EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[northwichcat]

2005: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2010: Mainly Labour, got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. It is noted that with the exception of my constituency Glasgow North East that was held by the former Speaker Michael Martin (the 2005 election was obviously a neutral candidate) and reverted to Labour in 2010, all of the constituencies did not change parties at all. This sent a clear message to David Cameron and Gideon George Osborne that they had no mandate to impose cuts on Scotland.

From Labour's 2010 manifesto

• Tough choices for £15 billion efficiency savings in 2010-11.
• Tough choices on cutting government overheads: £11 billion of further operational efficiencies and other cross-cutting savings to streamline government will be delivered by 2012-13.
• Tough choices on pay: action to control public-sector pay including a one per cent cap on basic pay uplifts for 2011-12 and 2012-13, saving £3.4 billion a year, and new restrictions on senior pay-setting. Tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the taxpayers’ liability – saving £1 billion a year.
• Tough choices on spending: £5 billion already identified in cuts to lower priority spending.
• Tough choices on welfare: our reforms will increase fairness and work incentives, including £1.5 billion of savings being delivered.
• Tough choices on assets: £20 billion of asset sales by 2020.
• Tough choices on tax: a bonus tax, reduced tax relief on pensions for the best off, a new 50p tax rate on earnings over £150,000 and one penny on National Insurance Contributions.
...
Labour believes we should protect frontline spending on childcare, schools, the NHS and policing, and reform our public services to put people in control.

So you did vote for a public sector pay cap, cuts to welfare and other unspecified cuts! Don't forget most saw the Lib Dems as being to the left of Labour while Blair and Brown were leading Labour. If Scotland wanted a left of centre government surely they would have voted Lib Dem not Labour. Given the centralist SNP became more popular after Labour moved back to the left, I'd suggest New Labour was exactly what Scotland wanted and exactly what they got. They even got a Scottish born PM and a Scottish born Chancellor and when the Scottish born Chancellor became PM, they got someone who was born to Scottish parents as the new Chancellor!

 

[Howardh]

Taking back control springs to mind.

I'd love to know ehat the government have control of. Their own cabinet? Their majority?? And don't even THINK of bringing the trains in to it....

 

[Bromley boy]

I'd love to know ehat the government have control of. Their own cabinet? Their majority?? And don't even THINK of bringing the trains in to it....

They don’t control their own cabinet or the majority of voters at the moment.

The DFT has a firm grip on God’s Terrible Railway, though (sorry but it had to be said) .

 

[Howardh]

Why can you remainers not accept that the vote has already happened, the people have already decided?!

We are already at the “so be it” stage, and have been since 2016.

You need to suck it up, get over it, stop complaining, and make the best of it.

One of the reasons, if not THE reason Brexit is failling so badly is that they failed to take the 16m on board with them right at the start. Keep saying "you lost now get over it" forgets that those 16m still have (a) a say and (b) a vote. That say and those votes simply didn't disappear in 2016. We warned them to do something for us if you want a clean Brexit which the counry would get behind - look at EFTA, look at the EEA; you can still fufil your dream of leaving the EU but maintain those vital links.

That 16m isn't a fixed figure and since then will have either grown or shrunk. Only complete and utter fools would go ahead with something not knowing if they still have the majority on board, and an acceptance from many of the rest that they are being empathsised with. I give you The Cabinet.

 

[Bromley boy]

One of the reasons, if not THE reason Brexit is failling so badly is that they failed to take the 16m on board with them right at the start.

Brexit is failing? News to me. My understanding was that it hasn’t even begun. Unless you know something I don’t?

Keep saying "you lost now get over it" forgets that those 16m still have (a) a say and (b) a vote. That say and those votes simply didn't disappear in 2016.

Nobody has said that isn’t the case - but the fact is the “leave” vote won the referendum. So that is what we now need to get on and do.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with the labour government between 1997 - 2010 but I had to suck it up.

That’s the reality of living in a democracy - sometimes votes generate results you personally don’t agree with, but those votes are no less valid.

We warned them to do something for us if you want a clean Brexit which the counry would get behind - look at EFTA, look at the EEA; you can still fufil your dream of leaving the EU but maintain those vital links.

Can you clarify the above sentence? “We warned them”. Who is “we”, and who is “them”?

