Brexit

[Witton Park]

A trade union has a meeting and a proposal is unanimously passed to pursue a 6% pay rise. The shop stewards then head off to management and after prolonged negotiations they come back with a 2.1% rate of inflation deal. The members go mad because that is not what they voted for. The fact that 6% was never on offer in the first place does not matter, they voted for it. Whose fault is it that they did not get the agreed 6%?

Is that any different to the Brexit situation?

Managment (EU)
Shop Stewards (UK Negotiators)
Union Members (Brexiteers)

Very different. The relationships in the analogy are quite different to the relationships we have with the EU.

Any of those employees can walk away if they don't like the terms on offer.

The can resign from the Trades Union.


The dynamics are totally different.

[anthonykay]

Any of those employees can walk away if they don't like the terms on offer.

The can resign from the Trades Union.

They can indeed. They can walk away with no deal (not even the 2.1%) and go looking for a better trade union (and maybe a better employer as well), in an environment where trade unions are weak.

[Wheeze]

We can analogise all we like. The fact remains that Article 50 was written in the event that a member nation wanted to leave i.e. this scenario was considered and catered for. EU membership is not a binding agreement so if someone wants to go, that should be allowed. Whats happening now is that the management have set the bouncers on us as we approach the exit door. A punter leaving is bad for business!

[DrPatrickBarry]

should be allowed.

Who is stopping the UK leaving?

The UK can walk away without a deal this second.

[Witton Park]

Who is stopping the UK leaving?

The UK can walk away without a deal this second.

In your analogy, the Trades Union, having done a crap job of negotiating a deal on behalf of it's members, is now blocking those members from either resigning from the union or resigning from their job.

[Wheeze]

Good point pat. Why do we need a deal? If a member wishes to leave that should happen with no strings attached.

[anthonykay]

Whats happening now is that the management have set the bouncers on us as we approach the exit door. A punter leaving is bad for business!

Yes, indeed. The only thing that is surprising about the EU negotiators' behaviour is that people here are surprised by it. The EU officials see Brexit as a lose-lose situation, and are determined to minimise their own losses. Here, there were fantasists on the Leave side telling us that the EU would be so desperate to make a good deal with us that they would drive a coach and horses through their own principles (the four freedoms, etc.) just to accommodate us.

That is why, although I wanted to remain, and would certainly hope for a good trade deal if we leave, I felt that the most realistic option might well have been to follow WP's suggestion that we should aim to leave on WTO terms from the outset. At least that way, businesses and government would have two years to prepare (financial planning, logistics, etc). It's getting a bit late now!

[DrPatrickBarry]

At least that way, businesses and government would have two years to prepare (financial planning, logistics, etc). It's getting a bit late now!

Major flaw in that argument, no backstop means no transaction period, so there would be no "two years"

[anthonykay]

Major flaw in that argument, no backstop means no transaction period, so there would be no "two years"

I was thinking of the two years from May's article 50 letter up to 29 March 2019.

[DrPatrickBarry]

I was thinking of the two years from May's article 50 letter up to 29 March 2019.

Oh, sorry, ya as you say, much too late for that. They would have to withdraw the notification under article 50 to gain more time.
Ironically, it looks like the ECJ are about to say the UK can decide that on their own.