Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

schmittel wrote: »

I think the Lib Dem policy is actually very clever given their particular circumstances.

...


Revoke policy provides a strong reason to vote Lib Dem for both Labour and Tory voters.

It also helps them in Scotland to defend against rising SNP vote. The current Tory seats are up for grabs, and there will be plenty of Scots who would like to vote to stay in EU and UK. Vote for Lib Dems so. Indeed if I was a Lib Dem strategist I would be tempted to run in all seats in Northern Ireland. Allow those who want to remain in EU a clear voting opportunity to do so, not tied up in sectarian politics.

...

The Lib Dems biggest problem is their leader, not their policy.

If you were an LD strategist you'd be getting a P45. :P

Firstly, Alliance are their sister party in the north. And secondly, the resources that that would waste would be astronomical with only one seat in play really for them and even then Big Gav will probably win that seat.

There's no political advantage for doing it and being realistic, LD are GB unionists, ie. only care for Britain and Scotland remaining. They couldn't give a shíte about Ireland.

But I agree that Swinson is likely to be a big issue especially her attitude towards the SNP.

If she goes ahead and joins a pact to unseat Ian Blackford, she'll have to make sure she wins that seat or else she's done for and the LDs are screwed in the Hollyrood elections next time 'round.

A Dub in Glasgo

schmittel wrote: »

I'd say that's a risk that the Lib Dems are perfectly prepared to take, even it annoys the SNP.

It is reasonable to assume that those Tory gains in 2017 reflected the Remain in UK vote, which for many is the biggest driver of their voting intention.

If you are a Scottish voter and want to Remain in UK and EU who do you vote for? Lib Dem seems to be the obvious choice.

I think it is reasonable for Lib Dems to go after that vote. (Unless Swinson wants to do a backroom deal to protect her own seat!)

It blows out the water the stated Lib Dem intention of facilitating the pro-EU vote to oust the anti-EU vote. It appears that once again Swinson is the hypocrite where the partys stance is only applicable in England and Wales

The Tory vote in these areas are generally pro-UK, anti-EU

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid though he has achieved something. A more brexiteer oriented deal and a less watertight version of the backstop.

This is getting a bit tiresome now: let me spell it out in words of one syllable:
he
has
no
deal

He brought an EU proposal back from Brussels, taunted the HoC with it, and when they called his bluff, crumpled it up and called an election instead.

He has no deal, there is no deal, and there is no immediate prospect of any deal being agreed by the end of the new extension date.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just another reflection on this. You say Johnson's threat of no deal was hollow. But then why did MPs feel the need to force him to request an extension?

Because it was the only parliamentary way to tell him to stop talking 5hyte and start behaving like a Prime Minister.

lawred2

Bit cynical wrote: »

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

I can see why these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.

That's nonsense. "Walking away" is only an option when it's available to you and both parties know that it's available to you.

Both the UK and EU knew well that the UK could not simply walk away from anything.

Parliament simply took away the crayons from the man childs in government who went around acting like this Brexit lark was all about who postured and shouted the most. The 'threat' of walking away was empty bluster.

PeadarCo

lawred2 wrote:

Parliament simply took away the crayons from the man childs in government who went around acting like this Brexit lark was all about who postured and shouted the most. The 'threat' of walking away was empty bluster.

The problem is that is harmful bluster. As we can see some people actually believe the bluff. Unfortunately it's the wrong people who believe it ie Brexit supporters who have been repeatedly told that a no deal is better than a bad deal. Which has caused massive problems as the UKs bluff has been repeatedly called.

The EU who the UK are supposed to be bluffing know its nonsense. All the talk about walking away just makes it harder for the UK. Its limits how much a UK brexit government can compromise without making themselves look stupid.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just another reflection on this. You say Johnson's threat of no deal was hollow. But then why did MPs feel the need to force him to request an extension? It means that they believed he was willing to go through with his promise. If they believed it, then it is not inconceivable therefore that others believed it too - that he was hell-bent on leaving no matter what. So there is a certain contradiction in your post here.

