[louisswiss]

A helpful reminder that Britain leaving the EU and Britain getting a 'deal' with the EU are two separate (but related) events.

Britain triggered Article 50 and decided to leave the EU. There's no deal necessary. From the EU's point of view (and a legal one), this isn't a negotiation, just a (sometimes less clearly defined) bureaucratic procedure.

There is of course the question of what Britain's relationship to the EU will look like after Brexit. And it is the EU's responsibility to negotiate a deal which makes that relationship as beneficial for EU member states as possible.

It's simply not their job to care about Britain any more.

Another point worth remembering is that several EU countries don't really have a significant trading relationship with Britain. Imagine if Britain had remained in the EU and Austria was negotiating a 'Brexit-style' deal, for example. How interested would Britain really be in whether that deal was good or bad?

[pluma]

Really it seems like Ireland and Spain are the most interested parties when it comes to negotiating with post-EU Britain. And if you look at UK land borders it should be obvious why that is.

This is what's most frustrating about Brexiters complaining about the "unreasonable" offer by the EU. It's not "the EU" imposing those terms, it's the interested parties.

[louisswiss]

I'm by no means an expert, but I wonder if it isn't actually the 'uninterested' EU parties who are turning this into a 'bad' deal for the UK.

After all, with little to lose personally from a poor UK-EU trading deal, those uninterested parties have a much stronger incentive to push for other things they find important (such as freedom of movement).

[growlist]

The whole EU is inevitably diminished by the UK's departure, firstly due to the loss of prestige, and secondly by the loss of budget contributions. The funny thing is that truly the EU's options are strictly limited, because it will suffer massively if it punishes the UK, and thus it cannot afford to do it. British politicians just need to remind Brussels that they are not dealing with Greece.

[zimablue]

It's not the countries of the European Union's job to care about their historic ally and second largest power remaining stable and friendly in a time of oligarchs and autocracies? Put aside remain/leave/nationality, your statement is nonsensical.

No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.

[louisswiss]

> It's not the countries of the European Union's job to care about their historic ally...

It's not the EU's job.

The EU's priority is its members' interests. As you rightly point out, those interests are probably not well served by alienating the UK.

But that by no means implies that the EU shouldn't be seeking the best possible deal for the EU that the UK will put up with.

> No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.

Interesting argument. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. The behaviour of the UK doesn't align with the interests of Scotland. I assume you believe Scotland should therefore be allowed to leave the UK?

[zimablue]

It's all a spectrum, the question is whether a better system is conceivable or achievable. Scotland was offered a free vote on leaving the UK and voted to remain, if they'd left I wouldn't have wanted us to try and block their entry to the EU or otherwise impose tarrifs or create ill will. You could argue that they should schedule a vote once a decade, I don't think I'd oppose that. If they wanted another vote now that also seems fair.