Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Basil II the B.S]

Will she put the interest of George Soros ahead of the democratic will? Lol.

He even penned a letter to the Daily Mail to tell UK voters ''I know better, do as I say''.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...te-Brexit.html

If you legitimately want the country to explode and politicians to be hanged, go for the second referendum.

[Muizer]

A better question than about Scotland would be about Ireland. If the EU hardliners succeed in forcing a hard Brexit to punish, where does that put Ireland in the mix? This will destroy the Irish economy. Ireland may even then be better exiting the EU and accommodating the UK. In other words, whether May's plan is dead or not, both sides have a real and immediate interest in a softer exit.

If the Irish border were the only issue I think a solution would probably be found.

As for the rest. The EU is not a superstate but 28 nation states held together by agreements. It's not envy or spite but an unwillingness to rock the boat that makes the other 27 stick to what they agreed. It's not realistic to expect the EU to renegotiate its principles between its 27 remaining member states just to accomodate the one that's leaving.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Corbyn has now , if rather reluctantly, agreed to a saecond referendum, if the Labour emembership so chooses. It is likely to do so. Pressures onMay now, willl she put the country's interests before her party's.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ond-referendum

This is a good call and find mate. Cheers. Though in keeping with my 'Corbyn stereotype' thus far it seems likely Corbyn will allow the choice of 'remaining' to be on the ballot sheet if Labour does support it. I won't say yet if he'll get convinced to allow a full remain option, or will as i think he's doing, trying to stick it to May, provide a better brexit alternative, while also using this as a way to achieve a break with the EU based on his traditional doubts- Which i'm not decrying as the most noticeable and positive thing is that unlike May 'My brexit' and the Tories infighting- Labour are actually debating and talking about it, compromising and trying to build a consensus among both the party and the wider electorate (potentially)- exactly how these things should have been done.

I admit though, i've been stuck on trains all day, so i'm unsure if Corbyn has allowed a 'remain' option yet or not It could happen given the Conservative front bench, PM and brexiteers have essentially ruined brexits credibility and legitimacy (Or in some ways never bothered to work on building it), however it would i think be a risk given the polling for remain while higher now than leave, is still within the margin on error (so technically even a future 'remain win' will not be large enough to be 'stable and sustainable')- the question is could it be spun that the Conservatives have made such a hash of brexit, the status quo of not leaving is better for now? Possibly- though i think its again dangerous territory, and i can go back to saying what complete ing morons the Conservative party and their brexiteers have been over this- incompetence doesn't even begin to cover it. Stemming from 'will of the people' to hide the lack of attention paid to building brexits stability and legitimacy, to activating article 50- and creating this -storm for no real reason. Literally its been self-inflicted in this regard.

I agree that May triggered it too early (way too early, she was never ready), nonetheless the question remains: when is it too early if the counterpart doesn't want a good deal anyway? Because I've been following the thing from mostly an EU perspective, and never, at any point, Barnier and co. wanted a mutually beneficial relationship.
The primary goal was to hurt the UK in any way: the Irish border, the Scottish relationship, banks (that one failed spectacularly, the relocation was insignificant compared to what prospected), the talk was always about ''making an example of the UK''. These people played the hard ball. You needed to resurrect Margaret Thatcher to handle them. There's one thing that EU commissars are good at handling and it's their primary competence: trade. When it comes to almost anything else, they are an unmitigated disaster, but they know what they are doing when it comes to trade and tariffs. It's the field they played on and they did well. When you look at the other EU issue like extra EU migration, the Euro, unemployement, wages, tax evasion, they are worthless. They have done nothing but damage.

I agree that Mogg and Boris are even worse. Boris Johnson is the rare case of those right wingers who are defamed as opportunists... and is actually one. He has no personal beliefs, he switches tables to promote himself. Mogg pursues a personal wealth agenda and relies on the desperation of conservative voters for a leader. He's just as mediocre as everyone else.

I wouldn't really panic over the lack of voting base with under 65 for them, because historically, the left had a strong young base, that turns conservative as they age, start paying taxes and have families. It's what kept conservatives afloat since the 50s, it's not going to change.

