There is zero incentive for any EU country to be flexible with the UK exiting the EU, as that would incentivise even more disruption. If you cancel your membership at a club, you shouldn't expect to maintain some membership benefits of said club, no matter how small they may be.
This (and many more) effects were clear to anyone wishing to look into them before the Brexit vote, and so nothing is happening that couldn't have easily been anticipated.
As a side note, I don't believe that the Brexit decision is legal under UK law, as it's a parliamentary democracy, and as such the referendum was non binding. For a decision like this to be made, parliament has to vote on it, and as far as I'm aware, parliament has done no such thing yet.
As a side note, I don't believe that the Brexit decision is legal under UK law, as it's a parliamentary democracy, and as such the referendum was non binding. For a decision like this to be made, parliament has to vote on it, and as far as I'm aware, parliament has done no such thing yet.
well you haven't been paying much attention then, as Parliament voted to allow the Government to invoke Article 50 in early 2017
(I'm not a lawyer, nor am I member of that group.)
Essentially, the referendum was advisory, an interpretation confirmed by the Miller case. The act passed in response to that case does not include a clear decision to leave the EU. Thus, the Article 50 notification made in 2017 was not in compliance the UK constitutional requirements.
UK will still need to work with other countries including those in the 27. The 27 will still want to cooperate with UK, so club analogy not strictly accurate, more like leaving a shared house and moving into the empty flat next door.
Isn't there a precedent that we don't break urls on the Web? I think I remember top level country domains persisting after the countries changed?
Between GDPR, the copyright directive, and now this, it's pretty clear that the stable operation of the internet is not really considered to be in the EU's interests.
There is a common sense incentive along the lines of if they are nice to us and we'll be nice to them. For example the UK has agreed to a £40bn or so divorce bill but could tell the EU to get lost and not pay in the event of no deal. Plus how they treat EU folk wanting to work in the UK after Brexit could vary and so on.
There are plenty of incentives to punish Britain and British citizens and companies, not only zero incentives to be "flexible".
Withdrawing .eu domains works both as a last-minute threat to prevent Brexit and as revenge and compensation in case Brexit goes through. At the very least, Britain shall be made an example of.
No they wouldn't. The EU standing up for them - which it does - is the only way they will have more rights than any other migrant worker from around the world. Being flexible would mean abandoning them to get some trade-only, no-free-movement deal.
"If you cancel your membership at a club, you shouldn't expect to maintain some membership benefits of said club, no matter how small they may be."
When you cancel your membership at a club, they should not hold you hostage for arbitrary crazy fees: see 100 Billion fantasy Euros invented out of thin air by European nations on 'Brexit bill'
Also free trade benefits both parties. It's not a club you pay dues to.
NAFTA is the world's largest customs union that requires no 'freedom of movement' and no 'fees' for membership.
If the .eu domain is a 'benefit' of 'membership', well then surely the EU can keep that.
But punishing the UK by forgoing a decent trade deal reveals the EU to be the 'bad deal' that it is. That they would need to 'punish' parties for leaving - to the detriment of everyone is crazy. Remember that everyone will pay more for UK goods and UK purchaser orders from EU countries will fall.
Nobody wins but the elites in Bruxells trying to maintain their barely arbitrary hold on power.
E. Europe is on a tear, Italy just elected an EU hostile government, Germany and the ECB overthrew a previous government in Italy (and Greece), nationalist are in in Austria, Denmark, basically Norway, and on the rise in Sweden, Finland and Germany - and the entire world's press had to rally around a nobody to keep the FN down in France ... while EU's 2cnd strongest economy flees and the Euro oppresses Southern European states ...
And EU leaders are still not listening ...
The EEC was great, and EU has some nice ideals but the elite there are utterly and completely out of touch, and it's not going to work. Deep fiscal integration is not possible (Greece, Sweden, Spain et. al. to agree on pensions, benefits, retirement and healthcare spending? Never ...) meaning that the Euro itself is untenable (creators of the Euro knew it needed fiscal integration in order to work).
Consider EU's fear of offering UK a 'good trade deal' - then others might want that as well, right? Well then why not give everyone that!. If everyone wants a more commercial relationship, probably with some nice friendly border and citizenship stuff ... then why not have that? The 'fear' is having a Europe that Europeans want ... but that is not the EU? And that's a bad thing how?
It's time for the EU to take a look in the mirror, this much is obvious. If they had the ability to bend with the times, there would be no Brexit, there would be no big right-wing uptick.
