Hacker News Reader

Comment by enitihas | Hacker News Reader

One thing I don't understand out of this entire process is, since it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal, how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation? Since the EU knows that the UK has to have a deal, can't they get away with offering not the best deal possible, since there is no EU wide similar law binding the EU to stay away from no deal.

Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?

View on HN

> Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?

You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea. The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.

Eh, I don't think EU has a lot of incentive to "make it painful" for the UK. It just has zero incentives to give UK's interests a higher priority than (the rest of) EU's interests.

That it amounts to the UK being stuck in a very painful situation is not exactly EU's fault - it's not like EU taunted the UK to leave or something.

The incentive for the EU is that, if leaving the Union turns out to be painless and consequence-free, other EU member states might decide to do it themselves, which could unravel the entire project. Whereas if it turns out to be a protracted, painful process that cripples the leaving state's economy, that example will serve to dissuade others from trying it.

I think what gp is trying to say, is that the EU does not have to make it painful for UK: it already is, de facto. Sure, it's better if the process is painful, to make probable exiters think again, but in this case it's not EU's doing: it's 100% self-inflicted.

I do hope for the British' sake that they get a deal soon.

Yeah, there is a huge power imbalance at play in Brexit and that can't be waved away by any of the politicians involved.

Brexit is a huge deal for the UK. It's a much smaller concern for the EU.

When you put it that way it makes it sound like an organization that just strongarms others into joining it, rather than it maybe actually being in their best interest.

It's not quite that in my opinion. At the time the original union was thought to have big benefits for all members, and it did. Strongarming wasn't driving things as much as perceived mutual benefit.

But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO. In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band together'.

Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the union?

“Just strongarms” feels an awful lot like you are coming with your own perspectives. I definitely did not read it that way.

It is not really a negotiation. It's a pick and choose for the UK, the problem is that their red lines does not correspond to any "orbital" around the EU. Budging on any of them for the EU is not an option to keep the single market intact and other systems intact.

Sure they negotiate the exit tab and such but for a deal the size with the EU a couple of tens of billions over the period it is supposed to last just gives political points when talking to the media.

This video[0] from CGP grey using a slide by the EU chief negotiator from december 2017 defining the EU "negotiation tactic" which they haven't stepped away from yet gives an overview to the issue.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

”how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation?”

At least some of the major issues aren’t about negotiations between UK and EU, but about the UK making its mind up as to what, exactly, it wants.

For example, does the UK want a customs union with the EU? If not, there must be border controls, both in Britain’s ports and between Ireland and North Ireland.

What can be negotiated there is how exactly those border controls will work, but that, relatively, is peanuts compared to the main question.

Similarly, does the UK want to conform to EU regulations w.r.t. food safety or not? If the latter, it will have to accept tougher controls at the border. If the former, they have to accept that the EU essentially controls their food safety laws.

"it is very clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-deal,"

That is not clear at all. No deal is the legal default. So far, no other option has received a majority in parliament, and on 3rd April, parliament voted to go back to the normal procedure where the government decides everything that is debated on. i.e. they gave up their power to actually affect anything (until today's vote).

Exactly, they can't. That's been Boris' point all along, and why he's calling for a general election tomorrow as a result of this. But rumour has it that the opposition will vote against a GE too, forcing Boris to negotiate in this circumstance. It's absolutely appalling.

The only gap in your understanding is that nigh on 100% of the MPs that claim to want to prevent no deal in fact want to prevent Brexit altogether.

Clearly to rule out no deal is by definition to accept whatever deal the other party deems to give you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com