Labour... has different problems. They are receiving a boost from remain voters, however Corbyn doesn't believe in the EU, nor wants to commit to a remain campaign. Labour problems is that the working class voted 60-70% to leave, while the Labour leadership is obsessed with recruiting Oxbridge blokes so that they can claim the superiority of the ''knowledgeable'' ones, without having any contact whatsoever with what they allege as their electorate. What's worse is that when working class individuals talk they are shut down with ''you don't even have a degree''. The anti-semitism campaign is just panic of the UK oligarchy over Corbyn's socialism, but I don't see it as having any effect on voters whatsoever. The problems are elsewhere; whether Labour wants to be the party of the working class or that of cosmopolitan progressives. Those are economically at odds and there's no room for compatible platforms right now.

Its interesting to get a perspective from the Euro-side here Basil, thanks.

I think just to comment on some bits, the key here is as others i think have mooted, that a 'good deal' is very subjective to both sides. If the brexiteers and British had been realistic about our strengths and weaknesses going in, and recognized certain realities regarding finance and services etc- that meant if we want goods and services to the same level as we had now (A promise that was made my certain brexiteer factions) then you have to accept freedom of movement, if you don't want that- Go Canada style. Within those areas we had some wiggle room for extra concessions perhaps- but not what some Brexiteers painted 'a new same benefits' relationship or as May painted a gold standard 'bespoke' agreement from top to bottom- effectively creating a new category of membership. These were never going to be on the cards realistically as they were hitting the EU's core 'stability' areas and going against what the EU itself had been doing over the past few decades (Trying to eliminate the Swiss model). The trouble is, the rhetoric of the Conservatives various factions meant we were never seeking a 'good deal' in the first place- its all been about domestic consumption and thus has a somewhat fantasy element. I agree though the point on the governments weakness and lack of talent- also generally (And its something many forget) the UK in the area of international trade and negotiations is VERY new, considering unlike many other EU states, we effectively axed our civil service arm and talent on relied on the EU to do these things for us (Hence the scandal early on about a lack of civil servants and specialists to negotiate brexit and the need to train up and bring in Australians and co)- so any kind of ambitious relationship on the UK's behalf was always going to be a disaster when up against as you fairly say- bureaucrats who live and breathe this. If we wanted an amusing comparison- its similar to how Britain believed because of our 'success' in Malaya and to a lesser extent the 'troubles' we could effectively peace-keep in A-stan (as if experience was genetic...). The same folly i believe was felt here, that because once we had the experience of a global player, we could waltz back into it.

The Conservative voting base issue though is something the party are panicking over given the stream of comments and policy-papers the party are going through. The typical tradition of going Conservative as they age may have some truth- but its not enough to keep them an effective political force potentially, as it seems younger people for the first time are becoming more politically active than their elderly counterparts. This was not helped by the impact Conservative austerity and social policies have had too on the elderly which if iirc weakened their vote share last time- essentially taken it for granted than older people would vote 'Tory'.

I'm not sure on your assessment of Labour here, there is indeed a divide between 'traditional' and 'young urban' voters- but that's something that Labour's umbrella has always had issues with- Hence the pivot role Prescott played for Blair in tying together what was in effect two totally different parties of traditional left, and new centrists. I think as it historically has, the Labour party are capable of having several hats (or one broad one) not least because that's what FPTP forces. What typically happens, and what arguably we're starting to see are compromises being made from both sides- i think your right that when Corbyn steps down they'll be another flash-fight, but that's usually what happens with Labour anyway- the thing i always used to say about the Conservatives (until recently) was that they were very well disciplined and that unlike Labour who would hold quite public debates and air disagreements until their resolved, the Conservatives could always throw aside their personal views when an election was in the air/party unity needed and act as one (Great for performing well in FPTP, arguably really crappy for the true meaning of representative democracy).

[caratacus]

This is a good call and find mate. Cheers. Though in keeping with my 'Corbyn stereotype' thus far it seems likely Corbyn will allow the choice of 'remaining' to be on the ballot sheet if Labour does support it. I won't say yet if he'll get convinced to allow a full remain option, or will as i think he's doing, trying to stick it to May, provide a better brexit alternative, while also using this as a way to achieve a break with the EU based on his traditional doubts- Which i'm not decrying as the most noticeable and positive thing is that unlike May 'My brexit' and the Tories infighting- Labour are actually debating and talking about it, compromising and trying to build a consensus among both the party and the wider electorate (potentially)- exactly how these things should have been done.

The folk pushing for the second referendum...cough splutter "People's vote", are those who want to scupper Brexit and remain in the EU and little more than EU shills. It's nothing to do about building a consensus. When McDonnell was interviewed today and said that this new vote would be confined solely to which Brexit do you want and not incude the remain option, Tom Watson the deputy leader went potty as did Labour's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer.. sorry Lord Starmer.