No contradiction. Johnson was negotiating with parliament.

No deal was a threat to the UK, it wasn't to the EU.

BonnieSituation

Don't backseat mod please.

L1011

Very belated floor crossing by Sandbach to join the Lib Dems in time to run under their banner

Feels like it could be the equivalent of Tommy Broughan rejoining Labour here in 2011 to get the central party support / boost at the time and then leave again. She doesn't even support the Revoke position the LDs have

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well no, under the original May deal, all of the UK was to be under a customs arrangement with the EU during the transition period. This was formally scrapped in the Johnson deal.

This is completely wrong. You seem very confused between the transition period and the backstop. I suggest you inform yourself. Plenty of explainers out there.

Bit cynical wrote: »

And leading up to the deal? There was certainly talk on this forum to the effect that the EU should not grant any further extensions and it wasn't just the British media saying that France was getting tired of extensions.

It is true that a lot is the same as May's deal but it is important to remember that things like the CTA and EU citizens rights were already planned to continue even in the event of no deal.

But the border arrangements and trade during the transition period are worse under Johnson's deal than May's from Ireland's perspective.

If there was genuinely no chance of no deal (for example because France or Hungary or some other country objected to an extension) then the EU would not have entertained Johnson. They could simply have insisted on Mays deal and the UK would have been forced to either accept or eventually revoke A50.

Remember that before Johnson took over, negotiations had been closed. No further negotiations. No changes to the backstop etc. That was the position of many people on this forum. Then Johnson gets into No. 10 on a ticket of leaving the EU no matter what. The Benn Act weakened him; there is no doubt about that but not sufficiently to do a deal which was worse from the perspective of the EU country most affected by Brexit other than the UK. I would still submit that the reason for this was that the threat during negotiations of no deal still remained despite the Benn Act.

And this is rambling nonsense consisting of all your previous posts that have already been proven to be wrong. But worryingly, for someone who's been on this thread a lot, you still have only the vaguest notion of the salient points of the different withdrawal agreements.

robinph

The biggest threat to the EU has always been its breakup, not a former member leaving with no deal. Yes a no deal would be damaging for Ireland, a minor annoyance for the rest of the EU. But by a long distance the only thing the EU actually cares about is that it continues to exist.

Johnson had nothing to bargain with the EU on, only a few threats to his own parliament if they happened to not be paying attention at the time.

prawnsambo

robinph wrote: »

The biggest threat to the EU has always been its breakup, not a former member leaving with no deal. Yes a no deal would be damaging for Ireland, a minor annoyance for the rest of the EU. But by a long distance the only thing the EU actually cares about is that it continues to exist.

Johnson had nothing to bargain with the EU on, only a few threats to his own parliament if they happened to not be paying attention at the time.

Yep. People saying that no deal is a threat to the EU are forgetting that no deal is the economic outcome at the end of the transition period if there is no future arrangement agreed at that time and the TP isn't extended. The only difference is that there is a WA and that covers the three red lines on citizen's rights, Northern Ireland and the divorce payment. And even if there had not been a WA, they would have been a pre-condition to any talks after a no deal exit. And all commentators have accepted that this would represent only a speed bump of an indeterminate but very likely short duration.

From our point of view, the TP gives us another year to get prepared for the UK's full exit. But at least now, from day one, the border issue is gone.

Field east

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The customs union isn't worth a farthing for the service industries that have a £29Bn surplus with the EU.

Up to this morn I thought that the brexit idea was a mad one, but after reading these figures - even if they are even ‘half true’ - I have looked in the Oxford Dictionary for a word to describe the mad decision taken and I could not find such a word. The word ‘ suscide’ does not even remotely capture it..

