Brexit THread

[Tirnam]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

[IceAgeComing]

There's also the fact that a majority of EU member states support Freedom of Movement and would oppose any changes to it.  This is especially the case for the New Member Stated - although countries like Poland are characterised as being anti-immigration because of their refugee quota policies when it comes to their citizens rights to travel, study and work in other EU member states they are highly protective.  If there was a special arrangement for the UK allowed single market access without free movement then they'd block it as that precedent might cause shifts against freedom of movement in other EU states that would hurt new member states more than anyone else.

The Brexit deal and any Treaty Changes to limit free movement need to be support unanimously by EU Member States and they would be blocked by someone so it'd a non-starter not because of the "EU" as an organisation but because of national governments for whom free movement is a key principle or who's citizens benefit from the extra rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

Why do you assume she'll be forced to capitulate? If economics were all that mattered, Brexit would never have been brought to a vote, let alone begun. And if the EU were truly interested in freedom instead of being a large lowest common denominator market, it would have done more about Poland and Hungary's actions impinging judicial independence than toothless complaints by now. The way the EU has acted of late, if Franco and Mussolini were still in charge of Spain and Italy (don't ask how they're still alive) it wouldn't complain in the least so long as they were in favor free trade and free movement of people.

[EPG]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

Why do you assume she'll be forced to capitulate? If economics were all that mattered, Brexit would never have been brought to a vote, let alone begun. And if the EU were truly interested in freedom instead of being a large lowest common denominator market, it would have done more about Poland and Hungary's actions impinging judicial independence than toothless complaints by now. The way the EU has acted of late, if Franco and Mussolini were still in charge of Spain and Italy (don't ask how they're still alive) it wouldn't complain in the least so long as they were in favor free trade and free movement of people.

The EU is not a federal government. Think about what would happen if the EU gave the UK a deal that was tailored to be better for the UK than EU membership: every other country would vote leave to demand the same thing. Then nobody would get any of the benefits of the EU. It's not a sustainable strategy.

[parochial boy]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

Why do you assume she'll be forced to capitulate? If economics were all that mattered, Brexit would never have been brought to a vote, let alone begun. And if the EU were truly interested in freedom instead of being a large lowest common denominator market, it would have done more about Poland and Hungary's actions impinging judicial independence than toothless complaints by now. The way the EU has acted of late, if Franco and Mussolini were still in charge of Spain and Italy (don't ask how they're still alive) it wouldn't complain in the least so long as they were in favor free trade and free movement of people.

The EU is not a federal government. Think about what would happen if the EU gave the UK a deal that was tailored to be better for the UK than EU membership: every other country would vote leave to demand the same thing. Then nobody would get any of the benefits of the EU. It's not a sustainable strategy.

Yes, and it's pretty important to remember that part of the reason the British did vote for Brexit was  because of the leave campaign's promise that Britain would be able to retain all of the advantages of membership, while being able to get rid of all of the inconveniences.

Now May might not "capitulate", but doing so would require an eventual, final, recognition that refusing to commit to the four freedoms during a transition period would mean losing all of the advantages of membership - and a a very hard landing on exit.

In any case, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are already signed up to free movement, so it is not that keeping them out of the EU.

[Tirnam]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

Why do you assume she'll be forced to capitulate? If economics were all that mattered, Brexit would never have been brought to a vote, let alone begun. And if the EU were truly interested in freedom instead of being a large lowest common denominator market, it would have done more about Poland and Hungary's actions impinging judicial independence than toothless complaints by now. The way the EU has acted of late, if Franco and Mussolini were still in charge of Spain and Italy (don't ask how they're still alive) it wouldn't complain in the least so long as they were in favor free trade and free movement of people.

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.
Against Poland the EU Commission has trigger the article 7, an unprecedented measure, because of the risks of a grave violation of the rule of law, meaning that Poland's voting rights in the EU institutions could be suspended (unlikely to pass because it would require all the State members to vote in favor).
And for Hungary, the EU Parliament has voted in favor of a resolution asking for the triggering of the article 7.
The EU is still an international organization, bound by its treaties and the powers that the States have decided to give to the EU. It can not imagine sanctions that the treaties haven't planned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

[Tirnam]

You can't define the EU as an union of illiberal democracies juste because of Poland and Hungary, that makes no sense.
BTW it's kind of funny to see an argument for the UK outside of the EU because of Poland while the UK always tried to ally with Poland against any further integration in the EU. When the EU trigger the article 7 it wasn't Germany or France who came out against, it was the UK.
It's the UK who try to rally Poland to its Brexit position because the economy comes first (unsuccessfully because Poland wants to guarantee the rights of its citizens living in the UK).