Pro-EU Labour MPs condemn John McDonnell’s plan to deny voters option to Remain in fresh Brexit referendum
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8552231.html

If this is progrssed any further than the labour party congress, the divisions in British society over Brexit in the first vote will pale in comparison.

[NorseThing]

I am thinking that May could support a vote on the final Brexit plan. Would that satisfy Labor?

I do not think May could survive as PM if she allowed a second vote as a redo of the first Brexit vote. Politicians are sensitive about setting red lines and then know it will come back to haunt them when the red lines are ignored. No politician can make future deals with that background. And May did set up this revote as a red line.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The folk pushing for the second referendum...cough splutter "People's vote", are those who want to scupper Brexit and remain in the EU and little more than EU shills. It's nothing to do about building a consensus. When McDonnell was interviewed today and said that this new vote would be confined solely to which Brexit do you want and not incude the remain option, Tom Watson the deputy leader went potty as did Labour's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer.. sorry Lord Starmer.

If this is progrssed any further than the labour party congress, the divisions in British society over Brexit in the first vote will pale in comparison.

Indeed they are- but i wouldn't see them as an 'enemy' acting beyond the bounds of political acceptability. Remember what Farage said- in the event of a close vote (iirc he used the exact outcome) for a remain win- Leave would still continue to campaign to leave off the bat- it would not be settled- and i agree with him (tying back to the issues surrounding a 'sustainable' win- which neither side has). This is part of political discourse and under the current contexts we can't expect either sides extremes to go away, no matter how annoying they can be (as much as i'd love some hard brexiteers to drop the political agenda of deregulation that they are attaching to brexit).

And i'd say this is exactly what Labour does- openly debates, shouts and discusses things- at times when it essentially hurts them electorally. The Conservatives former knack was to be better at hiding the divides. But out of the two party debates going on- Corbyn who is having to deal with creating a consensus and his own views vs the Conservatives with May who has once more taken up the rhetoric of 'I' and 'My plan' and 'Me'- probably to try and win the Iron Lady wannabe competition, i'd prefer the shouting done openly so we can all see what's going on and whose on what line- Again the Conservatives while their divided, thus far no one faction has actually really 'moved away from the line' until recently with Davis and Boris. I'd rather all parties had their factions out in the open- lest we go back to the early days of brexit again where the government was actively hiding its lans from both us and parliament.

The divisions in British society due to the vote result and timing of it that forced such a result for either side (It would be impossible for remain or leave to 'win' sustainably) are already bad and persistence. We're looking at a decade (i'd hazard more) of the EU being on the political agenda and a Britain divided (in no small part due to other domestic reasons too in terms of economic structures)- with parties promising various relationships etc- the EU card due to again the non-sustainability will always be there for a quick electoral buck/ cornerstone of a platform. This is the big issue- a second referendum now would probably indeed polarize further...but its going to happen anyway at some point down the line- either remain or leave- it could be an election from now, it could be a platform for an election is fought on an EU basis, it could be a foreign policy decision with broader implications, it could be Remain taking up what Leave did. Brexit cannot alas now be a 'done and dusted' issue due to the handling and the vote itself, so the question more i'd say is if we want to have polarisations now, or a year later, or a few years later- and each time brexit will be brought up by either side, it'll create fresh wounds- and it'll last until either it can be proven that brexit has been materially better off for peoples lives- which requires a radical domestic policy- which is not in sight currently as opposed to just relying on brexit/no brexit- or until a point when there are significantly more of one group than then other- which could be 20 years from now.

I am thinking that May could support a vote on the final Brexit plan. Would that satisfy Labor?

I do not think May could survive as PM if she allowed a second vote as a redo of the first Brexit vote. Politicians are sensitive about setting red lines and then know it will come back to haunt them when the red lines are ignored. No politician can make future deals with that background. And May did set up this revote as a red line.

It depends i think- Boris and Farage have mooted they wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it in the past to settle things- but contexts change of course. Whether it would satisfy Labour- probably not, Corbyn wants brexit technically- but he wants to topple May more, thus even her agreeing (and supposedly there is a final parliamentary vote on the brexit plan- its just the government has limited the time for scrutiny of it, and what happens if its downvoted is ambiguous to put it politely with no clear 'what next') i don't think it'll be the end of it.

