations unless they agree to replacing their current arrangements with a new one that's basically EU membership by another name. Additionally the Swiss also voted to impose immigration quotas years ago and the deadline for that referendum (a legally binding one) is February. The EU have told them to vote again. The Swiss Parliament is now desperately pretending that a law change that doesn't involve quotas is sufficient to satisfy a referendum that specifically asked the population about implementing quotas.

Even Switzerland is no longer able to get a Switzerland style agreement. The chances of the UK getting one are zero.

The UK has to accept that the EU is now an enemy of the country and is fully committed to the impoverishment and exclusion of the British people. There won't be any cooperation on anything with the EU ever again, and not because the UK doesn't want it but because the EU is held together by fear.

Isn't the current Swiss controversy just a simple case of Switzerland abrogating the treaty? Switzerland and the EU member states signed a treaty agreeing that Switzerland would be given access to the common market, on the same footing as if it were an EU member, in return for following the EU's common product labeling/regulation, and allowing free movement of labor between all signatories of the treaty. Then, recently, the Swiss voted in a referendum to curtail the free movement of labor. That's their right to do, but it means they're no longer honoring the treaty, so naturally they can't expect the other side to continue honoring it either.

The treaties, like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". There is no need for this type of thing - it's a pure power play.

Switzerland is heading for what could be a potentially nasty constitutional crisis, if things go wrong. Parliament is legally bound to implement referendums because they work by adjusting the constitution. Swiss MPs are apparently more scared of the EU than they are of their own courts. This is not a sustainable situation for a democracy. Even if it doesn't blow up now, eventually it will. Switzerland will eventually go through its own "Swexit", due to a referendum that involves wishing to withdraw from one part of one agreement and the EU insisting that it withdraws from all of them simultaneously.

I sort of agree as regards the very general guillotine clause, but I don't think it would make a huge difference in this case, because the Swiss referendum hits at the core of the common market agreement. The common market is made up of a few things that all go together to attempt to produce an integrated economic zone: free movement of labor, equal treatment of foreign and domestic companies, regulatory harmonization, etc. If countries can choose to honor some parts and not others, then you end up with a very fragmented market that fails to achieve the objective. Maybe France passes labeling laws designed to exclude Danish dairy products, Switzerland decides to restrict free movement, Greece decides to tax foreign companies at a higher rate than domestic companies, etc., etc. So it makes sense to me that the treaties over the common market are written such that countries only retain membership as long as they continue to honor each of these factors.

Free trade deals outside of Europe never involve changes to visa policies, as far as I'm aware. This is not some sort of natural or unavoidable thing - it's the result of political choices. Very many other things are like that, such as the various courts that you have to agree to obey, agreeing to automatic implementation of laws created by the Commission, etc.

>like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause".

I'm sorry, what?

You sign a bilateral agreement bringing you massive wealth and advantages then you try to avoid doing your part of the deal

So EU is now evil because it will not take shit from a tiny country?

Interesting piece of commentary about this by Alistair Sloan here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/uk-choice-h...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com