[EPG]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

Again, the EU is not a federal country like the USA. Like it or not, almost no normal person sees regulating the exact degree of judicial independence as either a function or an advantage of being in the EU.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

Again, the EU is not a federal country like the USA. Like it or not, almost no normal person sees regulating the exact degree of judicial independence as either a function or an advantage of being in the EU.

So in other words, the EU exists for the benefit of plutocrats rather than democrats.

[Tirnam]

And again it's the UK who led the fight against any stronger role for the EU in protecting human rights and the rule of law. For example it's the UK who asked that the Lisbon treaty, which gave to the EU's charter of fundamentals rights full legal effect, specifies that the charter doesn't extend EU powers.

[ingemann]

And again it's the UK who led the fight against any stronger role for the EU in protecting human rights and the rule of law. For example it's the UK who asked that the Lisbon treaty, which gave to the EU's charter of fundamentals rights full legal effect, specifies that the charter doesn't extend EU powers.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

[EPG]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

Again, the EU is not a federal country like the USA. Like it or not, almost no normal person sees regulating the exact degree of judicial independence as either a function or an advantage of being in the EU.

So in other words, the EU exists for the benefit of plutocrats rather than democrats.

With respect, you are now talking buzzwords that aren't relevant to the question, just to maintain an oppositional position.

Almost no Europeans think it is the job of the Commission to regulate the exact degree of judicial independence in their countries. It certainly would not be "democratic" for the Commission to overrule elected governments, even if it were right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

I hope you'll excuse me for thinking the EU would happy to have monopolies and cartels, provided they were European ones.

[ingemann]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

I hope you'll excuse me for thinking the EU would happy to have monopolies and cartels, provided they were European ones.

You would be wrong, as EU doesn't allow them to be created, and when a hidden cartel are discovered, they're dissolved and the companies behind them are made to pay billions. EU are very committed to capitalism and the free market. The American companies just makes the mistake to think, they can get away with the same sh**t in Europe as in USA, it's also why older American companies, who have been on the European market for decades rarely run into the same problems, as they know how the EU courts works.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

I hope you'll excuse me for thinking the EU would happy to have monopolies and cartels, provided they were European ones.

You would be wrong, as EU doesn't allow them to be created, and when a hidden cartel are discovered, they're dissolved and the companies behind them are made to pay billions. EU are very committed to capitalism and the free market. The American companies just makes the mistake to think, they can get away with the same sh**t in Europe as in USA, it's also why older American companies, who have been on the European market for decades rarely run into the same problems, as they know how the EU courts works.

Older companies are usually in mature industries where you aren't creating new products but improving existing ones. It's when one creates new products that one is most likely to create a new "monopoly". Basically, the EU insists that innovators share the wealth created by their innovation.

[Tirnam]

The EU doesn't want that innovators share the wealth created by their innovation. The EU isn't against a company having a major leading position in a market.  But the EU says that you can not abuse a such position to prevent any competition.
For example Microsoft was never prosecuted for having a 85% share in the OS market. But they were prosecuted for using this market share to force the use of their media player and internet navigator.
Google isn't condemned for being in a monopoly in the market of web searching engine but for using this monopoly to promote their shopping website.
And if you want an example of the EU Commission attacking EU companies, the highest fine (3 bn €) in a case was in the case of European trucks constructors who agreed between them on prices and the implantation of innovations.

Anyway in Brexit news, the negotiations for the transition start with some difficulties, as expected. For the EU's negotiator, Michel Barnier, the UK's demands (about reducing citizens' right and vetoing EU laws) are surprising and hard to understand, the UK has to give way if they want a transition.
The UK blames the EU's lack of good faith after that the EU published one of their negotiating positions which ask for the right for the EU to apply sanctions on the UK during the transition, if the UK doesn't respect the rules of the single market.
Also, even if it was negotiating during the phase I, the case of the Irish border is still unclear, the EU says that it still waits for a strong commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border. Barnier said that British red lines will make a hard border unavoidable.

[Tirnam]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Again, the EU is an international organization, it's not the EU who will fix it, but the States members.
The UK has insisted that this should be the rule, so this is the rule, to change the rules all States must agree, obviously Poland and Hungary will oppose any change. But ultimately yes, the UK leaving the EU makes Poland and Hungary more isolated inside the EU.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example Microsoft was never prosecuted for having a 85% share in the OS market. But they were prosecuted for using this market share to force the use of their media player and internet navigator.

So we have the EU to thank for the success of iTunes and Chrome?  That's rather delusional thinking, in my opinion.

[Tirnam]

No one has ever claimed that you should thank the EU for Chrome or iTunes.

But do you believe that it was fair from Microsoft to only propose their internet navigator? Don't you think that forcing Microsoft to offer to their consumers, in March 2010, a choice between 12 different internet navigators was a good thing for them?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one has ever claimed that you should thank the EU for Chrome or iTunes.

