UK Votes to leave EU

daithijjj wrote: »

Britain has strong cards to play. The German automotive industry will be banging down doors to do a deal with the UK, as will French farmers and wine makers, plus many others.

Never mind the German automotive industry or the French farmers; Germany as a nation, and France as a nation, want the UK to be fully economically integrated into the European economy. Their ideal outcome, in fact, would have been that the UK would remain in the EU. Failing that, their next (and current) ideal would be that the UK would remain in the Single Market, most likely by joining the EEA.

It's the Brits, or a signficant chunk of them, who are fighting against this, not the Germans or the French. It's the Brits who want to erect barriers, for the sake of "taking back control" and suchlike.

So, do the Brits have strong cards to play? Yes, but for domestic political reasons they are reluctant to play them. If they want to participate in the Single Market they're pushing at an open door, as far as the EU is concerned, but there'll be howls of "betrayal!" from the Brexiters at home who voted for Brexit because they don't want to participate in the Single Market - they want the freedom to exclude, limit or discriminate against EU workers, they don't want to be subject to the trade and market legislation which regulates the Single Market, etc, etc.

The UK government is in the ironic position that their bargaining position vis-a-vis the EU is strong - the EU would love to get close to them, and the closer the better - but their bargaining position at home is quite weak. If they apply for EEA membership or anything like that, this will be viewed as a betrayal. So the best they can hope for is some kind of semi-detached relationship with the Single Market - relatively favourable access, for a non-member state, but still not as favourable as they currently enjoy, and as other member states will continue to enjoy.

But even this could be problematic at home. Any "custom-made" association between the UK and the EU has to be negotiated, and it has to secure the agreement not just of the EU Commission but of each of the EU-27 member states. Inevitably that will involve a lot of horse-trading, a lot of quid pro quo, a lot of messy compromises. And each of these will be viewed as (and denounced as) a betrayal by the Brexiters.

So, from a domestic political point of view, the politically easiest course may actually be a "hard" Brexit. Sure, this is the option that will likely do most damage to the UK economy, but that's something that will only unfold over time, and in any event it will always be a matter that can be disputed, since any claims about how the UK would have fared if it had negotiated a closer relationship will be based on a hypothetical. But, the harder the Brexit, the less agreement is required from the individual EU Member States, so the more the British government can be seen to deliver the position that it states to be its objective, and the less scope there is for Brexiters to feel betrayed. I think May's decision to insist on the UK's right to impose movement controls, thereby giving up any aspiration to participate in the Single Market, is an example of this calculation at work.

mariaalice wrote: »

A hard exit is a better strategic move because if it all goes wrong they can always eat a little humble pie and negotiate with the EU for help . . .

What? No. No way. If there's a hard Brexit and a little way down the line the UK decides it isn't working out too well, there's no question of "help" from the EU. If the worst came to the worst they could apply for readmission to the EU, or for admission to the EEA, but that would be seen, domestically and internationally, as eating massive amounts of humble pie. And if they were to be readmitted, they'd have to renegotiate - if the EU-27 were willing - all the concessions and special deals and rebates that they enjoyed the first time around. No guarantee that they would get them.

Choosing a hard Brexit is pretty much opting for a one-way ticket.