She could for example say the EU is not cooperative, the UK will stay for the next 5 years and lower taxes for foreign investments to 5% like Malta does. That would hurt the EU a lot and I bet they'd be more open for discussions after that. If not then continue with other creative ideas, the EU can't survive a remaining UK that is actively working towards hurting the EU. (the EU probably will not be able to survive anyway the way things stand right now)
From a moral perspective you couldn't even argue that it's immoral if the UK did this as highest EU officials have publicly proclaimed that they will make the UK suffer so it'll be an example for others.
Or they would just boot them out. Article 7 TFEU does exist.
And the most you could do with this Article is take the UK's voting rights.
I'm sure the UK can come up with ways to punish the EU into submission without breaching any laws. (5% tax would be legal) Also how about vetoing almost everything. That's a political tool that has shown to be very effective for centuries.
Either way you slice it, if the UK wants access to the market at advantageous terms she will get it. The question is only how much does she want it.
Actually, "the risk of a breach" is sufficient. And given that the UK openly promotes xenophobia and racist attacks are on the rise and have been since the Referendum...
Do not expect Europe to play fairly when the UK decides to play dirty, e.g. by trying to actively damage EU member states while being an EU member state..
> And the most you could do with this Article is take the UK's voting rights.
Actually, the EU can take it all, including voting rights.
> I'm sure the UK can come up with ways to punish the EU into submission without breaching any laws.
And I am sure the EU can very easily destroy the UK's economy for the next few decades without much effort, should the need arise. All they need to do is to invoke trading sanctions with any non-EU state that trades with the EU. Let's see if China or the US would rather trade with 40-odd million Britons, or 500 Million EU citizens.
> Also how about vetoing almost everything.
Aka. "the trantruming toddler in the supermarket" - it doesn't work.
> if the UK wants access to the market at advantageous terms she will get it. The question is only how much does she want it.
I agree - and it will cost the UK dearly. After fourty years of special deals with London, the EU is fed up.
I doubt it makes sense for me to engage in a discussion with you.
Yeah, remember this News, where the UK government essentially encouraged those damn pesky foreigners to Keep their trap shut?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37590044
I agree, that's pretty insane - and it is rather xenophobic, if not encouraging xenophobia.
Well, it states it is a national security / foreign trade issue which I feel is accurate regarding Brexit. I don't view it as racist to not allow foreigners to influence the government on national security issues since the UK is a sovereign country that has interests which clearly conflict with the interests of many EU countries.
Most Western countries have laws to prevent that from happening, including the US. (even accepting foreign donations for election campaigns is limited or forbidden in some cases)
Another characteristic, by the way, is the thought of forcing neighbors to appease the country by means of economic or military force.
History shows us that these things usually don't work out too well.
The UK already has very low corporate taxes. If corporate tax rates was sufficient, we should have a steady stream of companies moving from the US, which has nearly twice as high corporation tax, for example.
But as it happens, low corporation tax is not sufficient.
And certainly not while uncertainty over Brexit terms is wreaking havoc on confidence, and many companies are already planning to move.