Why is the EU wishing to punish the UK instead of listening their detractors and seeking dialogue? [closed]

Question

The European Union has a certain number of flaws, many of which make citizens of member states unhappy. Normally in a democratic system, the majority tries to listen to the minority and do compromises.

After the British voted their intent to leave the Union, it is a major signal that there are at least some things which are seriously wrong with the Union the way it is right now, and there is need for serious reform. Initially only the German government wanted to play nice with the UK and go that route, while the other member states only wanted to "punish the UK for her treason". Yet being in a minority, Germany had to join the vision of the other states.

My question is, why is this? By acting in such a stubborn way, the Union is ignoring its own problems, weakening itself and isolating itself to a point I find ridicule. By listening to their detractors and finding compromises, they'll surely improve how the Union works and come up with a stronger, more solid Union.

Answer 1

First, I would like to put into doubt concepts like "punish the UK" or "not listening to detractors", which are presented as facts by the OP.

So far, the position of the EU is that it wants a fast exit of the UK and that the position of the UK after the leave will have to be negotiated and will not be dictated by the UK wishes. The former helps shorten the uncertainty and make a faster the return to normality (and at the same time, preventing the UK from trying to bargain -again- for keeping membership of the EU in exchange of forcing the UK model on the EU). The latter is international politics as usual; treaties are negotiated to the convenience of both parties and not only of one of them (unless one of them has a really big stick).

So much to "punish the UK" motto, I think the EU is better explained as self-interest, in order to help to prevent further breakups.

And for "listening to critics", this is not what has happened here, either¹. It was an issue of a country trying to redefine a treaty that such a country entered freely. And while the UK is free to decide that such a treaty is no longer profitable to it and to wish to renegotiate it, also the rest of the EU is free to reject such changes and say "take it or leave". Cameron ² did think that he could score a political goal by forcing the EU to give yet more of an special treatment to the UK with his threats of leaving the EU³. He was wrong, but of course at the end he had others to blame for his mistakes.

The European Union are 28 countries, each country represented by a democratic government that each few years must present a positive result to its people or face dismissal. This always has always put a lot of pressure in its governance (which laws are approved, how funds are divided, etc). If every country gets to redefine, under threat of leaving it, what the EU treaties are and which ones affect them and which ones do not affect, the EU would stop being anything meaningful in a few years.

Since the EU has offered all what they are willing to offer, and the UK public has rejected such a deal, a breakup as fast as possible is the best possible outcome. As you said, the EU is a democracy and that would make it absurd for a single country to dictate terms of what the EU should be just because that country acts in such a stubborn way. Note that freedom of movements is one of the core tenets of the EU from its principle, it is not a recently added change.

Could the EU be better? As everything in this life, yes it could. But the need to coordinate the interests of 28 countries⁴ makes changes neither easy nor fast (at least, not fast enough to get Cameron elected, and that was his main stake). The "do it my way or I leave" is a very clumsy negotiating tactic that is not very appropriate for such complex issues.

¹ Did any supporter of Brexit claim for the need of a change in the way the European Commission or the European Parliament work? I did not hear many constructive critics during this campaign, just requests to alter UK relationships with the EU.

² Note that I am singling Cameron and neither the whole of the UK, nor the whole of the voter nor even the whole of Brexit supporters.

³ In fact the EU did send a proposal to the UK to make it more amenable (the February points, here is the official document), and that gave more flexibility to the UK in themes sensible to them, but that was not enough to convince the UK public.

⁴ Obviously, Nazi Germany would not have needed to negotiate any changes it wished, and would have had it way easier. That does not stop stupid comparisons, though.

Answer 2

I don't think it's about punishment. It's more about respecting the voting of the British people and completing the exit as fast as possible and as clean as possible. The British people want to leave the EU and now the British government have to implement the people's wishes. It's neither good for the EU nor for the UK to lengthen the exit. It's just normal that the UK cannot or will not get better conditions than the member states or better conditions as it had before. But that's no punishment; that's just the nature of being or being not a part of an alliance. If one leaves an alliance one will not longer benefit from it. One cannot expect to get better conditions after he has left because if that would be the case nobody would want to be part of an alliance. Each alliance must give its members preference otherwise nobody would want to become a part of it.

Answer 3

There's not much to add to the excellent @SJuan76's answer, but let me give it a try, in attempt to answering in "layman's terms". I must say that my answer is deliberately simplified, so one certainly can find counter-arguments to many statements within.

