The EU is a huge group of people with a huge range of opinions on Brexit. It's not clear at all that the EU will try to inflict as much damage as possible. It wouldn't be a very good idea either because that would hurt the EU as well. There's almost certainly going to be a compromise of some kind.

I doubt any trade agreements the UK might be able to get, would be worth the backlash of turning the EU into an enemy. Especially considering that anyone the UK would want to trade with, probably doesn't also want to harm their relationship to the EU. That last point alone probably ensures that nobody is going to start trade discussions with the UK anyway until after they leave.

I wish I could agree. For me to agree I'd have to believe the people who control the EU are representative of the people they rule and are willing to compromise.

However they have already shown very clearly that they aren't like that. Given the total absence of compromise previously I see no reason to expect any now, unless quite a few of the current leaders of the Commission and EU countries are removed.

The EU will use whatever tactics it can to preserve its own power, national populations be damned.

The EU has compromised, especially with the UK, on a lot of things.

In the past when it was smaller, yes.

Nowadays, not so much. Perhaps that's Juncker, or perhaps it's the fact that it's now so large. See how Cameron's negotiation went (or rather, didn't).

Besides, most of the compromises were simply not forcing the UK to do new things. That's only seen as a compromise because the EU is run by people who believe every member should be forcibly 'harmonised' through automatic implementation of new EU laws. If the EU was more like a standards body that simply recommended laws instead of mandating their implementation, there would be no need for allowing alternatives to be seen as "compromise"

If you don't mandate implementation, you don't have a level playing field; you have a race to the bottom on everything from tax levels to working laws to product standards. Game theoretically, everybody loses in a race to the bottom.

There would be no point in an EU that couldn't mandate laws.

The EU does not control tax law, yet apparently lots of people believe it still has a point. The EU cannot mandate tax or worker rights outside of the EU either. So the only way to stop a "race to the bottom" is to become entirely protectionist and go full North Korea.

Suffice it to say, the EU could have taken many structures that are not the one it has now.

> If the EU was more like a standards body that simply recommended laws instead of mandating their implementation, there would be no need for allowing alternatives to be seen as "compromise" \ Then why have an EU?

The problem for the UK is that they always want have all the benefits but they don't want all the duties.

The UK is not being punished by the EU. The UK punched itself a bloody nose and a few teeth out before jumping into the horse trading, shark pool that is international diplomacy.

There are lots of small favours that the UK will now need to hand out to get what it wants from EEA member states. These favours will cost. Its loosing a institute or a foundation there.

Its clear that the UK benefited a lot economically from being in the single market and regaining access under new agreements is going to be costly. That is not punishment. That is the real world, the UK ate its cake no one is going to give it a new one for free.

I really don’t mind the brexit voters, them I understand. I can’t understand how a conservative party launched itself in the most revolutionary course imaginable over internal politics. Not just reversing 40 years of slow progress in one direction but burning it all down to the ground. Over a very badly phrased referendum.

I think Cameron will go down in history as a terrible PM, a modern day Chamberlain.

"Can we be sure you're going to stick to this trade agreement?"

"Why would you think we wouldn't?"

"You're breaking your treaty with the EU."

This is absurd reasoning.

All the UK will be doing is following the treaties in place to end an existing agreement. That's not breaking a treaty - it is following it.

When that treaty is merely "you cannot sign trade deals" I don't think people signing trade deals would care. That rule exists for the EU's benefit, not for the benefit of member states.

Thats not the point of deals - merely convincing your prospective trade partner that a deal is unfair to you at that time is a hard sell.

The UK signed the deal knowing the consequences of it, why would another country sign a trade deal with you knowing that you will not follow the terms due to your countries internal politics ?

Because that's always a risk with any deal. Look at how many international treaties the USA violates. People still sign deals with them.

> But the EU sees Brexit as a betrayal that must be punished severely to try and scare other countries into not leaving.

No, don't having the same deal while outside of the EU is not punishing.

Why would anyone in the EU want to negotiate or do anything other than stall until the UK is under WTO rules? Wouldn't they want the UK in as weak a position as possible?

No. This is the zero-sum mentality that has been causing the EU such serious economic problems.

Trade creates wealth and wealth is not zero sum. Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it.

Parts of the EU establishment seem locked in a mindset that they can only grow by taking things away from others. I saw a lot of discussion post-Brexit by countries that want to abuse regulatory passporting to try and force banks and other high-earning firms into other EU countries, but no discussion at all about making those countries naturally more attractive. It's the equivalent of saying "We will grow our economy by forcing Facebook to relocate its HQ from Silicon Valley to France by passing a regulation saying they must do so". Even if you brought overwhelming political and economic power to bear and somehow forced the Zuck to move to Paris, it'd just be a terrible idea for all sorts of long term reasons.

> No.

But the rest of your comment seems to say "Yes."

> Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit.

I think that's optimistic. Deals get signed fundamentally because each side individually benefits. A better deal will see the weaker partner able to grow as a result, but that's not necessary for it to be worthwhile to the stronger partner.

> Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it.

There's always a stronger and a weaker player at the table. It might take some fiddling to work out which is which, and it's certainly not limited to a single axis, but deals still happen.

> abuse regulatory passporting

I don't see that as abuse, that's just playing the game with the pieces that are on the board. From France's point of view, given the choice between a quick zero-sum win where they gain the limited number of banks available and a long-term mutual win where everyone grows, why not do both?