dro94, i always appreciated your posts:

I dont think so, the idea of all european countries is to NOT let anyone -in the world- thinking leaving EU is a freeway to an access "à la carte" of European market.
It would be a proof of weakness, which is unacceptable for EU.
Ofc we are going to "negociate" (here's the irony); lets discuss for a week on a very unsolvable single point, let's Mr barnier talk about it for a while, then about something else...So long, the longest possible !
Eu goal is to "sabotage" the Brexit (and eventually forcing UK to stay in, that would be nice*).

*hmm not sure.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Aug 3 2018 12:11pm

All those points are true, but the downside of that is they also lose access to the UK market, which consumes 8% of all EU exports, and 18% of EU exports within the EU. In addition, those exports mainly come from a handful of countries - Ireland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. The question is: how much are the EU willing to sacrifice to either prove a point about the dangers of leaving or to force us to stay in?

The downside of letting UK getting a good deal is maybe bigger than an hard Brexit crisis, which could be temporary but very theatrical.

This is a brilliant article on the economic consequences of a no deal brexit domestically:







http://uk.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-impact-uk-economy-2018-7

did you even read the article?



that has been the EU's position from the beginning of the negotiations - the reason your proposals got shut down immediately is because they violated this basic principle, and nothing has changed on that.
if anything it's the UK that is 'ready to start negotiating' by finally accepting that, out of fear of a 'no deal'.

may now 'only' has to sell that to you guys, which i reckon will be pretty much impossible...


it's really fucking simple: you want free market access but no free labour movement, and that is impossible for the EU to agree to - and we have ALL the leverage to stay firm on this point, not only because our economic losses will be smaller, but also because we have additional incentive in order to prevent others from leaving because they think they could make a better deal for themselves, resulting in drawbacks significantly worse than a no deal scenario.

so YOU will have to compromise on one of those, and seeing how the 'border' aspect is the one dominating the leave camp it will have to be trade. as far as i can tell though it seems that the majority of brexiteers thinks getting rid of eastern europeans is worth it, so i'm guessing you're in for a somewhat rude awakening...

good input

people like fender dont realise that nowadays trade is more of a symbiosis than ever before
the EU does not have "ALL the leverage", continental europe and especially germany desperately need access to your market, just as much as you need ours

aside from that, even with short term problems, the long term advantages are more than worth it
the EU is bound to implode sooner or later

Yes, did you?



Definitely a softening of tone and signals a softening of the EU's overall position. I get you hate the idea of the EU conceding any ground, but it objectively looks to be the case. Sorry.

That's really the core of the issue:

Why MUST free movement of labour go hand in hand with free trade?
It is correct that this has been the EU's position from the beginning, and that it's a basic principle of the EU that it doesnt want to let go. It is logical that they dont want to set a precedent by compromising on this issue in the brexit negotiations.

But what I am asking is: why? What's the substantial reason for connecting free movement with free trade? There simply is none! All over the world, you have countries doing free trade with each other without giving up control of their borders, say the NAFTA countries or the recently signed Jefta deal between the EU and Japan. MERCOSUR also didnt include unrestricted movement for the longest part of its existence.

The bottom line really is that there are no compelling reasons for connecting free movement and free trade. It is an arbitrary decision made by the EU for ideological reasons that have very little to do with economic development. The EU has proclaimed that free trade and free movement are inextricably linked with each other under its governance, and it wants to force-feed this decision down its member states' throats even when the massive drawbacks of this choice have become all too obvious all across Europe.


----

Another point that is often forgotten in the discussions about migration control is that the Brits also dont want EU law to supersede their own laws; they want their judges to make the rules for them, and not some Brussels judges. Even if the migration issue was settled one way or another, the court issue in my impression is also a major driving force behind the Leave-sentiment and would still be unsolved.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 5 2018 01:17pm

Good post my friend, this is what I've been saying for a while now.

seriously? i've explained that like a hundred times here. dro not getting it is somewhat understandable given his emotional investment, but to anyone without a dog in the fight this shouldn't be too hard to understand: no one here argues that those two are connected to a degree that makes it THEORETICALLY impossible to have one without the other.
however, you acknowledged yourself that it's one of the CORE principles of the EU, hence allowing the UK to cherry pick amongst them would undoubtedly lead to several other members leaving the union and looking for similar deals. it's really not complicated at all...

it's not even that i personally think that the benefits of the system (which ofc are never mentioned by EU critics and the 'muh borders' crowd) necessarily outweigh the drawbacks, i have been very critical of our multiple eastern expansions, i'm just trying to explain WHY the EU keeps insisting on this and why the brits should not be surprised, let alone offended, when suggestions violating these principles are being rejected immediately.

in an ideal scenario (purely selfishly speaking, only taking economic considerations into account, and leaving all the political, idealistic, historic, and development aspects and ideals behind), we should form a central european trade alliance between germany, france, the uk, scandinavia, benelux, and austria.
but that's ofc just a wet dream since you have to consider political reality, practicality and history in this context, so you know this is not gonna happen.



i did, that's why i explained to you that the EU hasn't suddenly 'started negotiating', but was always open to ideas - just none that violates the principle free market access being tied to free movement of labour. i hope your next white paper takes that into consideration, because you're only wasting even more time if you can't find a political majority for an approach that respects this...

This post was edited by fender on Aug 5 2018 03:23pm