3 ms·

"They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states

"They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?" That says something truly horrible about the EU as an institution - that, by the admission of its leaders, what they think will continue to hold it together in the future is threats and intimidation. Presumably this is because they intend to enact more Weimar-style tactics like they did to Greece and Cyprus and they think that the consequent impetus to leave across the EU will only strengthen. The fact that they've been clear, up front and honest about this and May is in denial about it doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

vacri 10y ago
The threat isn't one of invasion or punitive payments, it's simply "if you leave, we're not going to give you preferential treatment in trade or politics". It's kind've self-evident - if you choose to leave the union, why should you still get to play with their toys? If a US state seceded from the union (not that it can), the US wouldn't give it sweetheart deals. If you choose to go it alone, then why shouldn't the union say 'business is business', and do the standard thing in business: hardball. Use your size to squeeze the best possible deal for yourself. The UK 'wanted' out, and that's what 'out' gets you.