> it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with
It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus.
It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far.
I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.
The choice of words matters. Any type of self preservation by the EU is demonized as evil self interest.
positive wording -> negative wording
Keep 4 core principles of the single market as written in the "constitution"? -> EU is strong arming the UK and trying to punish it in negotiations and is not willing to even give small concessions.
UK is part of the EU until Brexit negotiations have been concluded -> EU has the upper hand in negotiations.
EU wants to avoid a hard border and the potential societal unrest at all costs with the backstop -> EU is trying to tie the UK into the customs union indefinitely with the backstop. / The EU is trying to impose a border between northern Ireland and the mainland.
I mean seriously what did you expect? Negotiating the constitution of a country or political union isn't realistic at all. It was never going to happen unless the other party wants to voluntarily self destruct itself. Do you think Russia could renegotiate the abolishment of human rights in the US to arrest political enemies abroad? Because that's just as silly.
Heck I've also read this gem recently (paraphrased):
Copyright directive passed with significantly more than 70% of the countries voting in favor -> The EU is threatening the sovereignty of member states by passing laws to countries that have voted against them.
The problem with the EU in this case isn't the democratic process. It's the fact that countries voted in favor of it at all.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, but I don't think it's me. The word "evil" only appears once in my comment, immediately preceded by the word "isn't".
Doesn't the backstop apply only to Northern Ireland, though? It's even why the DUP rejects the agreement — because different rules would apply to NY.
The EU is actually not that interested in keeping the backstop indefinitely because it sees the risk that NY will be used by UK companies as a backdoor to the single market.
IIUC, May insisted the backstop would be UK-wide, but not everyone seems to agree with that claim, including at least one DUP MP who thinks (or thought) it’s NI-only.
Simultaneously, many people seem to have a problem with it being UK-wide, and would be absolutely fine with it being NI-only.
Other people have a problem with both options, and yet seem to think it’s incapable of being a problem because everyone agrees a hard border would be a problem.
I really hope I’m accidentally straw-manning that last group, it would be really bad if my perception is correct.
It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus.
It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far.
I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.