The Economist may seem like an unusually monolithic publication because they don’t give bylines to individual story authors, but there’s actually quite a bit of variance in opinions in their reporting. They’re certainly not the EU commission’s press office.

Yeah, I had to double check to make sure I was actually reading the Economist. Felt weird to be getting a perspective like that from them. Why the shift?

They don't seem to make the link that maybe Brexit is not such a bad idea after all, which seems a logical conclusion to me.

You think a recession in Europe will impact Britain less after Brexit? It’s not as if Britain will have more trading options.

The EU is actually pretty protectionist, to the point where Turkey got into some trouble with the WTO for implementing their trade policies as part of the customs union with the EU.

being able to make trade deals outside the EU doesn't count then?

I suspect that is the signal from the Rothchild empire - someone will have to pick up the Italian debt and the EU is arguably obsolete in its present form and wouldn't reform when it could prior to the UK referendum. (Rothchild own half the economist and it is largely their mouthpiece). Going forward and post UK exit from the EU (and probably other nation states too) there will be a reformation around some new organization...

"Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include Cadbury, Rothschild (21%), Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders." - from wikipedia

Exor and Rothchild are very tight indeed https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8FHATY20120417

Exor hold 43% of the Economist the next biggest shareholder is the Rothschild family with 26% https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/15/economist-beco...

The link between brexit and what?

Also, why do you think brexit is not a bad idea?

Kind of for the same reason the American Colonies split from England.

Kind of, except in reverse. UK had a lot of power in internal-EU politics. Now it won't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It had the right and power to implement its own immigration policy. But it turns out the UK is so racist it doesn't even want to grant citizen status to those it had already granted to in law but then failed to process them.

For one thing it means that one person (e.g. Angela Merkel) doesn't get to unilaterally determine UKs immigration levels any longer.

Uk was one of the most powerful members of the EU before brexit and saying "one person (e.g. Angela Merkel) determine UKs immigration levels" is not correct.

UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement, like, Ireland they can decide if a particularity nationality need a visa, I have dual nationality and I can enter Ireland or Uk without a visa using one passport and need a visa using another.

Once the millions of migrants in Germany have the requisite EU papers they would be able to flood into the UK. Shengen is a complete red herring.

Asylum papers aren't citizenship, and do not give the rights a EU citizen has (I believe typically they don't allow to leave the country), so the UK can freely choose if it wants to let them in or not.

> I believe typically they don't allow to leave the country

They do:

> You can travel to the so-called Schengen states (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania , Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary) without a visa, if you do not stay longer than three months and you do not work there. [0]

In the EU that's a moot point anyway as I haven't seen any border control in years. So at least travel-wise they're quite free to move.

[0] https://handbookgermany.de/en/rights-laws/asylum/blue-passpo...

"To travel to many of these countries, however, you must apply for a visa in advance."

you need a visa, is not free to move.

UK and other Member States always had the right to decide for themselves with regards to immigration (movement between Member States was the only thing the EU influenced, and that was not up to Merkel or any head of state)

Other countries found a way to oppose her without leaving the EU. There was a lot of bad press and name-calling back then, but they made their point.

Someone must have sold you a bridge then.

No.

I still cant believe the Aachen Treaty is going forward.

You mean this one [1]? What specifically is the argument against? It seems reasonable...

[1] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/germany-an...