WHERE is the UK going to get the market to replace the EU market it currently has access to?
Who is going to be in charge of standards re for example all the rights, ; goods services standards?
Will there be any ‘reaction’ from that section of the public that may not benefit from a completed Brexit re dip in living standards, wages , etc if such an environment comes about

Field east

Field east wrote: »

Up to this morn I thought that the brexit idea was a mad one, but after reading these figures - even if they are even ‘half true’ - I have looked in the Oxford Dictionary for a word to describe the mad decision taken and I could not find such a word. The word ‘ suscide’ does not even remotely capture it..

It's not always about economics.

For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.

Many people would rather suffer some sort of GDP loss in the hope for restoring the above.

As for economic predictions, they are almost always wrong or, at best, massively exaggerated. Trusting economic predictions, particularly those that predict 15-20 years ahead, is a fool's game.

Economics - has and always will - be weaponised by as a means to keep populations on side, voting for what's in the interests of the EU power structures and those alone.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not always about economics.

For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.

Many people would rather suffer some sort of GDP loss in the hope for restoring the above.

That may or may not be true, we don't know because it isn't what the Leave campaign ran on. It was run on "easiest deal in the world", lots of money to be saved by not giving it to EU bureaucrats hence extra money available to spend on the NHS etc. Oh and Boris Johnson (among others) was clear that they would stay in or very closely aligned with the single market.

Rewriting what "many people" want based on complete speculation is frankly a bit odd. If you were English I'd say it's because you're a Brexiter. If you're not, then it's puzzling.

woohoo!!!

Field east wrote: »

Up to this morn I thought that the brexit idea was a mad one, but after reading these figures - even if they are even ‘half true’ - I have looked in the Oxford Dictionary for a word to describe the mad decision taken and I could not find such a word. The word ‘ suscide’ does not even remotely capture it..

WHERE is the UK going to get the market to replace the EU market it currently has access to?
Who is going to be in charge of standards re for example all the rights, ; goods services standards?
Will there be any ‘reaction’ from that section of the public that may not benefit from a completed Brexit re dip in living standards, wages , etc if such an environment comes about

It isn't our problem. We have extra time to get ready. And as per the report on the SME sector, we need to expand our markets outside of the UK and Brexit of whatever iteration provides the impetus. Maybe we'll actually get serious about brushing up on our language skills. As for NI, the DUP are going to be slowly choking for a long time on their particular brand of cronyism, supremacism and arrogance.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

That may or may not be true, we don't know because it isn't what the Leave campaign ran on.

The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote:

(1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)
(2) To leave the Customs Union (to sign trade deals)
(3) To control borders
(4) To restore control over moneys sent to the EU

True, a deal was promoted as having been possible.

Perhaps if the UK didn't have the worst Prime Minister, in Theresa May, in modern times, things would have panned out much differently. Her "negotiating" stance was incredible.

Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it.

But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.

Give me exact factual examples of what democratic control they lost under the EU please, and what they will gain outside it.


They already could control their borders as has been well documented since the 2016 referendum they simply chose not to.


If they really wanted their voices heard they should have approved the previous referendum on dumping FPTP as a voting system which has meant in the last 80 years only 1 government has been elected by a majority of the electorate and its was a coalition.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote:

(1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)

Oh really?

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote:

(1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)
(2) To leave the Customs Union (to sign trade deals)
(3) To control borders
(4) To restore control over moneys sent to the EU

True, a deal was promoted as having been possible.

Perhaps if the UK didn't have the worst Prime Minister, in Theresa May, in modern times, things would have panned out much differently. Her "negotiating" stance was incredible.

Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it.

But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.

This is untrue. The Customs Union was very rarely mentioned during the Leave campaign. Also, they lied consistently about the "moneys" sent to the EU. In addition, Britain already had ample control over their borders but they chose not to exercise it.

Ihatewhahabies

volchitsa wrote: »

That may or may not be true, we don't know because it isn't what the Leave campaign ran on. It was run on "easiest deal in the world", lots of money to be saved by not giving it to EU bureaucrats hence extra money available to spend on the NHS etc. Oh and Boris Johnson (among others) was clear that they would stay in or very closely aligned with the single market.

