Your comment about Greece can easily be turned around: ask the British how voluntary the EU is.

It became voluntary for the British only because our Prime Minister was weak and (foolishly?) gambled on a referendum in return for strengthening his personal support among some of his eurosceptic MPs.

Leaders of other EU countries are unlikely to make the same mistake of letting their populations vote on the issue.

How are leaders of EU countries decided?

Hint: it's by a similar mechanism to referendums

> How are leaders of EU countries decided?

Same way as the structure of the EU itself is decided. Governments fight to keep things away from a vote. Regularly a vote is called anyway because some politician uses the promise of a vote as a way to get elected. Then the EU loses the referendum, election, ... that is called, and then the result is ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur...

Direct quote from Wolfgang Schauble (according to Yanis Varoufakis) : "elections cannot be allowed to set economic policy for the EU".

That sums up the attitude of the EU, and is the attitude that permeates both the EU itself and the basis of it's support. This is a quote from a private conversation I had with a Dutch judge. "What would have happened if we had let elections decide ? Norway would be driving on the left and we wouldn't have the Euro anywhere". The EU is seen by the local elites (the non-businessmen. Lawyers, teachers, doctors, ...) as a way to impose what they consider good policy.

The EU institutions itself are importantly not the real basis of power in the EU. Politicians get sent off to the EU to have a cushy, but faraway, job. It's where political careers go to die (especially the parliament). EU politicians are perceived to have less power than the local ones, even though the opposite is true. And that's what's really happening in Europe : power is shifting more and more locally. Barcelona's increased independence is big. The real power base of the Belgian and Dutch governments is specific cities (Antwerp and the Hague). Outside of those cities, things are going very wrong and support for the government is nonexistent.

I think the British are about to find out. I am glad I am not British.

I would not be supprised if Teresa May was placed in power with the express goal of fumbling the exit.

Hanlon's Razor applies here. (As does, since it's pretty clear our government doesn't know what they're doing, Occam's.)

Not disagreeing... would the Peters principal also apply? Intentionally hired to be incompetent that would also imply malice? Those involved may have the best intentions, so no malice, and we're back to incompetence. Either way, if I were in charge and I needed someone to fumble it I would have picked her. That mail campaign asking people to self identify for deportation was the most anti Brexit thing I could imagine her doing.

The Peter Principle would imply she was a good home secretary. She was actually kind of a disaster, but spent her days keeping out of the press. It's fairly clear her instincts remain to disclose as little information as possible to the press. It's less clear that's a good idea as PM.

Edit: She was, however, probably the best candidate the party had. Ironically, the Labour Party has at least five people in parliament right now who'd make a better Prime Minister, but a fair few of those aren't even in the shadow cabinet.

You're correct. I read the principal incorrectly. The Peter principal requires that a person is competent before being promoted. The Dilbert principle doesn't apply either as management has too much power. There must be a principle where politically the most incompetent person you promote owes you the biggest favors.

I don't know of one. But Gove and Johnson both deserve be their own laws. :)

Greece could have exited the EU, but there really wasn't the public appetite for it and it wouldn't actually have solved any of their problems.

(Somewhat analogous to being trapped in a bad job by poverty; you could quit, but if you don't have savings then your immediate cashflow problems are going to cause you suffering unless you have a better option lined up immediately.)

>Greece could have exited the EU, but there really wasn't the public appetite for it.

"As a result of the referendum, the bailout conditions were rejected by a majority of over 61% to 39% approving, with the "No" vote winning in all of Greece's regions."[0]

"Further, the European Commission signaled that the referendum question, to which they would recommend a "Yes", from its viewpoint should be understood as whether or not Greece wanted to remain part of Europe and the Eurozone, which at the present state included acceptance of receiving conditional bailout help on a set of mutually negotiated and agreed terms."[0]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the political and economic leadership operating within greece didn't have an appetite for it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_bailout_referendum,_2015

That referendum was stupid. Once you have debt, you have to repay it. Had they asked people how they preferred to pay it back, that would have been smarter. But just asking whether they accept a particular plan, without committing at the same time to an alternative plan... I find it ridiculous.

>…Once you have debt, you have to repay it…

Or default, wouldn't have been the first sovereign default on debt "obligations"…

>I find it ridiculous.

Be that as it may, kicking the can down the road and doing more of the same is often a great long term solution.

But its ok, they "accepted" larger haircuts than originally proposed:

"On Monday, 13 July, the Syriza-led government of Greece accepted a bailout package that contains larger pension cuts and tax increases than the one rejected by Greek voters in the referendum."

That's a referendum on a different question!

> there really wasn't the public appetite for it

Oh, the Greek only elected the coalition that had the main goal of leaving the EU. Twice. Then voted for leaving in a referendum.

I guess they really wanted to stay.

(To be honest, I don't think leaving would gain them anything either. But it's their call to make, and their choice was very clear.)

It wasn't in the Syriza manifesto and the referendum was not worded on the question of leaving the EU.

I'm sure they enjoy the loans at low interest rates though

I'm sure enjoying paying off a mortgage for much less than the bank thought it would make off me.

But that's after half of the persons lost every cent they had paid of their mortgages, and consequently their houses, in 2008-2010. Congrats to you, I guess...