But do you believe that it was fair from Microsoft to only propose their internet navigator? Don't you think that forcing Microsoft to offer to their consumers, in March 2010, a choice between 12 different internet navigators was a good thing for them?

I think it didn't really matter.  Over here in the benighted U.S., we moved away from IE quite readily when there better browsers.  In fact the only real difference in the browser market in 2010 between the US and the EU was that in 2010, the EU had a duopoly of IE and Firefox while in the US, IE had about half the market just as in the EU, but we had three browsers, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari that each had about a sixth of the market.  The idea that the EU had anything to do with the decline in IE use is laughable. (Unless one thinks Microsoft had to spend too much of its resources worrying what the EU might do to spend them in improving IE.) The idea that people need 12 browser choices is even more laughable.

[Tirnam]

No one has ever claimed that you should thank the EU for Chrome or iTunes.

But do you believe that it was fair from Microsoft to only propose their internet navigator? Don't you think that forcing Microsoft to offer to their consumers, in March 2010, a choice between 12 different internet navigators was a good thing for them?

I think it didn't really matter.  Over here in the benighted U.S., we moved away from IE quite readily when there better browsers.  In fact the only real difference in the browser market in 2010 between the US and the EU was that in 2010, the EU had a duopoly of IE and Firefox while in the US, IE had about half the market just as in the EU, but we had three browsers, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari that each had about a sixth of the market.  The idea that the EU had anything to do with the decline in IE use is laughable. (Unless one thinks Microsoft had to spend too much of its resources worrying what the EU might do to spend them in improving IE.) The idea that people need 12 browser choices is even more laughable.

Why you have always to exaggerate things? No one has ever said that the EU created Chrome, no one has ever said that the EU brought down IE. I was just explaining why the EU fined Microsoft. Microsoft was sued by the American Justice for the same reason in the end of the 1990s.
Maybe you find the idea of offering 12 browser choices laughable, but at least the consumers were informed of the existence of these 12 browsers.
Now, if you want examples on how the EU law has helped consumers by attacking european companies (since you complained about the EU be fine with european cartels) I can give you some.

[parochial boy]

No one has ever claimed that you should thank the EU for Chrome or iTunes.

But do you believe that it was fair from Microsoft to only propose their internet navigator? Don't you think that forcing Microsoft to offer to their consumers, in March 2010, a choice between 12 different internet navigators was a good thing for them?

I think it didn't really matter.  Over here in the benighted U.S., we moved away from IE quite readily when there better browsers.  In fact the only real difference in the browser market in 2010 between the US and the EU was that in 2010, the EU had a duopoly of IE and Firefox while in the US, IE had about half the market just as in the EU, but we had three browsers, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari that each had about a sixth of the market.  The idea that the EU had anything to do with the decline in IE use is laughable. (Unless one thinks Microsoft had to spend too much of its resources worrying what the EU might do to spend them in improving IE.) The idea that people need 12 browser choices is even more laughable.

Yeah, seriously, you are arguing in a weird circle here. Are you really trying to disagree with the fact that companies in a position of market dominance can and do abuse that power?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are you really trying to disagree with the fact that companies in a position of market dominance can and do abuse that power?

They certainly can, but only in certain circumstances.  Browsers and media players aren't those circumstances.  It's reasonably easy for end users to install browsers and other software if they offer features they want that the dominant provider(s) don't.  History shows that end users were perfectly willing to do that and that it didn't take government action to make it possible.

Maybe you find the idea of offering 12 browser choices laughable, but at least the consumers were informed of the existence of these 12 browsers.

The idea that consumers are idiots who can't find out on their own about alternatives unless wise bureaucrats make certain they are informed is what is laughable.  Especially since those "wise" bureaucrats acted as if browsers were a commodity like cans of peas. What most people care about when it comes to browsers is will it show the content they want shown, will it do it fast, will it do it reliably. They've shown they can make reasonably competent choices about that.

Not necessarily perfect choices, because there are costs involved in selecting between alternatives and in switching from one alternative to another, so minor differences in speed and reliability aren't going to be worth determining for most people. That's why being "presented"12 different browsers is laughable.  If and when people reach the decision that they need to change from the browser that they have been using to another, they aren't going to simply pick another browser at random, or waste time trying out all 12 options for themselves.  They'll do an internet search and see which two or three browsers get recommended most and pick from a far more reasonable number of choices. Granted there will be a few who would do an in-depth comparison of 12 (or more) different browsers, but they'd be doing that even if the EU weren't mandating that they be presented browsers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a Eurocrat being honest.  The EU isn't about what's best for people, it's about what's best for industry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43104378/single-market-is-best-solution-for-uk-guy-verhofstadt