Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

The UK now faces tough negotiations with the EU, but that is still far easier and more convenient than 27 separate sets of negotiations with 27 individual countries.

They'll actually have to get the consent of every single member state as any post-leave agreement needs unanimous consent of the EU council. They'll surely have the support of the EU commission that will have negotiated the new deal and some of the member states to convince those countries that drag their feet. But it will still require an impressive display of the famous British diplomacy to pull this off.

Not sure about the public good quality either. After all, one of the major reasons given for Brexit was to regain sovereignity over exactly these economic and political arrangements, so obviously the Brexiteers saw the EU influence not as valuable, but rather as wasteful.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Brexiters never understood what the word sovereignty means.  Had the UK truly lost sovereignty it never would have been able to exit at all.

[grumbler]

If the he EU was just a treaty between states, I would agree with you.

But it is more than that, namely a political entity that has given and guaranteed certain individual rights to its citizens. There are currently a few million non-British EU citizens living in the UK. The "sunk cost" you are talking about are the very life choices of these people, among them our own Tamas.

As PM Fico of Slovakia said, the EU should not accept any deal that does not guarantee the rights of these citizens for perpetuity. As Theresa May has already hinted that she wants to bring exactly that to the table, the EU is right to draw a red line there. A pure marginal cost/utility analysis does not work if you have a conditio sine qua non, which these rights are in my opinion.

If the EU can no longer safeguard the rights of its citizens, it has truely lost its purpose.

Again, I think that this "must protect the rights of its citizens" argument is good, but would be the case had the UK never been a member of the EU.  The EU should no more sign a treaty with the US denying rights to its citizens as it should the UK.  The rights of EU citizens in the UK are different from those of EU citizens in the US, but that's a difference in details, not principals, and insisting that the UK honor the rights of EU citizens isn't "punishing" them for anything.

[grumbler]

The EU looks like a bit of a bureaucratic monstronsity, but consider the alternative.  If there was no EU, all of its members would have to separately negotiate their own economic and political arrangements with one another.  The EU solves that problem with a single set of common rules.  Those rules aren't perfect - far from it - but they are a decent approximation to a "second best" solution and the benefit is that there is one set of rules to implement rather than (potentially) hundreds.  Another key feature is that the EU makes things a lot more convenient for non-members, for the same reason: that is why the US government was so anti-Brexit.  In short, the EU is a public good, with some of the value accruing outside of its own membership.

This public good quality can be a problem, however, in that it makes it easier or more attractive to leave.  The fact that there would still be an EU if the UK left made it easier to leave.  The UK now faces tough negotiations with the EU, but that is still far easier and more convenient than 27 separate sets of negotiations with 27 individual countries.  So the downside of leaving the EU is moderated by the fact that the EU is still there, providing virtual benefits to all non-members.  Of course of every country follows that logic, the EU and benefits it provides is destroyed. 

Hence there is a logic to making exit from the EU more difficult, although it's a logic that has to weighed against other political factors.

The Brexiteers do remind me of the anti-vaxxers.  The reasoning is very similar, as you describe.

[Zanza]

You said "The deal with the UK should be exactly the deal struck (ignoring transitional costs) as it would have been had the UK never been a member of the EU" but the difference between the rights that EU citizens have in the UK and the US exists exactly because the UK is currently a member of the EU. So ignoring that fact when negotiating the new deal would mean you ignore this special status the EU citizens currently have in the UK and instead would apply a more general baseline as defined by general international law and customs that defines the rights of EU citizens in the US. So no, the deal that will be struck with the UK should consider the current membership of the UK in the EU and the consequences thereof, especially when safeguarding the individual rights of EU citizens.

And as I said earlier that I don't see the concept of "punishment" or anything like that in the negotiations, I do of course agre with you that honoring these rights isn't punishment.

[grumbler]

You said "The deal with the UK should be exactly the deal struck (ignoring transitional costs) as it would have been had the UK never been a member of the EU" but the difference between the rights that EU citizens have in the UK and the US exists exactly because the UK is currently a member of the EU. So ignoring that fact when negotiating the new deal would mean you ignore this special status the EU citizens currently have in the UK and instead would apply a more general baseline as defined by general international law and customs that defines the rights of EU citizens in the US. So no, the deal that will be struck with the UK should consider the current membership of the UK in the EU and the consequences thereof, especially when safeguarding the individual rights of EU citizens.

And as I said earlier that I don't see the concept of "punishment" or anything like that in the negotiations, I do of course agre with you that honoring these rights isn't punishment.

The cost to the UK of maintaining the status of EU citizens currently in the UK is a transitional cost, as I see it.  No new arrivals will get that status, so it exists only between the end of EU membership and the demise or return of the last EU citizen.

