By that argument, the EU would be ‘punishing’ countries for not joining in the first place. EU membership comes with benefits and obligations; countries can choose to leave to avoid the obligations, but the benefits only come as a result of fulfilling them.
That’s what happened. Countries had to join. Of course it’s normal to expect people to fulfill the obligations for the benefits. But to rely on this to keep the EU together allows for corruption that will become a detriment for everybody.
No need to give all benefits. It just shouldn’t be necessary to join.
None of the benefits existed before the EU existed. Countries economically benefit from joining the EU due to those novel benefits, but in absence of them, countries otherwise don’t lose anything they had already by not joining.
None of the disadvantages of not joining existed either. If neighboring countries stop doing business because transaction costs with countries within the EU are becoming cheaper for them then a country can shrink, or join the EU. In democracies that will inevitably lead to pro EU parties winning.
When Walmart comes to a town, everything is cheaper there, until the other shops have closed.
The EU can be all good, like a shared flat. But it could also be like Walmart. It’s difficult to know.
By making fair deals the EU makes sure that it stays good. If the EU is willing to force the hand of countries it’s likely that it will force the hand of its workers.
Of course, Britain can’t quit and expect to keep all advantages.
By that argument, the EU would be ‘punishing’ countries for not joining in the first place. EU membership comes with benefits and obligations; countries can choose to leave to avoid the obligations, but the benefits only come as a result of fulfilling them.
That’s what happened. Countries had to join. Of course it’s normal to expect people to fulfill the obligations for the benefits. But to rely on this to keep the EU together allows for corruption that will become a detriment for everybody.
No need to give all benefits. It just shouldn’t be necessary to join.
None of the benefits existed before the EU existed. Countries economically benefit from joining the EU due to those novel benefits, but in absence of them, countries otherwise don’t lose anything they had already by not joining.
None of the disadvantages of not joining existed either. If neighboring countries stop doing business because transaction costs with countries within the EU are becoming cheaper for them then a country can shrink, or join the EU. In democracies that will inevitably lead to pro EU parties winning.
That’s…that’s how mutually beneficial agreements work?
Yes. Yet is it wise to use the power to force other countries to support it?
Does this make sense to you?
Where do I lose you?
It sounds like complaining that a shared flat is allowing the people living there to have lower cost of living?
They want to live in that flat without contributing anything (rent, chores, etc).
When Walmart comes to a town, everything is cheaper there, until the other shops have closed.
The EU can be all good, like a shared flat. But it could also be like Walmart. It’s difficult to know.
By making fair deals the EU makes sure that it stays good. If the EU is willing to force the hand of countries it’s likely that it will force the hand of its workers.
Of course, Britain can’t quit and expect to keep all advantages.