However i do think she'll survive doing it politically- as technically and ironically- brexit has, much like the Plague, given her a lot of breathing space when it comes to other people wanting to be near her. The Leavers frankly cannot topple her- they can initiate a vote of no confidence, but cannot win it due to the arithmetic. They'd have to convince softer leavers/remainers. Likewise a failed coup against May by the brexiteers would also be a stab in the foot, because it would legitimize May's rule all over again (And wipe away the failed election in terms of authority). What they could do though is make her domestic policies very difficult by withdrawing their support and 'sitting out' or voting down legislation- But May's trump card has been that essentially- she has no domestic agenda, literally nothing that is needed to happen is happening, we're treading water- and if an emergency legislation was needed (like after Grenfell) It would b electoral suicide for Brexiters to not 'help' May. The remainers of her party of course would probably be delighted she was after a second referendum/vote on the deal.

That was the weird thing about Chequers- her plan, she doesn't need to do this weird thing of trying to appease both sides- she can literally pick a side and come down heavy on it with very few personal consequences beyond failed leadership bids- But chequers is so vulnerable because it pissed of all factions equally. However May won't come down heavy on one side, because she fears i suspect that it being the catalyst that would split the party openly, and legacy-wise (and in fairness she probably from what i know, does actually care about her part) she doesn't want that to happen on her watch.

Essentially a while back there was a rather unkind opinion piece- that spoke of Britain lacking 'real leaders' in power or opposition who could be states men and women and pave the way. Instead we had two people and their cabals, all of whom had been pushed far above their pay-grades, in their positions almost by default... but they were incredibly adept in an almost miraculous way at just not dying (politically)- no matter what, they could both stand and soak up the punishment. Now while i don't agree entirely with the sentiments- it is true that both Corbyn and May are turtle-creatures- you can kick and stamp, but they just keep going. I wouldn't be surprised if at this rate it was May who led the Conservatives into the next election (considering there are rumours she's planning one in November due to polls seeing it as her best shot of capitalizing on Labour's 'will they won't they' second referendum debate- though that sounds oddly familiar to last time, and we all know how that turned out for her...)

[Daruwind]

Indeed they are- but i don't tend to view them as the 'enemy' or EU shills. Remember what Farage said- in the event of a close vote (iirc he used the exact outcome) for a remain win- Leave would still continue to campaign to leave off the bat- it would not be settled- and i agree with him (tying back to the issues surrounding a 'sustainable' win- which neither side has). This is part of political discourse and under the current contexts we can't expect either sides extremes to go away, no matter how annoying they can be (as much as i'd love some hard brexiteers to drop the political agenda of deregulation that they are attaching to brexit)
.......
his is the big issue- a second referendum now would probably indeed polarize further...but its going to happen anyway at some point down the line- either remain or leave- it could be an election from now, it could be a platform for an election is fought on an EU basis, it could be a foreign policy decision with broader implications, it could be Remain taking up what Leave did. Brexit cannot alas now be a 'done and dusted' issue due to the handling and the vote itself, so the question more i'd say is if we want to have polarisations now, or a year later, or a few years later- and each time brexit will be brought up by either side, it'll create fresh wounds- and it'll last until either it can be proven that brexit has been materially better off for peoples lives- which requires a radical domestic policy- which is not in sight currently as opposed to just relying on brexit/no brexit- or until a point when there are significantly more of one group than then other- which could be 20 years from now.

These are exactly two major problems causing current mess.

1) The result is so weak no matter which side won. Without any meaningful majority setting long term plans on such small difference is dangerious because next referendum or even next general election can have more legitimity to do 180 degree to opposite direction. And again probably with very small difference between outcomes.

Why was there no threshold as 60,70,75,80 % needed for brexit? Simply majority that will not change in year or two.. Because while I´m for remain I fully aknowlegde british right to set their own path and leave. However democracy is still built upon discussion and arguing and people have right to change opinion for any direction... Especially if we have such close results..

2) If the brexit plan was aimed/prepared as Brexit 2025, 2030 or whatever. It would allow enough freedom for any goverment to negotiate any treaties, prepare economy, no haste no stress. Except politicians are always fearing and needing results right now..who cares about 10 years plan when they may not even have any power left...

[caratacus]

And i'd say this is exactly what Labour does- openly debates, shouts and discusses things- at times when it essentially hurts them electorally. The Conservatives former knack was to be better at hiding the divides. But out of the two party debates going on- Corbyn who is having to deal with creating a consensus and his own views vs the Conservatives with May who has once more taken up the rhetoric of 'I' and 'My plan' and 'Me'- probably to try and win the Iron Lady wannabe competition, i'd prefer the shouting done openly so we can all see what's going on and whose on what line- Again the Conservatives while their divided, thus far no one faction has actually really 'moved away from the line' until recently with Davis and Boris. I'd rather all parties had their factions out in the open- lest we go back to the early days of brexit again where the government was actively hiding its lans from both us and parliament.

