> You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you want sovereignty, or you want to be part of a bigger system in which you cannot always get your way.
I'm not sure that's true. I think the EU, as a non-political economic union gives you that cake. It's the political side keeping you from eating it. I think there are many financial policies that can be properly disentangled from political beliefs and the ones that can't should be deferred.
TV rules are a microcosm of the real issue: a political union making political decisions when some of its less influential members would prefer such not-purely-economical decisions be delegated. (at least this is what it looks like from the outside)
There's no economics without politics, and vice versa.
The EU as a single market has great potential. But that needs uniform and standardized access, which is politics.
And no, it wouldn't work without the political overlay (or foundations), because member states are already each in a non pure market state, and it would take a very long time for those politically disjoint markets to standarize and uniformize.
And there is power in numbers. The EU is relevant. England will soon find out how irrelevant it is alone.
> There's no economics without politics, and vice versa.
It's not absolute and binary, and the inability to recognize that and delegate on issues which are more political than financial is what causes issues. Passing laws on streaming providers in England based on French ideals of cultural protection is exactly the issue. This should remain a nation-level issue yet the legislators would way rather use the leverage of the super-nation since they can as opposed to whether they should.
> The EU as a single market has great potential. But that needs uniform and standardized access, which is politics.
It doesn't need 100% uniform and standardized access. There are limits to standardization. If they really wanted to be uniform, they'd do so in the language, but clearly the goal is not absolute uniformity. It is uniformity within reason and delegate to nations for other aspects (such as language). It's what is chosen to be delegated that is the issue.
> And there is power in numbers. The EU is relevant. England will soon find out how irrelevant it is alone.
Meh, as relevant as before and many other nations. Self determinism is where real power lies as it is obvious that one's own house should be clean before projecting. The EU can increase its influence and delegate its cultural rulemaking at the same time but it seems that the approach of individual governments, such as those that believe culture should be enforced via legal restrictions, reign.
> [Australia et al] ... I think I could handle that.
Fair point. Though the future might not be so rosy. But in an unfortunate timeline those countries are likely to quickly align with some others anyway.
I'm not sure that's true. I think the EU, as a non-political economic union gives you that cake. It's the political side keeping you from eating it. I think there are many financial policies that can be properly disentangled from political beliefs and the ones that can't should be deferred.
TV rules are a microcosm of the real issue: a political union making political decisions when some of its less influential members would prefer such not-purely-economical decisions be delegated. (at least this is what it looks like from the outside)