Rewriting what "many people" want based on complete speculation is frankly a bit odd. If you were English I'd say it's because you're a Brexiter. If you're not, then it's puzzling.

The easiest deal in the world was the illusion that most Brexiteers bought into that allowed them to believe in their own version of leaving the EU.

But even that has been undermined by Trump (in talk with farage) when he stated that the Boris deal will not be sufficient to allow a free trade agreement with the US.

Is Trump being passive aggressive here. He knows what Jonathan steele basically stated that trump was a Russian asset, whether this was sanctioned by MI6 I do not know. But Tories were the government at the time so Trump may believe that political cover was given to Steele. Hence by him praising Boris and the Brexit party.... may split the Brexit vote on the Tories side unless deal is made with Farage etc. Which Corbyn may use to his advantage or so I hope.

As I believe Corbyn's deal would be of more benefit to Ireland.

If the Boris' deal goes through the UK is still tied to the EU and in limbo vis a vis their best of friends the US

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Give me exact factual examples of what democratic control they lost under the EU please, and what they will gain outside it.


They already could control their borders as has been well documented since the 2016 referendum they simply chose not to.


If they really wanted their voices heard they should have approved the previous referendum on dumping FPTP as a voting system which has meant in the last 80 years only 1 government has been elected by a majority of the electorate and its was a coalition.

The structures of the EU are themselves fundamentally undemocratic; the Commission; the lack of substantive power in the EP. Furthermore, there is also a question of distance. Many people simply cannot name their own MEP, not because they're distinterested in politics, but because power is almost abstractly galaxies away from their local interests that they no longer wish to see that same Commission and power-deficient parliament, ruling over them. They wish to restore a system in which power is more local to home.

Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests.

Third, the EU is now manufacturing an armed force in which member states are bound by an unelected "EU foreign minister". This is clearly an anti-democratic means to centralise yet more power.

Fourth, in the case of Italy and Greece, outright subversion of democracy by installing puppet technocats post the financial crash.

Fifth, how the EU has rejected or outright ignored many other democratic referendums. Mr Juncker himself stated, "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties".

I could go on, but you probably know the rest.

The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofstadt a few weeks ago).

That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers.

VinLieger wrote: »

Oh really?

In those conveniently excised excerpts, Farage is responding to questions about how the UK would be "relegated to the status of Norway". Farage then defends Norway as having more control and having very positive economic and social indices.

What the video doesn't show, is that Farage goes on to say how the UK wouldn't go for a "Norway deal", but a bespoke "UK deal" that reins in more control along the lines of what I described in a previous post.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

The structures of the EU are themselves fundamentally undemocratic; the Commission; the lack of substantive power in the EP. Furthermore, there is also a question of distance. Many people simply cannot name their own MEP, not because they're distinterested in politics, but because power is almost abstractly galaxies away from their local interests that they no longer wish to see that same Commission and power-deficient parliament, ruling over them. They wish to restore a system in which power is more local to home.

Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests.

Third, the EU is now manufacturing an armed force in which member states are bound by an unelected "EU foreign minister". This is clearly an anti-democratic means to centralise yet more power.

Fourth, in the case of Italy and Greece, outright subversion of democracy by installing puppet technocats post the financial crash.

Fifth, how the EU has rejected every other democratic decision. Mr Juncker himself stated, "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties".

I could go on, but you probably know the rest.

The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofshadt a few weeks ago).

That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers.



In those conveniently excised excerpts, Farage is responding to questions about how the UK would be "relegated to the status of Norway". Farage then defends Norway as having more control and having very positive economic and social indices.

What the video doesn't show, is that Farage goes on to say how the UK wouldn't go for a "Norway deal", but a bespoke "UK deal" that reigns in more control along the lines of what I described in a previous post.

How many of those laws made in the EU were agreed upon by UK representatives (either directly elected or nominated by elected representatives)? How much of the 60% is just minor laws.

The EU didn't install a government anywhere.