I'm sorry Dante, but I'm not seeing what you are seeing. The Labour party have been extremely careful in concealing the party's position on Brexit. If they had a position, their leader might have had something in the form of a plan, something to hold up and shake at the PM during Prime Minister's question time after she came back from Salzburg. A public offer to act as substitute for her Chequers one, so awkwardly dismissed at that meeting.

We instead have the Blarites and Momentum Corbynites, that although opposed to each other in a power struggle, are unified in keeping Brexit from open dicussion until yesterday. If you recall, Brexit was deliberately kept out of the last party conferance and yet at this one they are so concerned at its lack of progress they are moving a motion forward for having a second referendum as party policy, one in which Brexit may be stopped altogether. There is a surprise. I wouldn't call that open politics, it certainly isn't what democracy is about.

[Kyriakos]

Keep in mind that all this (latest) charade was enabled by some eu spokespeople claiming that 'the invoking of article 50 can be cancelled'. Which i am sure is a position that is entirely based on treaties/law, and not politics. Right.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'm sorry Dante, but I'm not seeing what you are seeing. The Labour party have been extremely careful in concealing the party's position on Brexit. If they had a position, their leader might have had something in the form of a plan, something to hold up and shake at the PM during Prime Minister's question time after she came back from Salzburg. A public offer to act as substitute for her Chequers one, so awkwardly dismissed at that meeting.

We instead have the Blarites and Momentum Corbynites, that although opposed to each other in a power struggle, are unified in keeping Brexit from open dicussion until yesterday. If you recall, Brexit was deliberately kept out of the last party conferance and yet at this one they are so concerned at its lack of progress they are moving a motion forward for having a second referendum as party policy, one in which Brexit may be stopped altogether. There is a surprise. I wouldn't call that open politics, it certainly isn't what democracy is about.

That's a fair view, i admit my view on it i'm sure would not be the majorities, particularly as i'd say looking at this from a distance- both Labour and the Conservatives have huge issues in this area indeed, but for Labour's are slightly less- though they of course are not in power, so the pressure is slightly easier to deal with.

And a good point about last conference. I won't say for one minute that Labour haven't been playing a political game of 'don't look at our weakness! Look over there!' in regards to their stance on brexit. However i also think a large element has been that the party has been having an ongoing (and often angry) debate about brexit stances (That i assumed was reported on as the year went on, but i admit here i may suffer from 'Westminster bubble' where tiny stuff is overblown )- Blairites vs Corbyn's disciples indeed and that rather than continue to dig in their talking about compromise between the factions- the element of course bringing them together being the opportunity from that report to steal a significant amount of voters and make May's life harder- so i wouldn't say its a 'Country-first' approach from a remain or leave perspective. But it is consensus politics at work in at least how Labour traditionally have done it between traditionalists and centrist elements of their party membership and voters (Find something both want that will unite them- usually the application of 'Power politics' as here).

Edit: The ability to compromise though is something i would place in contrast with the Conservatives approach (who do get some lee-way from being in government), but whose various factions within leave and remain cannot get together properly and formulate a shared plan- instead using it as a zero-sum game to place their own political agendas on top of brexit (Low reg vs high standards etc) and thus due to this have to write on or off aspects of any potential deal with the EU (Those wanting low-regulations and environmental protections like Esther want a no-deal and thus care less about the DUP issue etc, while those wanting financial service access- Hammond- Want single market access of some sort)- this places them in a bind- its a niche ideological element that Labour beyond the broad social democratic vs liberal do not have on the subject (Though i'm not saying such a thing would not develop)

- Sorry about sticking that edit in at the last minute- i actually forgot to add in the comparison part that was central to what we were talking about... Its late for me

[mongrel]

I see that a Minister for food supplies has been appointed, an unprecidented event in peacetime. This can only mean one thing. Our food supplies are now under threat because of Brexit incompetence.


https://www.theguardian.com/business...no-deal-brexit

[Morifea]

Our food supplies are now under threat because of Brexit incompetence.

So Brexit archieves what our submarines failed two times.
Its embarrassing how this nonsense project will harm those people first, who have voted for Brexit.

