They have no incentives to support such useless hostilities
Serious talks should avoid the EU bureaucratic jargon. Both Switzerland and the U.K. will obviously have "some" single market à la carte and it's totally stupid to deny this fact.
In recent days, I was unpleasantly surprised by the aggressive behavior of several EU bureaucrats and the fanatical supporters of the EU integration process when it comes to the suggestions how they want to behave towards the British (and now also Swiss) negotiators and citizens in general.
I kindly apologize to our British and Swiss friends for the behavior of some of these nasty fascist aßholes from the European continent. I am confident that most citizens of EU member countries denounce all the unnecessary hostilities. Many of the Europeans have pledged to cut the throats of these EU fascists as soon as the cutting will be legalized if not subsidized. We ask you for your patience.
One of the "holy words" that these fascists worship to an extent I couldn't imagine just a week ago is the "single market". This phrase is a conflation of several principles that hold inside the EU: the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people.
Tusk, Juncker, and other arrogant individuals recently claimed that U.K. cannot get any single market "à la carte". What does the French phrase mean? It means "according to the menu [in a fancy French restaurant]". More precisely, it means that one can cherry-pick individual entries written on the menu. So the Eurocrats are really saying that "the U.K. can't cherry-pick" rules and principles.
In fact, instead of encouraging them to splash themselves into the toilet, Brexit has apparently energized these fascist wannabes and they're now trying to threaten Switzerland, too. The Guardian. You need to accept the free movement of all the people, the Brits and the Swiss are told, otherwise trade barriers will be erected.
All of it is insane. It's a sign of a huge failure of us, the European citizens, that we have allowed these staggering EU bitches to behave in this way on our behalf. Incidentally, they use the French phrase for "according to the menu" – a phrase that most Europeans are surely unfamiliar with – because they are parasites who are only eating in expensive French and Belgian restaurants – for the money paid by us, the European taxpayers.
OK, can the 4 holy principles of the "single market" be separated? Of course they can and they will have to be. Quite generally, the Brits as well as the Swiss – not to mention most of the nations in the EU that will remain – don't find the idea of the completely unrestricted movement of the people into their countries to be a good idea. It has demonstrably led to significant problems. The U.K. was a country that opened its labor market "really completely" which is why around 0.8 million of Poles are located there, not to mention other nationalities.
Also, the unrestricted movement of the people may lead to Islamization which, as we have seen, may be a huge problem when a lazy irresponsible nation becomes a border country of the Schengen area and elects stinky Bolsheviks that make their nation even worse than it was ever before. As we are seeing, these freeloaders may decide to completely ignore their duty to protect the border of the Schengen area and they tell you "it's your problem". But obviously, if it is "our problem", meaning a problem of the individual nations, they have to have tools to solve the problem at the national level.
I am appalled by the fact that these Eurocrats and the supporters of the EU integration, unlimited movement of people, and (often) intentional Islamization of Europe are behaving more aggressively towards their own citizens as well as other European nations than Nazi Germany did. Nazi Germany was tough but it simply allowed Switzerland to live. Sweden's neutrality was respected equally well. These Eurocrats are demonstrably more obsessed with the dream about their complete power over the whole continent than Adolf Hitler used to be.
At the Politics Stack Exchange, someone asked a sensible question about the reasons why some nations might prefer a free movement of the people and how it affects the trade deal between the EU and the U.K. A šithead nicknamed Relaxed has spammed this whole discussion with dogmatic, would-be intimidating worshiping of the "single market". This šithead has clearly been supported by many other similar šitheads.
What these jerks haven't yet embraced is the fact that these Eurocratic sermons have already been rejected by the British voters and if they will continue with their arrogant behavior, they will soon be rejected by the voters in many other current EU member states. Whatever the vague yet would-be authoritative term "single market" exactly means in the jargon of the EU fanatics, it is spectacularly clear that the Brits don't want it – and the Swiss don't want it, either. Obviously, their control over their immigration policies is what they want instead.
So cheap Eurocrats devouring dear French dinners, can't you just stop using the meaningless phrase? It is only applicable within the EU – and only the Eurocrats are really using this phrase, anyway – but the Brits have voted to leave the EU. So this phrase will obviously no longer apply to them.
If you look at a page about the European Economic Area, you will see that the 28 EU countries are fully integrated according to some EU rules but the other Western European countries have diverse arrangements. Norway and Iceland are members of EFTA and EEA which means that they have to adopt most of the general EU rules (but only a small percentage of the detailed ones!) without actually affecting them. On the other hand, Switzerland isn't a member of EEA and its access to the EU markets (which it really needs) is governed by lots of bilateral treaties.