By “Do something for us” I assume, by “us”, you mean remainers? Are the government therefore to disregard the other, larger, “us” (those who voted leave?). They first and foremost (since leave won the vote) need to do something for “us” - that something is to take the U.K. out of the EU and it’s major institutions in order to respect the result and the spirit of the leave vote.

That 16m isn't a fixed figure and since then will have either grown or shrunk. Only complete and utter fools would go ahead with something not knowing if they still have the majority on board, and an acceptance from many of the rest that they are being empathsised with. I give you The Cabinet.

In hindsight it would be better if the last GE hadn’t been called. Agreed the current government is a rudderless mess.

Reincarnate Maggie Thatcher. That’s what I’d like. Then we’d have a pm with some balls.

 

[EM2]

Reincarnate Maggie Thatcher. That’s what I’d like. Then we’d have a pm with some balls.

But she was pro-EU too.

 

[EM2]

Just as I’ve outlined above, really.

But we have all that. We have a veto in the EU. Parliament is already sovereign. We're already exempt from 'closer political union'.

 

[Howardh]

But she was pro-EU too.

I believe (please correct) that she instigated the single market!!

 

[Senex]

We are all lucky to live in a mature, benign democracy.

And there I would disagree with you in respect of all three terms "mature", "benign", and "democracy". Lord Hailsham got it right years ago when he said we live in an elective dictatorship, though even then the means of election are deeply flawed and many of us have never seen our views represented by one of those people whose ties to their single-member constituencies are supposed to be so important. As for "mature", one might replace that by "antiquated", and as for "benign", well just look at how Westminster has treated the English provinces over very many years.
And how far do the inhabitants of Northern Ireland live in a mature, benign democracy when because their elected politicians will not deal with each other sensibly they have no functioning democratic government at all and when a statelet that voted to Remain sees its largest party as the hard-line Brexiters who sustain the hard-line-Brexit minority Tories in power?

 

[Bromley boy]

But she was pro-EU too.

Are you sure about that?

You might want to check why Grantham’s finest was deposed from the Tory leadership. Much of it had to do with Europe.
She was not pro Brussels by any means by the end of her premiership.

I believe (please correct) that she instigated the single market!!

Indeed she did. A true visionary, and what a good idea the single market was at the time.

She was also pro ERM I believe (the less said about that the better). And look how well the Euro has worked out (not).

Ever the visionary, she had the foresight to see the Frankenstein’s Monster the European project was becoming and turned against it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Bromley boy]

And there I would disagree with you in respect of all three terms "mature", "benign", and "democracy". Lord Hailsham got it right years ago when he said we live in an elective dictatorship, though even then the means of election are deeply flawed and many of us have never seen our views represented by one of those people whose ties to their single-member constituencies are supposed to be so important. As for "mature", one might replace that by "antiquated", and as for "benign", well just look at how Westminster has treated the English provinces over very many years.
And how far do the inhabitants of Northern Ireland live in a mature, benign democracy when because their elected politicians will not deal with each other sensibly they have no functioning democratic government at all and when a statelet that voted to Remain sees its largest party as the hard-line Brexiters who sustain the hard-line-Brexit minority Tories in power?

And I would fundamentally disagree with you. The U.K. is indeed a mature, benign, democracy. We should all be grateful to live here. The fact we are able to discuss these issues freely without fear of arrest is one such virtue.

It’s by no means perfect, I grant you. But I would suggest if you were to spend some time living in KSA, Iran or China you would quickly come to appreciate the UK’s virtues rather than focussing on its negatives.

I haven’t lived elsewhere myself but I know people who have lived in the above named states. One friend who did 6 (very lucrative) months in KSA with work swiftly returned. He reported that public beheadings weren’t his idea of good entertainment...

 

[Howardh]

One friend who did 6 (very lucrative) months in KSA with work swiftly returned. He reported that public beheadings weren’t his idea of good entertainment...

KSA? Saudi Arabia I presume; not South Africa what I thought at first

 

[EM2]

Are you sure about that?

Yes. She was, although she didn't remain so. A bit like Boris, really.

 

[Bromley boy]

KSA? Saudi Arabia I presume; not South Africa what I thought at first

Saudi, indeed.

Although, now that you mention it, South Africa is another country which, while it enjoys better weather than we have, makes one appreciate the UK’s great virtues in other areas.

