Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwlato | Hacker News Reader

No, Britain will have a very poor position in the negotiations that follow regardless. That's why the E.U. is insisting on the payments and citizen's rights issues being resolved first: they want a British commitment to items the E.U. cares about without having to make any concessions. If you think the E.U. will go back and renegotiate, or take British payments into account at later stages of negotiation, you're as delusional as May.

I hate to admit it, but May and Davis should absolutely refuse to play ball. They should agree to terms they think are fair here, and if the E.U. doesn't go along, prepare for a really hard brexit. Which of course means that they'll capitulate.

View on HN

Can you clarify what this poor trade negotiation position is?

Worst case, we go to WTO tariffs. The effect of that in theory is that EU imports to the UK will reduce, as they become more expensive relative to the same goods from non-EU countries (note that our tariffs to non-EU countries will reduce post Brexit).

UK exports to the EU will also reduce for the same reason. However, given that we're a net importer it should be clear who is in the worst position.

If the UK can sign a couple of decent trade deals with large economies like India, USA, China then we won't be worried about the EU trade at all.

Can they sign those trade deals? When? In ten to twelve years?

The UK doesn't even have the bureaucracy anymore, the capable negotiators to conduct more than a few smaller or maybe one big trade deal.

The deals between the EU and Switzerland took more than a decade. And Switzerland didn't poison the atmosphere.

Additionally, the US aren't in a big hurry. Trump said otherwise while he was campaigning, but now he has already made clear tzhat a trade deal with the EU is a priority and the UK will have to wait (after Merkel had to tell him ten times that Germany cannot and will not negotiate a separate trade deal with the US).

I wish the UK the best, but I am very much in favor of us playing hardball. It's fascinating to watch the UK's non-strategy, a bit like a bit car crash. You have guilty feelings about stopping and staring, but you just cannot help it.

You don't actually need a trade deal with a country to trade successfully with them (hopefully I don't need to give examples of this).

I think you overestimate how long it takes to sign a unilateral trade deal when the parties want to make it happen. The reason the EU trade deals take so long is that 28 countries have to agree on the EU side (which will indeed be a problem for Brexit, but hardly the UK's fault).

Non strategy? As previously stated, we have a net trade deficit with the EU and are the EU's biggest export destination. Do you really think BMW group etc are going to want to stop selling cars to the UK?

Also as previously pointed out any import/export detriment to the UK from increased tariffs will be offset by the corresponding tariff reduction when trading with the rest of the world. That's not the case for the EU.

That's without considering the money we'll save on contributing to the EU budgets.

> prepare for a really hard brexit. Which of course means that they'll capitulate.

Ah, the "throw your steering wheel out the window" strategy in "chicken". Greece tried this. It didn't work.

What sort of "capitulation" do you expect? The EU have already said that any deal cannot be allowed to be better than EU membership (which is kind of obvious). Would "hard Brexit" include deporting the 3m EU nationals in the UK? How do you expect that to work out?

The UK is not Greece - it is, still, one of the most advanced and powerful countries in the world, of global importance culturally, economically, scientifically, militarily, and in myriad other ways. For its own sake the EU better hope the UK does not go tits up.

> the EU better hope the UK does not go tits up

Well, so do we all, so why are we doing this Brexit thing again?

Many of the really bad potential outcomes are truly within British control, such as refusing to guarantee residency to current EU residents.

A very leading question on your part there! Obviously the UK doing well outside the EU is Brussels' worst nightmare, but unless you have a crystal ball I don't think anything can be assumed either way at this point.

> the UK doing well outside the EU is Brussels' worst nightmare

So .. how, specifically, plausibly, is this going to work? What would be the main industries involved here? To whom are we going to export that we don't currently? Does this extra-EU UK include Northern Ireland? Scotland What does the border with the Republic of Ireland look like? What happens to the EU nationals already here? What happens to the British nationals in the EU?

I'm not asking for a crystal ball, I'm asking for a plan, which has been conspicuously missing. It really ought to be in the Conservative manifesto, but isn't yet.

Economists have been saying for years that the UK economy is too heavily weighted towards finance. We now have an opportunity to resolve that. On the question of what our main industries should be - how is the UK unique in facing this dilemma?

Plenty of countries seem to find other countries to export to without being in the EU.

I would expect NI to remain in the UK for a while yet. Given that we managed to bring a terrible hundreds of years long conflict to peace, surely we have the capacity to find a solution to this issue also.

If Scotland chooses independence I wish them good luck. I think it will be a shame, but Scotland is beautiful and I will still visit, and I hope Scots will still feel welcome in whatever remains of the UK. I don't understand why the break up of the UK should be thought of as so terrifying. It's not like Hadrian's wall would be going back up.

I'd expect some kind of arrangement to be reached on expats because forced repatriation would be terrible PR on both sides. That said, the EU has more to lose on this issue as there are far more EU citizens in the UK than the reverse, and these EU citizens in the UK are mainly of working age, and the EU cannot provide enough employment as it is (hence these EU citizens coming to the UK for work).

I agree it would have been better for the government to have a plan. There was a considerable degree of complacency that there would be a victory for Remain. Clearly there are many issues to be resolved, but I think it's a little premature to write off the UK.

> Economists have been saying for years that the UK economy is too heavily weighted towards finance. We now have an opportunity to resolve that.

But the cause of this issue is not due to being a member of the EU; other member states have more balanced economies. Can you explain what has prevented successive UK governments from addressing this imbalance, yet will now be resolved by Brexit?

What level of detail should this plan contain? Too much detail and you give away our negotiating position and tie the negotiators hands; too little and people will complain about lack of detail. Would you accept a plan which comes with the caveat that compromise and negotiation means that none of the plan may work out the way it is described? What about a plan that changes on a weekly basis due to circumstances and negotiation?

I don't believe it is possible to provide a plan that will satisfy people who want to remain in the EU, and I believe that people who want to remain in the EU and are asking for a plan know this well.

You're not going to get the plan you want. A vague overview of goals is the best you can hope for, and exactly what you've been given.

The EU has a plan in public: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-gu...

So does the UK:

https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/information-leaving-eu/ https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/12-negotiating-objectives/

Let me guess. Not enough detail?

>Many of the really bad potential outcomes are truly within British control, such as refusing to guarantee residency to current EU residents.

Hasn't the British leadership been saying all the time that they want a mutual agreement to guarantee residency? Of course they cannot give a unilateral guarantee, such an agreement is needed. It's the EU that's acting stupid here.

It's absolutely clear that a deal between EU and Britain will involve mutual agreement to allow current resident to stay, both ways. Handling future residencies may then be different.

I trust this so much that I'll support my kid to start in a university in UK this fall, and the Brexit outcome will likely be seen during his studies. I'm certain that his studies won't be interrupted because of residency issues.

Of course the UK could give a unilateral guarantee. Why shouldn't they be able to?

The EU has already offered an agreement to May, but she refused -- it guaranteed more rights (existing rights) than she wanted.

It's also not at all clear who will be able to stay. Students? Pensioners? Unemployed people? Family members? Seasonal workers?

My colleague's daughter will be studying elsewhere this autumn. She was interested in a British university, but her parents didn't want the risk of international fees in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com