British Prime Ministers don't normally comment on US domestic politics, because attempts to do so would be received more or less the same way as Obama's intervention in our referendum campaign was received.

Fwiw I agree this way of "defending the borders" is stupid. He doesn't seem to get that it's meant to be a phrase, the actual changes he wants are best implemented not at the border but in the embassy visa departments.

And also Germany is creating fascism in Europe with its attempts to force refugees on the V4 countries.

Interesting. So you think her comment would have been the same had the Brexit lost? Pinky promise?

I see Germany is still paying it's refugees to leave and return home

http://m.dw.com/en/program-paying-as...ins/a-37374656

Did that massive bribe to Turkey not work out for them?

The 47 Labour MPs who voted against invoking Article 50.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38835101
Very happy to see my MP is in there.

Happy mine is too. They can't really be criticised for representing their constituents' views.

Yeah that's cute.

Regarding the US, and the UK's opinion of what's happening there, I see people around me who:

1) Passionately criticise a group of people for being bigoted, misogynistic and violent.
2) Condemn criticism of Islam.

Are these not contradictory, and almost perfectly analogous opposites?

I'm not defending US policy, just interested in incongruent argument.

I certainly don't condemn criticism of Islam. All religion is ludicrous and most are brutally oppressive. Islam may well be the most hideous of all, but fundamentalist Christians in the US are giving the ISIS guys some solid competition these days.

My line is simply that it's wrong to treat people differently depending on which invisible sky wizard they happen to believe in.

That's where you assign agency? These poor, poor countries have no other choice but to turn to fascism?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...er-other-exits

UK should be punished if it leaves EU



Nice club eh?

You keep making the same point.

Who cares if the penalty for leaving is harsh if it's a good club to be a member of.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. If Brexit had lost she wouldn't be PM. Which comment are you talking about?

Upon hearing their erstwhile conqueror intends to solve its internal political problems by using them as lebensraum for people its leader invited but doesn't want anymore (yet won't admit it), and under EU rules they can do nothing about it, a higher percentage of people than previously are voting for extreme nationalist parties, yes. No "country" has elected a fascist government though if that's what you're asking.

Whatever you say, Jack.

They'd basically destroy any of the smaller economies if they tried to leave.

Did you actually bother to read the article or did you just like the headline?

Quote from the article:
We have been over this so many times, this is an entirely rational consideration and has nothing to do with spite or retribution. The EU is trying to get a good deal for the remaining members. A big part of the evaluation of a deal is whether it encourages exits from other countries that could destabilize the union. Any deal that leaves the UK better off than being a full member will threaten the existence of the single market and is therefore a bad deal for the remaining member states.

I don't know what you expect the EU side to do, just go ahead and initiate the self destruct because the UK decided it wants out?

Did you even read the first paragraph?

'Britain should be punished by its European partners if it votes to leave the EU in order to discourage other countries from leaving, former European ministers have said. '

Sounds like advocacy of a deliberately punitive action to me.

This discussion is loaded with the implication that it is obviously better to be outside, all things being equal and liberal self-interested trading engaged in.

Therefore the EU has to intervene to create a kamikaze short term market imperfection in which everyone is worse off, just to justify the sunk costs of the project so far.

I think that sounds kind of unethical, and I'd bet that market forces overcome the intervention in the end. Both are good reasons to leave.

@diebitter:
Go ahead and produce an actual quote about a punishment by one of the EU representatives in that article. That sentence you quoted is just an unfortunate summary by the author, probably to justify the clickbaity headline. (And yeah, I usually really like the Guardian.)

I don't think anyone believes that the UK would be better off without access to the single market, do you? Letting the UK freeload on the advantages of the single market without fully contributing to it is dangerous to the existence of that market. This is a tragedy of the commons type problem, the lone UK could theoretically freeload on the single market and be better off in the short term, but if everyone acts that way then there won't be a single market left and all would be worse off.

Why would everyone be worse off if the single market fell apart?

I'd suggest that as with the failing Euro, for every net loser (Greece), there is a net winner (Germany).

It isn't really punitive, it is just the case that they can't offer the same deal to non-members or their is no point to the union. They aren't "punishing" africans for not letting them trade on the same terms as EU nations do, this is no different.

I am really surprised frankly that they seem to want to offer us any kind of deal at all. We told them to f*** off basically, I don't think we'd want to deal with a country that behaved like that towards us.

The single market clearly isn't zero sum. It saves a ton of money to have a shared regulatory framework for 28 countries instead of 28 individual ones. You save regulatory institutions and facilitate trade because products don't have to be certified for each individual country.

I take it you don't support trade with the Republic of Ireland or most of the Commonwealth then.

Shame they didn't stick to trade then, rather than pursue a federalist ambition to make a Europe superstate - and construct mechanisms that continually press to centralise sovereignty away from member states. Where the carrots have failed, they now resort to sticks, it seems.

Your side won and the UK will leave, I have no idea why you are upset about a completely rational EU negotiating position that simply looks out after its remaining members and was perfectly well communicated long before the referendum.

I'm asking again, what do you think the EU position should be?

UK will get its 3% tarriff or whatever WTO MFN status is now, which basically amounts to no trade deal at all.

What deal do you want? Norway? Switzerland? Keep in mind any deal necessarily involve giving up sovereignty to adopt a common regulatory framework and to allow free movement of goods/services/labor.

You guys filed for divorce and are now saying EU should happily become your friend with benefits.

No, it's the element of 'punishment' that I object to.

Luckily, the prime minister says no deal over bad deal, which is excellent imo.

Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about negotiation would agree. Muppets wouldn't.