that was refused.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commissi...
Shouldn’t every member constantly threaten exit, then, whenever it wants more goodies?
Except they have already lost two major European agencies (European Medicines Agency and European Banking Authority) that are being relocated to Amsterdam and Paris.
[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018...
This is a proposal for relocation if Brexit goes ahead. If it doesn't go ahead, there's no point relocating.
Based on the facts we can now measure, quite a lot of the negative predictions from before the referendum about the results of a Leave vote have not proved to be accurate. We haven't gone anywhere near entering a recession, there weren't emergency budgets costing households thousands of pounds, house prices haven't collapsed, etc. Inevitably this also reduces the credibility of the same sources when they now predict severe negative effects over the longer term based on similar models and assumptions.
At least in some respects, it appears that the UK economy may be doing better than it has for some time. In some other respects, it's doing worse, but whether the cause is Brexit-related or other factors like austerity or increasingly protectionist global trade is unclear.
Probably the two biggest economic effects that have surely been triggered by Brexit itself are the softening of Sterling and the shift in migration patterns, but those are also areas where the change isn't inherently bad. Certainly there are other negative results as well, but a lot of those are more due to uncertainty and negative sentiment than anything that has actually happened so far, so while they are clearly bad for the UK and neither our government nor the EU leadership is going to win any prizes for effective government and leadership any time soon, it wouldn't necessarily be the case that another state considering leaving in the future would mishandle the process as badly as the UK and EU have this time.
It's a fascinating social experiment to watch, particularly as someone who is conflicted on the issue and has a lot of friends and family on both sides of the debate, because if you step back and try to look at reality from a neutral point of view, there's a lot of confirmation bias and selective reporting happening on both sides.
Please explain in detail how Berlin is overcoming the fact that it is vastly outnumbered in the deciding (and voting) bodies.
The Euro has strict monetary policy. This favours economies like those of Germany, and makes it very difficult for economies that often need to dilute their currencies to stay competitive.
In a 'currency union', basically, there can be no shenanigans. It has to be a 'strict' currency, because it's not like the French are going to allow the Poles to just start 'printing Euros'. So, by the very nature of the shared currency, it's going to be strict.
When Italy, Spain and Greece start to have trouble making bond payments - this poses a problem. They can't just start printing Liras or Drachmas anymore.
When their economies are faltering - they would normally print money, dilute their currency, meaning everyone in the country is taking a secret pay cut, retirees get less benefits vis-a-vis other countries. But it's stealthy. Nobody sees it. But in Euros ... everything would have to be repriced for the economy to remain competitive. People have to accept lower pay. Retirees lower benefits. That is politically impossible.
And so you end up with high unemployment for a very long time while it sinks in that they are poor.
Germany was very wary of entering into the Euro because of their historical fears of currency devaluation. It was a big thing for them, to the point that it was a major factor in the rise of Nazism, and that whole WW2 thing. So when they did it, there had to be controls.
Most citizens of Europe would prefer a more trade-like situation, not a true political union. The EU is ultimately an elitist project and it's showing serious signs of strain.
The nominal equality (e.g. re: number of votes) is like that old Anatole France quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.".
We're still going to have those. We just won't be at the table to have any kind of influence.
Brexit has given Britain a choice between (1) the same EU goodies (cancel Art. 50), (2) fewer EU goodies (take the negotiated exit deal), and (3) no EU goodies (no deal Brexit).
As a strategy for “more goodies”, it's a complete disaster.
No, they aren't held against their will. It's an (ever closer) union of friends.
Which may not be possible. It's far easier, after a turnover of leadership, to say "they were stupid", than it is for a leader to admit, "we were stupid".
I'm not in the UK, and I'm not that current on UK politics, but I think there is a bare possibility that this could happen. It would take a no-confidence vote against May, though, and probably before March.
Mind also that maybe a majority is pro remain now, but there is a notable amount of people who "want control" and by the Brexit vote "finally were heard" (even if consequences are bad it was their free and independent decision!) and where it is really hard to convince them to admit that their vote was "wrong" and tontolarate that other "smart people" in parliament overrule that will of "The People", again. This teaches those people, that voting doesn't matter.
In my opinion from a British perspective the best thing would be the software possible Brexit and then rejoin in a few years. However a soft Brexit isn't in the EU's interest. The EU has to distinguish between member and non-member. (While Norway and Switzerland historically have such complicated in between positions)
The only other way would be Brexiter to admit their failure and a charismatic leader without previous relevance who manages to unite the big divide with a magic wand. But I don't see such a person.
All it takes is a vote by Parliament and the political will to admit that it was an insanely stupid idea to ask people to vote on a deal that didn't exist yet.
Countries that have previously held referendums on joining the EU have done so after negotiations were 100% completed. Britain should have done the same when leaving: negotiate a complete Brexit deal first, then vote on that.