It’s a bit cold, a bit damp, the population is pasty skinned, overweight, miserable and moans too much (especially those who use the railway to get to work), but we truly live in a green, pleasant and benign land. Let’s rejoice in that (and hurry up and leave the EU).

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes. She was, although she didn't remain so. A bit like Boris, really.

Not at all. Whatever you may think of her, Margaret Thatcher was at least a conviction politician. I don’t agree with her in many areas, not least her approach to unions and working people, but I respect her conviction.

By contrast BoJo is a foppish, self aggrandising, monied, egoist who only wishes to feather his own nest.

 

[Domh245]

That is in no way democratic (it would be like the U.K. House of Lords originating legislation and this then being amended by the commons, rather then the other way around).

I've got some bad news for you I'm afraid. There are currently 68 bills before Parliament that were initiated in the House of Lords, although none have gained Royal Assent yet.

Brexit is failing? News to me. My understanding was that it hasn’t even begun. Unless you know something I don’t?

Negotiations have been underway for some time now, trying to thrash out a deal - but all we've agreed so far is a transitional deal subject to us coming up with a solution to the Irish Border question (noting that both proposals that the Government have been floating have already been rejected by the EU) - it may not be failing, but it's certainly coughing, spluttering, and looking rather shaky (at least in terms of getting anything favourable)

 

[mmh]

The referendum campaign was all spin and very little fact

I'm really fed up of hearing that claim. In reality it was little different from every single campaign I can remember, which admittedly only goes back as far as the 1992 general election.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to mention red buses, but it's really an irrelevance.

There's no harm in asking the question once the deal has been finalised and is ready to be actioned

There's a massive amount of harm that could be caused by doing that. The prime minister at the time was very forthright that it was a one time, yes or no choice, and going back on that. It was clear that it was in or out. Leave means leave. Yes, Brexit means Brexit. I've got no love for either Cameron or May, but this idea that people didn't know what they were voting for is nonsense.

The much criticised booklet that was sent to every household (only not, I didn't get one) said "the government will implement what you decide". Politicians mess with democracy at their peril.

With apologies for how long this is, this was the tail end of a Cameron speech where he acknowledged many people had problems with the EU but advocated staying in. It was pretty clear.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…

…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…

…I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.

 

[EM2]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to mention red buses, but it's really an irrelevance.

Even though Dominic Cummings believes that Vote Leave would not have won without that.

It was clear that it was in or out. Leave means leave. Yes, Brexit means Brexit.

Leave what, though? SM? CU? Euratom? Galileo? ECJ? ECHR? Europol? European Space Agency? EHIC? Erasmus? EMA?

 

[Bromley boy]

I've got some bad news for you I'm afraid. There are currently 68 bills before Parliament that were initiated in the House of Lords, although none have gained Royal Assent yet.

Perhaps my previous post was a little misleading.

The HoL can indeed originate legislation (perhaps it shouldn’t be able to at all - that’s a valid criticism of the UK’s system there).

However, as a matter of parliamentary convention, legislation originated by either the commons or the lords must pass through both houses, including the elected commons, in order to be ratified into law by royal assent. By convention the lords will comment on legislation tabled by the commons but will not propose substantive amendments (reference the problematic passage of the Brexit bill where the labour stacked HoL has arguably done exactly that!).

The fact is that the vast majority of laws passed in the U.K. are originated in the commons. Most crucially, all bills, irrespective of their originating house, can be rejected by the commons, and cannot be stopped by the HoL (reference the parliament acts of 1911 and 1949). The HoL has been unable to veto the passage of bills since the time of Lloyd-George.

If we so desire, as a parliamentary democracy, we (through the elected government) have the ability to further reduce the HoL’s influence, or indeed remove it entirely, if the government proposes it and the commons vote to do so. In just the same way, if the government tabled legislation to abolish the monarchy, the monarch would be bound by convention to give effect to that vote, bizarre as that seems!

The above, admittedly archaic, system has served us well since Charles II’s time (Charles I favoured the “divine right of kings” approach, and we know how that ended).

It is an imperfect system for sure, but it’s a mature and highly effective one. I defy you to identify a better system of governance, anywwhere around the world.

Contrast this with the European approach: a fundamentally different animal. All EU “laws” are originated by the Commission and merely pass through the parliament, essentially as a rubber stamping exercise. If they are rejected they will simply be retabled in a marginally amended form (even this doesn’t happen often, if at all).