Ask 100 people to name their local MP/TDs. Let's see how many right answers you get.

Who would think of sole rule by a party with 37% of the vote would be democracy? Farage has been a big player for years and yet his main time in politics was people voting against him. Cummings has become incredibly powerful in UK politics. How many people voted for him?

The EU has not disregarded any democratic decision. It has accepted the UK decision to leave. It is not obliged to implement the UKs policies any more than Ghana is however which is what the UK seems to be expecting since they can't seem to do it themselves.

Not the vote in the UK was a farce. It has been mentioned it would have been thrown out had it been legally binding. How is tin pot style referendum democracy? Democracy is running a vote with anti corruption rules enforced.

mrbrianj

Deleted User wrote: »

But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.

For sure, one side would be happy to agree to a compromise that gave them everything they wanted at the expense of all the othersides core principles.

But that clearly would not lend its self to any sort of a "deal". The main problem with this whole affair is that there is no way to completely leave the EU and maintain its benefits at the same time. The Brexit theory that people got behind does not allow for a compromise either - the vote was leave or stay, the problem is that this flys in the face of modern trade and international relations.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

How many of those laws made in the EU were agreed upon by UK representatives (either directly elected or nominated by elected representatives)? How much of the 60% is just minor laws.

The EU didn't install a government anywhere.

Ask 100 people to name their local MP/TDs. Let's see how many right answers you get.

Who would think of sole rule by a party with 37% of the vote would be democracy? Farage has been a big player for years and yet his main time in politics was people voting against him. Cummings has become incredibly powerful in UK politics. How many people voted for him?

The EU has not disregarded any democratic decision. It has accepted the UK decision to leave. It is not obliged to implement the UKs policies any more than Ghana is however which is what the UK seems to be expecting since they can't seem to do it themselves.

Not the vote in the UK was a farce. It has been mentioned it would have been thrown out had it been legally binding. How is tin pot style referendum democracy? Democracy is running a vote with anti corruption rules enforced.

I'm fascinated; do you believe there are any democratic deficits within the EU - not only now, but in terms of its stated future trajectory?

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it.

Thinking that you are doing "damage limitation" after a vote that was 51/49 was by going all in with the 51% option is idiotic. Claiming that the most extreme version of ideas put forward by the 51% was better than a deal and totally ignoring the other half of the population that bothered to vote, along with the other third of the population overall that didn't, is nothing that could be called "damage limitation".

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm fascinated; do you believe there are any democratic deficits within the EU - not only now, but in terms of its stated future trajectory?

Is there a perfect democratic system out there that the EU should be emulating?
Because otherwise complaints about the undeniable flaws in the EU's democratic systems are a bit nebulous.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm fascinated; do you believe there are any democratic deficits within the EU - not only now, but in terms of its stated future trajectory?

There are changes I would make but some of the claims made were ridiculous. If this was really what the UK cared about it would be sorting out its own house first. It isn't which leads me to believe that is not the reason. The corruption in the referendum being a prime example.

I would also like to see some evidence that people knew which EU laws they were complaining against (see Kippers and Boris Johnson) to believe that was the reason either. Also that those laws were not supported by UK representatives for that matter.

I mean I could suggest changes but since many apply to our own government as well it seems like leaving is a bit of a ridiculous approach to fixing it.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote:

(1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)
(2) To leave the Customs Union (to sign trade deals)
(3) To control borders
(4) To restore control over moneys sent to the EU

True, a deal was promoted as having been possible.

Perhaps if the UK didn't have the worst Prime Minister, in Theresa May, in modern times, things would have panned out much differently. Her "negotiating" stance was incredible.

Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it.

But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.

This is just not true, it's a rewriting of history based on Leave propaganda which you seem to have swallowed whole.
Just one example where your narrative of how it all happened is wrong : All the times Boris Johnson called for Britain to stay in the single market

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm fascinated; do you believe there are any democratic deficits within the EU - not only now, but in terms of its stated future trajectory?