The Brexit campaign made it spectacularly clear that the proponents of Brexit want to pick Switzerland, and not Norway, to be the role model for the U.K. This claim is particularly obvious for those of us who have watched Durkin's pro-Brexit movie. So can't you please just get used to the fact that the Brits have basically said "No" to the free movement of the people? If the free movement of people is a part of your definition of the "single market", then they have said "No" to the single market, too. And two weeks before the referendum, Cameron has pledged to leave the single market if the result of the referendum is "Leave" which it was.
Great. Can we just please move on now or are you really incapable of understanding this elementary fact, pro-EU scumbags and bureaucratic parasites themselves? Relaxed is clearly unable to get it. Holy cow, how much I hate absolute imbeciles who pretend to be something more than absolute imbeciles.
Now, lots of important countries have already begun their negotiations with the soon-to-be-freed U.K. It's very clear why they want such deals. Now, why isn't the European Union doing the same thing as the U.S. or Australia on our behalf? Well, it's simply because the EU is full of politically incompetent, malicious, ideologically motivated or brainwashed, unelected, unaccountable, and in Juncker's case almost permanently drunk aßholes who don't give a damn about the good condition of the European economies and the well-being of the citizens of EU member states.
Just like the U.S., Australia, Japan, India, or any other economic territory, the economy of the EU has a clear interest to negotiate a good enough treaty with the U.K. In fact, our motivation to do so is much more urgent than the motivation of most of the other countries. But the U.K. has voted to leave the EU and the Brits don't seem to favor the Norwegian template.
So what will you do? They're in an advantage. They may threaten to have no deal. Because the U.K. actually runs a trade surplus with the rest of the EU, it's obvious that such an "emerging trade war" would be a bigger net problem for the EU27 than for the U.K. The U.K. problems could be more concentrated but their overall losses would be smaller. And the European trading partners would probably be more easily replaced because the U.K. does trade with most of the world.
It's obvious that the German industry doesn't want any trade war of this kind, not even its signs. No companies and no major politicians in the post-communist Europe want such a trade conflict with the U.K. In a TV debate on Sunday, the Czech and Slovak prime ministers have made it clear that they don't want anything of the sort and they don't expect any radical voices such as the pro-trade-war voices to matter in the future of the EU. They are confident that sensible balanced voices such as the Czech and Slovak ones will prevail and a satisfactory compromise will be the outcome of the talks.
What do these voices say? They say that the collaboration in lots of activities is clearly mutually beneficial for both sides and it will continue. And if the U.K. will want something that is largely beneficial for the U.K. and not so much for the other side, it can't get the advantages for free. It will also have to do something that is more beneficial for the other side, the EU27. Some agreement may be found as long as the advantages and disadvantages are compensated by something.
But this agreement obviously doesn't mean and cannot mean that the U.K. is obliged to accept whole packages invented by some bureaucrats in Brussels. (The opposite of "a la carte" is the German "Sack und Pack" or, in Czech Latin, "sakum prdum".) Like in a restaurant, you may just order what you want as long as you pay the consensual amount of money for it. It's great when people and nations cooperate only on projects that are mutually beneficial. Why should you always eat the same whole menu? Why do some people apparently promote the idea that it's great when people and nations are forced to cooperate on everything, even when it's against their interests?
The U.K. voters have voted that they simply don't want to be a part of this Soviet-like, centrally controlled EU game anymore. Because of its numerous compatriots in the U.K., Poland may dislike this attitude of the U.K. but they hopefully see the reality and if they see that they have no choice or if they are compensated in some way, the Polish opposition towards a new deal will stop. Why don't you just accept the new reality, pro-EU losers, and the reality involves the looming independence of the U.K. from your arrogant power and from your idiotic regulations and propaganda?
The U.K. wants to regain the control over its immigration policy but it still wants most of the trade and shared business with Europe to continue. It's clearly in the European countries' interest, too. So what is the rational answer of Europe? It's obviously "Yes" to all the things that are about symmetrically beneficial for both sides. But the Brussels' control over the U.K. immigration affairs will stop. Just finally get used to it.
So far, you, the EU would-be dictators, may still intimidate us with sermons about the single market and the benefits of the forced Islamization and other things – because the cutting of your necks hasn't been legalized in most EU countries yet – but you can no longer control the Brits in this way. The more incapable of understanding these basic aspects of the reality you will be, the harder punishment will be awaiting you.
They have no incentives to support such useless hostilities