From the horses mouth below (from the EU’s own, wonderful Europa website):

https://europa.eu/

What does the Commission do?
Proposes new laws
The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council that:

• protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at national level;
• get technical details right by consulting experts and the public.

 

[Bromley boy]

Leave what, though? SM? CU? Euratom? Galileo? ECJ? ECHR? Europol? European Space Agency? EHIC? Erasmus? EMA?

Leaving the whole sorry shebang sounds good to me?!

 

[Domh245]

I'm really fed up of hearing that claim. In reality it was little different from every single campaign I can remember, which admittedly only goes back as far as the 1992 general election.

So you're not disputing it then?

@Bromley boy - It was mainly just a bit of pedantry on my behalf, but I would agree with you that the current setup (whilst still flawed) is pretty damn good - especially when the Lords start putting the sort of amendments down that the commons should have :P

Leaving the whole sorry shebang sounds good to me?!

But why, other than some sort of inherent hatred for the EU? Why should we duplicate things like the Galileo satellite system (especially when we have put some much money into it), building your own satellite system doesn't come cheap - ditto ESA, EMA, EURATOM, etc.

 

[Bromley boy]

@Bromley boy - It was mainly just a bit of pedantry on my behalf, but I would agree with you that the current setup (whilst still flawed) is pretty damn good - especially when the Lords start putting the sort of amendments down that the commons should have :P

There’s the beginning of a consensus there (I disagree about the amendments, for obvious reasons).

Speaking as someone who can out-pedant just about anyone, your’re a rare animal on these forums: finally, a poster with the intellectual gravitas to define and defend their own position. Other contributors please take note.

Always a pleasure doing battle.

But why, other than some sort of inherent hatred for the EU? Why should we duplicate things like the Galileo satellite system (especially when we have put some much money into it), building your own satellite system doesn't come cheap - ditto ESA, EMA, EURATOM, etc

Not an inherent hatred of the EU, so much as an inherent mistrust of any external body that seeks to impose its will over the U.K.

Let’s not waste money any more money on European satellites. Remember the sunk costs fallacy - just because we’ve poured money into a pointless EU vanity project - that’s no argument for continuing to do so. Why can’t we just stick to the established US WGS84 ellipsoid based GPS system?

As a current student of ATPL “general navigation” whose rapidly remembering how bad he is at maths, that’s a whole other (boring) conversation (we can always fall back on GLONASS, already paid for by the Russians!). Off topic for this thread. But further underlines my leave vote!

 

[Domh245]

There’s the beginning of a consensus there.

Speaking as someone who can out-pedant just about anyone, your’re a rare animal on these forums: a poster with the intellectual gravitas to define and defend their own position. Other posters, please take note.

Always a pleasure doing battle.

Not an inherent hatred of the EU, so much as an inherent mistrust of any external body that seeks to impose its will over the U.K.

Let’s not waste money on European satellites. Remember the sunk costs fallacy - just because we’ve poured money into a pointless EU vanity project - that’s no argument for continuing to do so. Why can’t we just stick to the established US WGS84 ellipsoid based GPS system?

As a current student of ATPL “general navigation” whose rapidly remembering how bad he is at maths, that’s a whole other (boring) conversation. Off topic for this thread. But further underlines my leave vote!

Whilst sticking to GPS would be the simple answer, it is also worth bearing in mind that the US can selectively restrict access to their system, and whilst usually the US is a close ally, we are seeing with the current president that nothing can be taken for granted (especially when you have the catch-all excuse of "national security"). There are of course other systems - GLONASS (Russia) & BeiDou (China) being two, but when civilisation is increasingly dependent on Satellite Navigation systems with drones, autonomous vehicles, ASDO, etc, it is worth ensuring that you have 100% availability from your system of choice, either by having your own outright or as part of a group.

It certainly seems to be the view of the Government (or at least the DoD & Gavin Williamson) that the UK needs to have it's own system, seeing as they've started to plan for a £3bn [1] UK system should we be shut out from Galileo [2]. I would expect that any UK system would be a regional system rather than a global one - but it is worth noting that we've contributed £1.2bn to Galileo which will be a global system - that's a pretty poor deal by any means.

 

[Bromley boy]

Whilst sticking to GPS would be the simple answer, it is also worth bearing in mind that the US can selectively restrict access to their system, and whilst usually the US is a close ally, we are seeing with the current president that nothing can be taken for granted (especially when you have the catch-all excuse of "national security").

