[exceptione]

I have the feeling you are not from Europe. GB had the best deal possible with lot of pre-exemptions. GB profited from the EU, but with their special veto-rights and the cold stance towards EU they were also a source of frustration for the countries that worked hard to make the EU work. GB has always made clear it didn't love the EU but wanted to reap profits from market access, and it was nonetheless welcomed by countries as The Netherlands which have lobbied for GB's membership.

Therefore you can't blame Juncker stating the fact that the marriage between GB and the rest of the EU was a somewhat cold love.

The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality.

I read the British press closely and am astonished by the amount of classlessness many people have regarding this issue. It is in the interest of Europe to not let the trade block crumble. GB knew this was at stake with a brexit.

Now the EU needs to (even if it wouldn't want to) give GB the finger just to make sure this will not become a precedent for many other countries (eg. NL, FR). GB has to pay, even if no one wouldn't want to harm GB.

The risk of a collapsing EU market with investments and trade drying up will have severe consequences world wide.

From a purely rational perspective this was the most stupid action for GB.

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to.

The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball.

That's the calculation the British public made. The UK pays more in than it gets out. It imports more from the EU than it exports to it.

The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

Just look at the immediate aftermath in the markets. FTSE 100 closed 3.15% down, whereas almost all EU indices saw losses 2-3x as much.

[exceptione]

I'm sure the EU wants to make the UK pay, but it can't afford to.

The EU is too reliant on exports to the UK to play hardball.

I think you and the UK public are mistaken. The cost of another country leaving the EU far exceeds the cost of punishing [1] GB.

Think about it. What if GB gets nice deals for nothing? I assure you that within two years the EU is over. There are many countries with a large fraction of people that are anti-EU. I think the EU will rather loosen sanctions on Russia than giving the UK a good deal. Im wondering how the US government is thinking at this very moment.

One lesson we can draw is that the EU should advertise their benefits in a better manner. And "wir schaffen das" is a sure way to blow up the continent.

1. actually punishing does mean nothing more than to give no special benefits to the UK. They had it, they will loose it.

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent. They're all talk and no trousers on that front.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU.

I think the current EU is toast either way, so the argument of what deal the UK negotiates with it may end up being moot.

[exceptione]

AS response to _9MOTHER9HORSE below [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977154 ]

``````

The cost of another country leaving may indeed be higher, but the EU simply can't afford to punish the UK, even as a deterrent.

You keep mentioning the EU can't afford it, but why do you think it can afford to let the EU explode?

I'm not sure what you mean by "special benefits". Yes, the UK negotiated the rebate and certain special conditions of membership, but fundamentally it was a net contributor to the EU.

That is not relevant. Access to the market will have to be paid for, so they still need to be a net contributor. Maybe even more than they did so previously.

[exceptione]

The EU is just a political union. It can break apart without necessarily destroying the economies of its member states.

Wrong. What can be sold in what condition is regulated by law. Countries have different preferences of what is allowed and what not. This law requires the governments to sit together, argue and come up with regulations. The single rule for all they decided upon is what makes the single market.

The UK has to at least implement everything the EU decides. Without a say in its proces. Big win.

Im sorry to tell you that you are overly optimistic. Trade deals are a very hairy topic. Look at TTIP, it will likely fail.

You know that the Norwegians pay for access to the common market?

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

Your statements about regulation do not disagree with my point that the EU is a political union.

It is, fundamentally, a political construct. It has gained legitimacy and law-making powers across its member states, but it could cease to exist tomorrow and its member states would continue to exist.

There is absolutely no comparison between TTIP negotiations and the UK becoming a member of the EEA. The latter is extremely simple to implement. It is effectively the status quo.

There are two important differences between Norway and the UK:

1. Norway is a net exporter to the EU; the UK is a net importer. Norway is effectively paying for the right to sell its goods and services into the EU. By the same logic, the EU should pay the UK to join the EEA;

2. Norway is a much smaller economy than the UK, and the EU could probably cut ties with Norway without destabilising the union. It cannot do so with the UK.

Noted that UK companies selling into the EU would still be subject to EU regulations. I don't see that as an issue.

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

The EU is just a political union. It can break apart without necessarily destroying the economies of its member states.

You are suggesting the EU member states would be willing to sacrifice their economies (by punishing the UK) to save the union. I believe the opposite to be the case.

Why would access to the single market need to be paid for? All things being equal, the UK would buy more from the market than it would sell into it.

If anything, the EU should be paying the UK to join the single market.

Such is the absurdity of EU officials pretending they can punish the UK.

[tim333]

>That's the calculation the British public made.

Have you seen any of the interviews with the British public who voted leave? Not many were doing that sort of calculating.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3658563/Meet-Bregret...

[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

A couple of sensationalist anecdotes.

More than 17 million people voted to leave.

[random_upvoter]

> The very fact that risking (domino-effect) the future of the EU via this referendum just for some political self-interest (internal power struggle Conservative Party ) illustrates this use-at-will mentality.

If the EU is really that unstable why blame the British for it?

And if the British were holding back the EU, maybe we should be happy that they finally got off the fence.

[exceptione]

If the EU is really that unstable why blame the British for it?

Where do you see that mentioned?