What if the EU realises that even if both walk away as winners no one will easily follow the UK, because frankly no other EU member state is in a similar position to the UK?
There's only 9 member states who didn't adopt the Euro, so basically everyone else already disqualified to leave the EU. When you look at the remaining 9 (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) there is either no appetite for an exit (Sweden, Denmark) or the country has simply no leverage at all.
So would the EU risk to fall apart when the UK gets a good deal? Nope.
Remember you heard it first here.
I don't consider it likely but I also don't consider the current political climate "rational", sadly.
The Eurozone is really what should be dismantled, because it's flawed by design. I'd hate to see the union itself which is originally a peace and trade project disintegrate because of a flawed currency and disagreements on people movement.
What matters though is if another country thinks they can leave the EU with the outlook of a "better" deal outside the EU. The EU would fall apart if countries would believe that, but what I tried to say is that the EU doesn't really have to fear that, because no other country is even remotely in the same position as the UK, so the chances of a "better" deal outside the EU are almost non-existent, because the fact alone that they don't have their own currency would makes significantly more difficult.
Therefore the EU can actually work out a good deal for the UK and the EU without jeopardizing the EU membership of others. Makes sense?
Italy won't vote out because of a "better deal outside" (nor do I believe the UK did!). They'll vote out if populists can convince them there will be fewer immigrants without disastrous economic consequences.
The only option is an ad-hoc constitutional law that allows for a specific (non-binding) referendum and requires a large (2/3) majority on the parliament. Interestingly, this was last done in '89, to vote to transition from the (economical) European Community to the (political) European Union.
The EU should stand or fall on its own merits. The moment people start to think, we have to make it painful for people to leave, it loses its legitimacy. It is on the way to be a new USSR. And if one day continental Europe slowly turns into a military dictatorship (it is effectively already a soft power dictatorship) I will not have any sympathy for whatever happens to people like you.
I didn't mean that in the sense of being a cosmopolite euro-citizen, I simply meant I'm a resident of an EU country other than the UK.
I have no wishes for consequences as punishment alone, I only want consequences in the sense that benefits such as low trade barriers should be shared among those who create them and share the burdens, e.g who accept strict common envirinmental regulations and allow freedom of people to move.
Of course countries would prefer the benefits of a collaboration/union/pact/ without the responsibilities and costs.
EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today. But it's just psychological manipulation. If citizens of a country are overwhelmingly convinced that freedom of movement makes sense only for similar economies, or only up to a limit, etc, then it's not the EU's place to blindly insist that they obey. It's the EU's place to convince them they're wrong, if necessary, by letting them go their own way so some years later the results can be compared. That is how you build trust and loyalty.
You know, 18 months ago I was vaguely pro EU. Like most people I had not thought about it much, in truth. The UK referendum forced me to do my research, to spend a lot of time pondering the issues, to engage with the eurosceptic arguments. And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them, wherever those countries are located in the world. In other words, how the global system of cooperation already operates. There is no need to artificially tie immigration with financial regulation, or medical approvals with subsidies to farmers. There is no need for a flag, an anthem, an all powerful centralised bureaucracy of people who care more about their pensions than the people they rule.
Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
That's pretty subjective. But it's at least a way of tying cooperation on difficult areas (migration, environment, aid, other regulation) to positive effects (trade, peace). I'm not saying it's a perfect or necessary setup - but it's a way of arranging things that countries have voted to be part of.
> EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today.
I think cherry picking is a reasonable description, since with the setup as it currently is (like it or not) member states accept the negative consequences in migration/aid/regulation in order to achieve the benefits. In order to e.g. have all the trade benefits but but accept the environmental benefits or help with migration - you'd be cherry picking. Of course you could argue that these things are independent. They should be tried on their own merit. That it's government overreach to combine. I'm not even going to gave that discussion now (I don't even necessarily disagree) but that's not the situation.
> And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. [...] It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them > Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
Sure. But a whole different discussion. In such a future or alternative reality we wouldn't need to discuss what the EU does when Britain leaves because there is no EU. It might be the case that the EU is doomed. Or that it is dismantled. But it won't be this year, or the next. So the debate about what kind of agreement will be struck between the EU and the UK is still a real one. These negotiations will take place between the actual, flawed, mega-package-deal EU, and the UK. It's those negotiations I'm talking about, not whether the EU is actually a good idea, can survive long term etc. Interesting, but separate topics.
Verhoofstadt today:
"it is an illusion to suggest that the UK will be permitted to leave the EU but
then be free to opt back into the best parts of the European project,
for instance by asking for zero tariffs from the single market without
accepting the obligations that come with it."
"The EU must use the UK’s departure to reform and move forward."
What vote exactly?
Citation needed.
Also, you didn't answer my question: What vote exactly? You mentioned Italy, so I guess it had something to do with Italy - however you haven't answered.
I'm talking about future referendums. Those can be held in any European country where either a EU-critical party wins power, or a popular demand calls for it (such calls recently failed in Finland, for example, although a referendum had it been held would never have resulted in an exit).
So to be very clear- There are no planned exit referendums, there have been no other such referendums than the Brexit vote, and without petitions or power shifts there are no such votes on the horizon. So by "What votes" I mean e.g a vote under LePen or the next Italian government.
Not sure what you think I "wish", I certainly don't hope for any such referendums around Europe.
No, you are not. You referenced a vote in Italy. There was a referendum in Italy totally unrelated to any of the "what ifs" you're spilling here.
> So to be very clear- There are no planned exit referendums, there have been no other such referendums than the Brexit vote, and without petitions or power shifts there are no such votes on the horizon. So by "What votes" I mean e.g a vote under LePen or the next Italian government.
What next Italian government? Do you think M5S does even stand a chance?
> Not sure what you think I "wish", I certainly don't hope for any such referendums around Europe.
Of course mate.
Whether or not the EU should in fact try with any means to keep the union together is another question of course. But; assuming that's their goal, then I consider it pretty reasonable to a) try to rob London of as much financial business as possible by scaring large corporations into moving to EU cities b) scare other countries into not leaving the union by demonstrating a bad deal for the UK c) set tough positions before the Brexit negotiations start (which may be loosened during the actual negotiations).
As a citizen of another EU country, I completely back what the EU is doing centrally at the moment, that is, I care less about the lives and careers of london financial workers, than I do the future integrity of the union. I completely agree with statements like "They voted out and there has to be consequences". Not because it is axiomatically so, but because I think tough consequences are the right choice