---

The political integration of the European Union was based on three essentially different models:

Germany

Faithful to its federative system and to Erhard's principles of minimal intervention of the state to the economy, Germany strives to build EU as a liberal and a loose alliance of states (likewise the Swiss Confederation).
In many cases, Germany was willing to negotiate and find mutually acceptable solutions, even sacrificing its national interests:

• Germany, having 82 million population, has the same political "weight" in the EU as France or Italy (60-65 million) — regardless the common population-based voting system;
• Germany is paying the major share of the EU budget, much bigger than its formal EU "weight".

France

On the contrary, France is a country with a much stronger centralization.
Historically, the French state plays much more important role in all affairs, including the economy.
The majority of French citizens see the EU's future as a giant super-state with a single government, actively dictating the rules of the economic game.

Britain

Britain understood the EU in the third way: Common Market, and the rest is a forced necessity.

---

So initially, the two (constantly competing) concepts always found a compromise.
After the Britain has joined the EU (well, the EEC), linking now three essentially different visions of the EU became extraordinarily difficult.

This was one of the reasons why De Gaulle has vetoed Britain's entry into the EEC in June 1967.

During the times of the EU history, there were numerous cases when the EU has provided Britain with benefits, discounts, and exceptions, in order to ensure unanimous vote in the fundamental decisions of the EU.

Since the Brexit, the U.K. will be able to roll back to the stage of the Common Market and "start making our own relationships with the rest of the world" — a quote from the infamous interview of Nigel Farage (YouTube).

At the same time, the EU will turn to a more dynamic, "dual" German-French vision of the Union, with no longer need to offer trade-offs in terms of the internal EU policies.

The above is the core reason why many EU officials urge the U.K. not to delay the Brexit.

Answer 4

Think about the choice of wording for a moment: what does punish mean? How could "The EU" punish "The UK" for leaving?

• Could the EU offer only a bad deal for trading goods and services? Well, the UK is free to reject any deal it doesn't like, so that's not punishment in any way. They wanted back control, they can wield it. If it is not to their advantage, that's not punishment.

• Could the EU refuse to give the UK financial industry the "Passport" for marketing their products in 27 nations? Of course; it's the EU's right and one of the perks of membership the UK has just voted to leave. Is it punishment that you can't have your cake and eat it?

• Are tariffs a punishment? No, they're basic rules of trade between nations in the absence of other regulation and AFAIK nothing to be bitter about. The WTO rules are agreed upon by many nations.

In conclusion, there is no punishment ahead. That the EU will negotiate hard is any party's right, especially if it needs to pay attention to separatist parts of populations in some of their member states.

The EU (its predecessors to be precise) was founded on the idea of generating stability on a continent that has been torn apart by two World Wars. Personally I value this stability, yes this peace, and am willing to give up a considerable part of sovereignty and tax euros to keep it that way. 350 million pounds (or euros) a week is a bargain for stability and peace.

Answer 5

It seems to me all the answers are wrong and outdated. Yes, several heads of state and important politicians within the EU have remarked that the UK should be punished. Why? Because if the UK actually Brexit and enjoy a better life afterwards, then other countries will want to go out too!

During the referendum, they tried to make the UK electors believe that exiting from the union would bring an economic disaster for their country, so if instead the British pounds goes higher than ever in a few years against the euro, and that the UK economic growth explodes, what then? Empty threats.

Now, the other answers try to explain this is imaginary, so here are some actual quotes :

• M. Hollande, French president : "There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price, otherwise we will be in negotiations that will not end well and, inevitably, will have economic and human consequences".

• Jens Spahn, senior member of the CDU about Merkel stance : “We cannot grant any special treatment even before negotiations. Then we would have 27 special agreements tomorrow. Then there won’t be a European Union any more,” he said. “We have to negotiate really hard, we have to remain tough.”

• M. Junker, Comission president : "Speaking today Mr Juncker used a French slang term to tell the Belgian Federal Parliament in Brussels that he expected the bill to be very "salty" - meaning hefty or pricey.".

Also, They want to halt UK-friendly countries such as Ireland, Hungary and Germany “going soft” on us, a top European official told The Sun..

We could go on and on, but the idea is to make the life of the UK miserable enough (yet not too much of course as it is an important economic partner still) so that any future referendums in any other state will not end up with an exit.

Addendum: it makes perfect sense for EU politicians to want to chastise the UK as its departure could weaken the EU if handled badly. It also makes sense for the French and German presidents to take the same stance as they see themselves as the EU's roots and protectors. But of course there are more reasons to their hard stance against Brexit: if the EU can create financial barriers against the UK (and the Brexit would be a good excuse for it), then London's position as a financial hub will suffer and the money and well-paid jobs will go to other hubs within the EU (Paris, Frankfurt, Milano, ...). And this is probably why M. Hollande is so vocal against the Brexit: so Paris gets the lion's share out of it. See this article, among many others.