[Daruwind]

And slowly people start turning backs...To me it sounds pretty obvious. The progress is slow,almost none so unless she pulls out a miracle in next few days, it will head down to the avoidable chaos...

Do you think they are waiting just for a new leader with better support? Or that the no deal plan is going to be scrapped completely as bad idea?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...fail-9svwlwztx

[mongrel]

No deal is always better than a bad deal she would say, no doubt whilst poor Britons are fighting in the supermarker aisles for the last available tins of Spam and Fray Bentos.

[HannibalExMachina]

So Brexit archieves what our submarines failed two times.
Its embarrassing how this nonsense project will harm those people first, who have voted for Brexit.

ive always said: stopping to kill other people was our best move ever. why kill the french, if you can team up with them, and run the place?

i wonder, are british nationalists just big believers in isolationism, or do they think they still could run europe by "balance of power"? really inconvinient now that they scrapped most of their submarines.

[Iskar]

I think that an, albeit desperate, hope to cause major fractures on the continent is still being entertained in hardcore brexiteer circles. The way the EU is being reported on in Britain often conveys the impression that the idea of a unified Europe is the real object of hate and fear, not so much the actual restraints of common policy, laws and regulations.

[Aexodus]

The prospect of being in an increasingly integrationist political union in which we are a minority isn’t popular among many Brexiteers. Old style British liberals dislike the never-ending regulation, and let’s face it, Britain was always going to be the first one to leave, as an island nation not even on the continent itself.

If the EU parliament voted for an integrated armed forces, we would be powerless to stop it wouldn’t we? Doesn’t matter how many British MEPs voted no.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The prospect of being in an increasingly integrationist political union in which we are a minority isn’t popular among many Brexiteers. Old style British liberals dislike the never-ending regulation, and let’s face it, Britain was always going to be the first one to leave, as an island nation not even on the continent itself.

If the EU parliament voted for an integrated armed forces, we would be powerless to stop it wouldn’t we? Doesn’t matter how many British MEPs voted no.

The reasoning, while i understand the sentiments, is also where many brexiteers who voted on that basis got it wrong regarding the EU. THe EU is reforming to closer integration indeed, and an EU army is the next logical step (Though an incredibly difficult one) in a geopolitical landscape where the US is drawing back and a multipolar playing field becomes a reality with many potential rival actors (Not just Russia, if anyone has taken a serious look at China's actions in Africa and with the belt and road and the first deployment of Chinese military bases abroad, we'd realize that while not a 'peril' as some in the US are describing it as, we do have China partaking in what is essentially an active (not passive as they claim) neo-imperial power game (On the model the US uses). What's more at a time when having an effective high-tier military is becoming beyond the current budgets of most EU states (including Britain) to compete on this plain equally alongside the major powers (and bearing in mind US criticisms of this) then an EU army is a sensible solution.

Regardless though my main point is that even if that's happening- the UK doesn't have to be part of it, considering the EU was and is reforming on a two-tier system basis of full members and a periphery. The UK was never under any obligation to partake further unless it chose to, despite Thatcher signing us up for 'ever closer union', which was never properly defined (Much as we didn't have to adopt the Euro). Now it might have been that brexiteers did not trust any British government on this issue (as it would be the British government who would take the lead in signing up, not the EU), however that's not an EU issue- that's a British political issue (And bear that in mind for post-brexit policy making ). It essentially is you can't trust the child with the toy, so instead of teaching the child (Or British government) you take the toy (EU) away.

Its made worse by the fact this 'periphery' group of nations on the second track, were led by the UK, we wielded a fair degree of influence, and could have wielded far more if we'd been willing (again our mess in Eastern Europe is a case in point- back their membership and then demonize them, losing the influence we could have had- doesn't really speak well of Britain's effectiveness on the international stage either). So we were far from powerless inside the EU.

The sovereignty issue is a separate one to this of course- as it essentially is people being more comfortable with 1 layer close to them of legislation- which i get (Though i look at sovereignty in a geopolitical way- in which there is technically no such thing while you have multiple 'super-power' actors of which ironically the EU is one and bordering Britain, we'll be very much influence in both foreign and domestic spheres by them post-brexit regardless- but in terms of direct theory- fair enough).

[mongrel]

Last year the prime minister told a struggling nurse that “there is no magic money tree” that could give her a pay rise. This week she plans to blow £120m on a 'festival of Brexit.' You can't make it up.

[Love Mountain]

I'm feeling a little lazy, so those of you who are pro-Brexit, tell me why I Britain should ditch the EU.