That’s an interesting question. Funnily enough I was discussing exactly this point yesterday with a mate who flies commercially.

He has received a notification from his airline that GPS cannot be relied on in the Cyprus area, because it is being “dithered” by the US due to their ongoing (unofficial) activities in Syria.

Quite how they achieve that when we are told that the GPS constellation of satellites is not geosynchronous is beyond me - but must be expensive! When a GPS satellite “dawns” over the area it must be dithered until it “sets”?

It certainly seems to be the view of the Government (or at least the DoD & Gavin Williamson) that the UK needs to have it's own system, seeing as they've started to plan for a £3bn [1] UK system should we be shut out from Galileo [2]. I would expect that any UK system would be a regional system rather than a global one - but it is worth noting that we've contributed £1.2bn to Galileo which will be a global system - that's a pretty poor deal by any means.

That sounds like a cheap option - regional GPS? Really? How does that even work?

Much like our nuclear deterrent, wouldn’t it be better to hang onto the coat tails of the US? The current, mad, honey monster in the White House will go eventually and normal service will be resumed (hopefully) at that point.

 

[Domh245]

That’s an interesting question. Funnily enough I was discussing exactly this point yesterday with a mate who flies commercially.

He has received a notification from his airline that GPS cannot be relied on in the Cyprus area, because it is being “dithered” by the US due to their ongoing (unofficial) activities in Syria.

Quite how they achieve that when we are told that the GPS constellation of satellites is not geosynchronous is beyond me - but must be expensive! When a GPS satellite “dawns” over the area it must be dithered until it “sets”?



That sounds like a cheap option - regional GPS? Really? How does that even work?

Much like our nuclear deterrent, wouldn’t it be better to hang onto the coat tails of the US? The current, mad, honey monster in the White House will go eventually and normal service will be resumed (hopefully) at that point.

I have to admit that I'm not particularly au fait with the mechanisms behind GPS and how the US are able to degrade service, although it is worth noting that the next generation of GPS are supposed to be procured without "Selective Availability" - although I can't find out much more news about this beyond it's announcement in 2007. It does lead to another point though - why should we let the US pay for it all. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a softy like that, but if we are using a system, why shouldn't we contribute it towards it, if we can achieve a true global navigation system* then why shouldn't all of the superpowers contribute towards it if they're all going to be using it, and indeed that it what has happened to some extent, but should the world fall into darker times (when arguably we need Global Navigation the most for all of military needs) then we'll be glad to have our own system in place.

Of course, a local system wouldn't be a Global Navigation Satellite System, nor would it be GPS (that's the American system), but it would more likely be a Regional SBAS or SNS (such as EGNOS or NAVIC respectively). As far as I can tell, it's mainly geostationary (and near geostationary orbits) and ground stations, and certainly it makes more sense to only put satellites where you need them - does the UK really need SatNav coverage over Australia for example?

Certainly we could hang onto the coat-tails of the US - but once bitten twice shy. If you were to go back to those halcyon days of 2014 I don't think anyone would have predicted the current political situation, and I certainly wouldn't put it past the US to vote in another loon in the future. A global system which we have some degree of control over (for now) for £1.2bn isn't to be sniffed at, and thankfully the Government is trying to stay in it, but the EU is (understandably) being protective over security information.

*for fun, a quick check on my phone reveals that it can currently see 13 GPS satellites, 7 GLONASS satellites, and a single QZSS satellite!

 

[JonathanP]

The sovereignty argument is one I have heard many times before, but the bit I can never understand is why people consider this magical, ever so important concept to have a divine right to belong at the current second level of a governmental system which has 5 or 6 levels, all of which have various democratic problems. Most arguments about the desire for sovereignty could be rewritten for any level of government just by changing the names.

Sovereignty is not something that can be pooled, it is something you either have or you don’t.

To write that in long form, for someone living in Bromley:

I have no problem with the sovereignty of my district of Bromley being pooled with rest of Bromley, and if it is I still 'have' it.
I have no problem with the sovereignty of Bromley being pooled with London, and if it is I still 'have' it.
I have no problem with the sovereignty of London being pooled with England, and if it is I still 'have' it.
I have no problem with the sovereignty of England being pooled with the United Kingdom, , and if it is I still 'have' it.
I am emphatically opposed to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom being pooled with anyone, and if it is I have lost it.