[garbon]

Has May said she wants to kick EU citizens out? Seems like she's just refused to take it off the table which makes sense for securing rights of British citizens abroad. Also one of the few 'cards' she has in her weak hand.

[Zanza]

The cost to the UK of maintaining the status of EU citizens currently in the UK is a transitional cost, as I see it.  No new arrivals will get that status, so it exists only between the end of EU membership and the demise or return of the last EU citizen.

I see. "Transitional" to me connotes the actual transition from being a member to not being a member. It does not connote anything that is still around decades after the final state was reached. But I guess you can use the word differently.

[Zanza]

Has May said she wants to kick EU citizens out? Seems like she's just refused to take it off the table which makes sense for securing rights of British citizens abroad. Also one of the few 'cards' she has in her weak hand.

She hasn't said she wants to kick them out although there were reports that like half a million would not qualify for permanent residency despite currently being in the UK legally.
That said, the whole tragedy of Brexit becomes apparent when democracies need to make the rights of their citizens bargaining chips in a negotiation. 

[Josquius]

Has May said she wants to kick EU citizens out? Seems like she's just refused to take it off the table which makes sense for securing rights of British citizens abroad. Also one of the few 'cards' she has in her weak hand.

I'm assuming she is just sticking to the default brexiter line of those that are already here are fine. Though can't remember her saying anything outright.
And of course the default brexiter line was just to win the referendum. They are already making themselves pretty clear that contrary to what they said before they don't like a Norwegian/Swiss style situation and are demanding Brexit++....

[garbon]

That said, the whole tragedy of Brexit becomes apparent when democracies need to make the rights of their citizens bargaining chips in a negotiation. 

I don't see why. You have to use what you have at your disposal and I think May would be foolish to start by saying EU citizens in the country are free to stay without getting any concessions first.

Besides calling it a 'right' to live in a country where you don't have citizenship seems a bit strange when recognizing that the UK voted to exit.

[Zanza]

Besides calling it a 'right' to live in a country where you don't have citizenship seems a bit strange when recognizing that the UK voted to exit.

But these people have EU citizenship and the British now unilaterally decided that they would leave which puts the rights conferred by the EU citizenship in question. EU citizenship is separate from the member state citizenship. Tamas can live and work in the UK because the UK (and all othet EU countries) agreed to grant all EU citizens certain individual rights. So the UK would renege on those rights it earlier conferred.

[garbon]

Besides calling it a 'right' to live in a country where you don't have citizenship seems a bit strange when recognizing that the UK voted to exit.

But these people have EU citizenship and the British now unilaterally decided that they would leave which puts the rights conferred by the EU citizenship in question. EU citizenship is separate from the member state citizenship. Tamas can live and work in the UK because the UK (and all othet EU countries) agreed to grant all EU citizens certain individual rights. So the UK would renege on those rights it earlier conferred.

Well yes that is a possible unfortunate outcome.

Of course, presumably, to use your terms, the UK will be reneging rights even if it allows current EU nationals to stay but doesn't allow any others. I'm not sure though that it makes sense to call it a right though if that happens. After all, the rights that the EU affords its citizens won't apply in the UK.

[dps]

Besides calling it a 'right' to live in a country where you don't have citizenship seems a bit strange when recognizing that the UK voted to exit.

But these people have EU citizenship and the British now unilaterally decided that they would leave which puts the rights conferred by the EU citizenship in question. EU citizenship is separate from the member state citizenship. Tamas can live and work in the UK because the UK (and all othet EU countries) agreed to grant all EU citizens certain individual rights. So the UK would renege on those rights it earlier conferred.

Broadly speaking, EU citizens have the right to live and work in any EU member state.  At the point that the UK isn't a member state any longer, no EU citizen loses the right to live in any EU member state, it's just that they no longer have a right to live in the UK, because the UK is no longer a member state.  Just as if the UK stayed in the EU, but Scotland became independent but didn't join the EU, EU citizens wouldn't have a right to live in Scotland.

Now, certainly it makes sense for the EU to try it get it put in any exit agreement that EU citizens currently living in the UK be allowed to remain, but OTOH, it makes sense for the UK negotiators to not immediately concede the point, but to hold it as a bargaining chip.

[Tamas]

I do not consider it even remotely realistic that EU citizens will be booted out of the UK. I think the economy would face a short-term collapse if such a news broke.
Plus there is no reason for the elites to get rid of people who are skilled AND willing to work for amounts the natives frowns upon.

However, it is not IMPOSSIBLE until it is declared so. As such, while I am confident there will be no issue, it is still not a comforting feeling to have your future life on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip.