Thirith on 20/3/2019 at 07:19
Concerning the rapid deadline: I think it's fair to tell May & Co to stop dawdling, because so far they've really done a crap job of, well, everything, and going to Brussels with what amounts to pretty much the same proposition repeatedly is just insulting. I think the EU is entitled to saying, and needs to say, that either May comes with some significant changes of some kind or she accepts that it was the UK that triggered Article 50 and they've had two years that they've pissed away. If May brings something new to the table, I expect the EU to agree to a delay, even a longer one. But an indefinite delay in the face of the UK government's endless dawdling isn't really in anyone's interest.
demagogue on 20/3/2019 at 09:32
If it's put on indefinite hiatus that could be the ideal solution. The UK stays in the EU until either it gets a realistic plan with public support to get out, or it just sits in that position indefinitely while everybody reaps the benefits of continued EU membership and avoids the costs of Brexit without ever having to admit it, or at some point it's years later and all political will for Brexit has evaporated and it's there no real contest to a second referendum to legalize the obvious status quo.
Sometimes indefinite delays have been the perfect way out of a pickle, like China & Taiwan have got along swimmingly agreeing they are both part of "one China" for the last 50 years, nevermind they never hammered out which "one China" they mean and don't have any intention of ever doing so.
Thirith on 20/3/2019 at 09:53
Quote Posted by demagogue
... while everybody reaps the benefits of continued EU membership and avoids the costs of Brexit...
Brexit has already cost the UK billions, and it continues to do so, even before it's actually happened. Why do you think that this would change with an indefinite extension?
WingedKagouti on 20/3/2019 at 10:18
Quote Posted by Thirith
Brexit has already cost the UK billions, and it continues to do so, even before it's actually happened. Why do you think that this would change with an indefinite extension?
Because it fits his narrative?
That's generally why most of us believe in our own solutions.
Starker on 20/3/2019 at 11:17
Anyone hoping that the UK suffers badly is a short-sighted idiot. But the potentially disastrous consequences of a sudden no-deal Brexit also cannot be understated. This is one of the reasons why everyone is so exasperated with the UK. Anything that's bad for the UK will be bad for the EU as well, because it's a two-way street.
And there's good reason to think that the UK has nothing but lose from leaving, deal or no deal. If the UK stays close to EU, it will basically be replicating a crappier version of a pretty sweet deal it already had. If it moves away from the EU, it will lose easy access to one of the biggest marketplaces in the world. In any case, they will move from being the rule-makers to being the rule-takers. Is it "game over" for the UK? Of course not. It's just a matter of disrupting the economy for a while and having to negotiate new deals over the next decades from a diminished position.
Are there people who have an urge to tell the UK "told you so"? Sure. But I think that has just a little bit to do with the UK's uncharacteristic optimism that leaving will be easy-peasy, that there will be no significant consequences, and that everyone will bend over backwards to cater to the UK, because "they need us more than we need them".
Anyway, the feeling I get right now from people who work in EU institutions is that there's no sense in giving the UK a short deadline, because it would just mean listening to the UK complain some more until the new deadline runs out. What are they realistically going to figure out in a couple of months that they couldn't in two years, etc.
demagogue on 20/3/2019 at 11:27
If I have a narrative (I do: democratic liberalism, updated to the modern welfare state context, is better than naive democratic populism, especially on economic matters; if I lived in the UK i'd almost certainly be a LibDem), it may be being misrepresented to make that charge in this case. Free trade costs less than more restricted trade for simple macro & int'l trade 101 reasons: economies of scale give you the same goods and services at vastly reduced costs, and free trade pushes efficiency of production to their production frontiers. The math does itself.
The billions it's already cost have to do with uncertainty of the risk of Brexit coming. Reduce the uncertainty and you reduce the costs. Also I'm talking about, or meant to be talking about, relative costs, relative to the alternative. Naturally never triggering the process would have saved a lot of costs. My educated guess is that indefinite hiatus where the UK stays in would cost less than an actual Brexit in relative terms (once it became clear the hiatus was really indefinite and wouldn't be quickly shaken up, subject to it actually being shaken up which would indeed raises costs again). But that's an empirical claim that may be wrong. I can give supporting considerations for why I think it, but I may be wrong in fact.
Edit: My formal position is and has always been to invest in cost/benefit data and act on it, so if there's empirical grounds that the risk of a bad Brexit deal is still better than indefinite hiatus with the UK staying in for the long term--which may very well be true--then by all means go where the data recommends. Of course, in any event, you can't do anything that lacks legitimacy or democratic accountability, so it may not be a viable option to begin with.
Starker on 20/3/2019 at 11:31
Quote Posted by Thirith
Brexit has already cost the UK billions, and it continues to do so, even before it's actually happened. Why do you think that this would change with an indefinite extension?
And costs the EU as well, not just the UK.
Thirith on 20/3/2019 at 12:39
demagogue, don't get me wrong: if an infinite extension is possible, cheaper than the likely Brexit scenarios and allows both the UK and the EU to "reap the benefits of continued EU membership", as you put it, I'm fine with that. From what I've read and heard, though, the uncertainty of the current situation seems to be taking a massive toll, not least economically, plus it allows the Brexiteers, especially the hard Bs, to build on their narrative of the EU being the villain in all of this, which I think will just make the situation worse - because at the moment both Leavers and Remainers are of the opinion that May is betraying them, the country, democracy and kittens everywhere. Extending the current impasse looks like it just increases the already atrocious polarisation, both in parliament and in the country. That's why I think that there should be an extension, but it should come with clear goals and decision points.
Al_B on 20/3/2019 at 18:34
And the EU indicate that they'll only grant it i(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47636011) f a deal is approved by the UK first and may not be as long as she's asked for. It really seems like it's a game of ping-pong to try to ensure the other side are seem as the ones responsible for any exit without a deal at this stage.