Objectively the EU is far more democratic then the UK, the UK has an unelected head of state for life that is passed down by birth right, they have an unelected 2nd house whose seats are mostly inherited or else appointed for doing good deeds for whichever party is currently in power.

Then theres the FPTP voting system which as i mentioned earlier has only had 1 government elected by the majority of the electorate in the last 80 years but keep telling me how the EU is the undemocratic institution please.....

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

The structures of the EU are themselves fundamentally undemocratic; the Commission; the lack of substantive power in the EP. Furthermore, there is also a question of distance. Many people simply cannot name their own MEP, not because they're distinterested in politics, but because power is almost abstractly galaxies away from their local interests that they no longer wish to see that same Commission and power-deficient parliament, ruling over them. They wish to restore a system in which power is more local to home.

You mean like how Boris is being dumped in a completely different location to where he lives to protect him from losing his seat? And by the way how many people did vote on Boris as PM again?

Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests.

Heard about the International Criminal Court? Or how about the Nuremberg trials? WTO court of arbitrations? Want me to keep going about supranational courts that are agreed to be above national courts for a reason? For example such as smacking down UK governments plan to spy on it's own people. Or are you saying that you want UK to leave ALL supranational courts? Because that would rule out even WTO trade deals. The simple fact is UK has voted for 98% of all law proposals that became EU requirements since 1999; so what if 60% came as a EU requirement if UK voted for said requirements in the first place they were for them to be implemented anyway and hence it does not matter if it was EU mandate or not as UK was for said mandate to be implemented.

Third, the EU is now manufacturing an armed force in which member states are bound by an unelected "EU foreign minister". This is clearly an anti-democratic means to centralise yet more power.

Feel free to point out the exact divisions under direct EU control to send into a warzone; I'll wait for you to come back with the list.

Fourth, in the case of Italy and Greece, outright subversion of democracy by installing puppet technocats post the financial crash.

Last time I checked both countries have these things called elections; you might have heard of them. It's were people get to express their opinion on politics and EU has zero power in how people vote and don't drive around spreading lies such as a certain red bus by a certain current PM. But by all means do continue making up more lies about the secret cabal of EU somehow controlling the national parliaments etc. In fact this sounds very much like the Brexit debate in the UK; the party that has very little to offer and is the significant junior partner in the negotiation is upset that the senior party with significant power by comparison is not rolling over giving them all they want. I look forward to UK leaving because they will then get a chance to experience how reality actually works and realize how accommodating EU has been by comparison. Oh and as a reference Greece actually got paid for their latest issue of bonds (negative interest); clearly a failure in helping them clean up their act.

Fifth, how the EU has rejected or outright ignored many other democratic referendums. Mr Juncker himself stated, "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties".

Once again feel free to quote the exact referendums that EU has ignored. If you bring up the Irish one it was run again once the treaty was changed to address the issues raised by the population so that's a no starter. And of course there's the minor part were EU don't actually run the referendums either; but hey do tell me exactly what referendums EU, not the local government, have ignored. This is before the minor fact that referendums are not run by EU and are by definition an national affair in the first place.

I could go on, but you probably know the rest.

Yes; a lot of unspecific accusations without any facts behind them; the standard feed from the anti EU crowd who when asked to actually point out what law is undemocratic etc. start to mumble and mention the bendy banana law.

The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofstadt a few weeks ago).

Every single law by definition is created by the parliament or government; they need to implement certain requirements from a global body in the same way they have to implement WTO requirements. That comes with being part of a supra national organization that you agree to follow that because it consists of more than one country. Oh and expect the same to come once for example FTAs come up; guess what the UK government will have to do law changes then as well, so are all FTAs out as well?

That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers.

Which it never had lost in the first place; once again stop with the hyperbole and generics and let's talk specifics. What law making power exactly has the UK government and parliament lost? Even the spy law above was a UK made law that got ruled out as being to intrusive and struck down but the law was originated in the UK by the UK government so what law making power are you upset that they have lost?