Comments
There is zero incentive for any EU country to be flexible with the UK exiting the EU, as that would incentivise even more disruption. If you cancel your membership at a club, you shouldn't expect to maintain some membership benefits of said club, no matter how small they may be.
This (and many more) effects were clear to anyone wishing to look into them before the Brexit vote, and so nothing is happening that couldn't have easily been anticipated.
As a side note, I don't believe that the Brexit decision is legal under UK law, as it's a parliamentary democracy, and as such the referendum was non binding. For a decision like this to be made, parliament has to vote on it, and as far as I'm aware, parliament has done no such thing yet.
well you haven't been paying much attention then, as Parliament voted to allow the Government to invoke Article 50 in early 2017
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/pdfs/ukpga_201700...
These people would disagree... https://twitter.com/a50challenge
Can someone summarize what are their arguments?
(I'm not a lawyer, nor am I member of that group.)
Essentially, the referendum was advisory, an interpretation confirmed by the Miller case. The act passed in response to that case does not include a clear decision to leave the EU. Thus, the Article 50 notification made in 2017 was not in compliance the UK constitutional requirements.
UK will still need to work with other countries including those in the 27. The 27 will still want to cooperate with UK, so club analogy not strictly accurate, more like leaving a shared house and moving into the empty flat next door.
Isn't there a precedent that we don't break urls on the Web? I think I remember top level country domains persisting after the countries changed?
Between GDPR, the copyright directive, and now this, it's pretty clear that the stable operation of the internet is not really considered to be in the EU's interests.
There is a common sense incentive along the lines of if they are nice to us and we'll be nice to them. For example the UK has agreed to a £40bn or so divorce bill but could tell the EU to get lost and not pay in the event of no deal. Plus how they treat EU folk wanting to work in the UK after Brexit could vary and so on.
There are plenty of incentives to punish Britain and British citizens and companies, not only zero incentives to be "flexible".
Withdrawing .eu domains works both as a last-minute threat to prevent Brexit and as revenge and compensation in case Brexit goes through. At the very least, Britain shall be made an example of.
Millions of non British EU citizens living in the UK would likely beg to differ
No they wouldn't. The EU standing up for them - which it does - is the only way they will have more rights than any other migrant worker from around the world. Being flexible would mean abandoning them to get some trade-only, no-free-movement deal.
How is that an incentive?
"If you cancel your membership at a club, you shouldn't expect to maintain some membership benefits of said club, no matter how small they may be."
When you cancel your membership at a club, they should not hold you hostage for arbitrary crazy fees: see 100 Billion fantasy Euros invented out of thin air by European nations on 'Brexit bill'
Also free trade benefits both parties. It's not a club you pay dues to.
NAFTA is the world's largest customs union that requires no 'freedom of movement' and no 'fees' for membership.
If the .eu domain is a 'benefit' of 'membership', well then surely the EU can keep that.
But punishing the UK by forgoing a decent trade deal reveals the EU to be the 'bad deal' that it is. That they would need to 'punish' parties for leaving - to the detriment of everyone is crazy. Remember that everyone will pay more for UK goods and UK purchaser orders from EU countries will fall. Nobody wins but the elites in Bruxells trying to maintain their barely arbitrary hold on power.
E. Europe is on a tear, Italy just elected an EU hostile government, Germany and the ECB overthrew a previous government in Italy (and Greece), nationalist are in in Austria, Denmark, basically Norway, and on the rise in Sweden, Finland and Germany - and the entire world's press had to rally around a nobody to keep the FN down in France ... while EU's 2cnd strongest economy flees and the Euro oppresses Southern European states ...
And EU leaders are still not listening ...
The EEC was great, and EU has some nice ideals but the elite there are utterly and completely out of touch, and it's not going to work. Deep fiscal integration is not possible (Greece, Sweden, Spain et. al. to agree on pensions, benefits, retirement and healthcare spending? Never ...) meaning that the Euro itself is untenable (creators of the Euro knew it needed fiscal integration in order to work).
Consider EU's fear of offering UK a 'good trade deal' - then others might want that as well, right? Well then why not give everyone that!. If everyone wants a more commercial relationship, probably with some nice friendly border and citizenship stuff ... then why not have that? The 'fear' is having a Europe that Europeans want ... but that is not the EU? And that's a bad thing how?
It's time for the EU to take a look in the mirror, this much is obvious. If they had the ability to bend with the times, there would be no Brexit, there would be no big right-wing uptick.