The position in your first 2 lines is entirely valid in my opinion. I was condemning the hatred, but it's entirely valid for each country to negotiate for their

The position in your first 2 lines is entirely valid in my opinion. I was condemning the hatred, but it's entirely valid for each country to negotiate for their best interest, especially, I reckon, since the UK received preferential treatment when they were in. > in the democratic interests of the remaining EU citizens who don't want to see the EU crumble any further It's in the democratic interest of the remaining EU citizen to know that they won't get hatred if they ever decide to leave EU. The democratic interest is in freedom. I'm looking at the increase of power of international law, and its democracy, the fact that they override country-level laws, and the track record we need to set for future agreements. We're negotiating with powerful countries who have a track record of spying, blackmailing and subverting other democracies to make them sign agreements against the will of the people. Once signed by our leaders, TTIP is unrevokable. This is not in our democratic interest. In democracy, all laws are voted and can be changed. It may incur costs (e.g. the loss of not having free trade anymore) but it shouldn't incur any fine, hatred, or condamnation based on moral standard. A positive outcome of the Brexit on the TTIP/EU/WTO/OTAN/Climate/... would be if international agreements faced a referendum by the People every 10 years. That way, we'd ensure the people are in on the laws that apply to them.