I don't want the the Bromley Borough Council to be able to legislate as it deems fit, in its sole discretion
I don't want the the London Assembly to be able to legislate as it deems fit, in its sole discretion
I do want the the U.K. government in parliament to be able to legislate as it deems fit, in its sole discretion

Why does the pooling of sovereignty and the submission to higher authority stop being acceptable at that level?

Part of doing that ensuring we retain the ability to govern ourselves and determine our own destiny.

Why does 'our' mean Britons and not not Bromley-ites, Londoners, the English, or Europeans?

 

[Bromley boy]

The sovereignty argument is one I have heard many times before, but the bit I can never understand is why people consider this magical, ever so important concept to have a divine right to belong at the current second level of a governmental system which has 5 or 6 levels, all of which have various democratic problems. Most arguments about the desire for sovereignty could be rewritten for any level of government just by changing the names.

Huh?

When you read the above back to yourself, can you understand it? I certainly can’t. Reads like a load of incoherent madness to me...

To write that in long form, for someone living in Bromley:

I can just about hold my own thanks, with long form English.

Cor blimey guv, me English ain’t that bad, fam, despite your preconceptions.

Keep going with that line and I shall certainly embarrass you.

Why does 'our' mean Britons and not not Bromley-ites, Londoners, the English, or Europeans?

What does this even mean?

 

[AlterEgo]

What does this even mean?

The question I think was asking about what a “demos” is - why are you happy with the entities of Bromley, or London, or England, or the UK, yet not with the EU?

I don’t think this is a difficult question to answer. As I explained earlier, a democracy must have a demos - a “people” - which the EU fundamentally lacks. The nation state is the highest level at which it is possible to be selfless. The EU doesn’t have a demos because not all of the people are united by common culture, common purpose or even a common geography, such is its scale. The denial of the importance of the nation state (because I can hear people about to take to their keyboards in disagreement with me again) is one of the great follies of the current cultural zeitgeist.

People still don’t grasp that Brexit was a huge middle finger to those who disagree with the above. When will some Remainers wake up?

 

[Intercity 225]

EU legislation is originated by the unelected commission and rubber stamped by the parliament. That is in no way democratic (it would be like the U.K. House of Lords originating legislation and this then being amended by the commons, rather then the other way around).

There are good economic arguments in favour of remaining, but let’s not kid ourselves that the EU is in any way democratic. If you prioritise the economic side of things over democratic self determination that’s fine - but call it what it is.

I disagree, the HoL consists of 779 members and doesn’t accurately represent the current political views of the general population e.g. far too many Liberal Democrats. There’s also still a fair number of hereditary peers which is about as anti-democratic as you can get in the developed world. That being said the HoL serves a purpose and I support it’s continued existence considering that the HoC can ultimately override it on the occasions that legislation gets returned.

The European Commission on the other hand consists of only 28 commissioners - one for each member state, who chooses their own. The Council of Minsters and European Parliament don’t then simply “rubber stamp” - they hold the commission to account and any legislation is amended accordingly. As a result I have no problem with our Prime Minister choosing our representative - it’s not the kind of position that requires any further mandate from the electorate.

I can’t see us agreeing on this point but just wanted to get my 2p’s (or €0.02 ) worth in.

*Also the HoL is able to instigate new legislation in the UK but I don’t want to stray off topic.

 

[Intercity 225]

That is undeniably the direction of travel of the entire project. As you yourself admit many EU politicians aspire to just such a union.

Look at the passage of the Lisbon treaty. In what way was that not forced through?

The Lisbon Treaty was necessary in order for the EU to continue to operate smoothly following a significant expansion in member states - it’s largely procedural and didn’t significantly increase the EU’s power.

We were promised a referendum by Blair on the TCE that the LT replaced - that was a more substantial agreement that would have replaced all previous European treaties in their entirety and expanded the EU’s authority/reach in some areas. It still wouldn’t have got anywhere close to establishing a United States of Europe though - indeed it was during this time the Article 50 we’re currently exercising was established.

The whole point is academic anyway considering that the TCE was rejected by both the French and the Dutch in referendums and binned immediately thereafter. Whilst the LT follows a similar procedural structure to the TCE it’s definitely been watered down and therefore I don’t feel that it was “forced” upon us.