6 ms·

The case for Brexit that I've heard from the beginning has not changed, so if you honestly haven't heard it, it goes something like this: the primary goal is t

The case for Brexit that I've heard from the beginning has not changed, so if you honestly haven't heard it, it goes something like this: the primary goal is to retain sovereignty while Britain still can; to arrest the slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U.

gumby 7y ago
> slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U. ...despite the fact that no EU rules can go into force in any EU state without that state passing a law to make it happen within its borders. And despite the rather pointless European Parliament, the real decisions are made by the elected heads of member state governments, when they meet as the European Council. So after Brexit the new boss will precisely be identical to the old boss. But sure, why not believe that the 350 mil a week is being stolen by a bunch of offshore bureaucrats.
- martin8412 7y ago
  It is not quite true. Certain things can indeed be implemented without a local law being passed in parliament. But that is very rarely used, and when used it is for actual important stuff that a lot of people would agree is a good thing.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    None of this is true! All EU law is automatically implemented in the UK, parliament cannot stop it, and most things are no longer vetoable at the Council level either. What little veto power remains is under attack by the EU itself which wants to move to qualified majority for everything, and that assumes votes actually matter in the EU, when there's lots of evidence that they don't. The reality is the goal of the EU is to replace national governments. That replacement provides an illusion of democracy but without actually being democratic. Just go read the various statements of the people who control the European apparatus, or witness how the people's primary concerns as measured by opinion polls are simply ignored in Brussels (which does the opposite in fact).
martin8412 7y ago
The officials in the EU are just as elected as the officials of the UK. They voted for someone to vote for them. Similar to multiple other countries.
skummetmaelk 7y ago
Can you explain which unelected officials you are talking about specifically. How does the number of unelected officials differ from the national government of the UK? In both cases there is a parliament where you vote for someone to represent your area. You cannot vote for anyone outside your area. In the EU your area is a country and in the UK your area is a smaller part of the country. If you live in Scotland, northen Ireland or Wales you are also governed by a different "country" with unelected officials. Then you have the truly unelected members of government. Advisors and ministry beaurocrats and administrators. I simply cannot wrap my head around how people can keep regurgitating this crap. All western democracies are full of "unelected" officials. The EU is not some special unelected body. You have your vote and you vote for a representative to represent your constituency. Stop spreading this nonsense.
- brmgb 7y ago
  Wanting to retain local sovereignty rather than be part of a larger block seems to me like a legitimate reason to be in favour of Brexit regardless of the democratic legitimity of the EU. It's not one I agree with but it certainly seems respectable to me.
- 08-15 7y ago
  > which unelected officials The European Commission. Remember, the Commission gets to propose legislation, the Parliament (which you elect) doesn't.
  - renaudg 7y ago
    This is the executive arm. Commissioners are appointed by each member state's governement. This is no less democratic than the way UK cabinet ministers are appointed.
    - 08-15 7y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. But the UK parliament gets to propose legislation, doesn't it? The German Bundestag sure does.
thefinalboss 7y ago
but eveyrone elected those unelected officials in the European elections a few months ago.
te_chris 7y ago
No I mean now, today August 18 2019, now that we actually know what it means and, more importantly, what it will cost. Why on earth would we do this?
- michaelt 7y ago
  now that we actually know [...] what it will cost Why on earth would we do this? To some euroskeptics, the cost is irrelevant. Before the referendum, I heard euroskeptics call the EU undemocratic citing the process where the 2005 EU Constitution / 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. They saw the constitution-to-treaty change as bypassing the rejection of the former by French and Dutch referendums; and the second Irish referendum as bypassing the rejection by the first Irish referendum. They saw this as analogous to an election in a tinpot dictatorship, where the Glorious Leader winning is the only possible outcome. That the EU had no taste for hearing the the average citizen's voice, unless it was supportive. If you honestly believe the big thing that's wrong with the EU is that votes are only allowed so long as the outcome is pro-EU, earnestly implementing the referendum result come what may is really the only option. Anything that stands in the way of doing that only serves to prove the importance of doing that. And unfortunately, the Tory party has a lot of euroskeptics.
arethuza 7y ago
I seem to remember that one of the pro-Brexit arguments was to "retain sovereignty" for parliament which, rather ironically, doesn't seem very keen on the idea at all.
pknight 7y ago
The sovereignty argument for Brexit in practice is counterintuitive, it often implies it enhances ones choices and power over things. But being an EU member state doesn't give away sovereignty, it's a way of expressing your sovereignty; it's pooling it with others in order to do things you can't do on your own. A leaving member state has a different menu of choices it can make, but because it's position is weaker, the choices are at best narrowed down, or at worst set by other parties. In the case of the UK, it can choose between favouring a US market over a EU market, but each choice imposes restrictions set entirely by others. The EU will insist on a higher bar of conduct to pass, as part of its level playing field approach. The US will insist on limiting the UK's ability to raise the bar where it sees fit, so that US companies can more readily exploit the UK market, unencumbered by impediments it finds today in the form of things like food safety standards. And you have to pick one or the other. Today the UK was able to influence the environment that most affected it, because it was a member of the EU. Tomorrow larger parties are shaping what the UK can choose from, with little say in it for British voters. This is a form of sovereignty shrinkage. The idea that Brexit returns sovereignty is misleading and I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed when they find out in practice what it means.
pjc50 7y ago
The "unelected" line is moronic in a country with an unelected head of state and the only unelected legislative chamber in a "democratic" country.
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  Something we will have to deal with before the next generation rejoins the EU. Having an unelected chamber would disqualify us from joining!
mikedilger 7y ago
I was regurgitating the positive case for Brexit that I've heard, not making a case myself, because the previous commenter said he "had not heard" a positive case that is still relevant today (a sovereignty case is still relevent today). I wasn't making the case myself. I'm sorry 'unelected officials' triggered everybody, but that is what they say.

gumby 7y ago

> slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U. ...despite the fact that no EU rules can go into force in any EU state without that state passing a law to make it happen within its borders. And despite the rather pointless European Parliament, the real decisions are made by the elected heads of member state governments, when they meet as the European Council. So after Brexit the new boss will precisely be identical to the old boss. But sure, why not believe that the 350 mil a week is being stolen by a bunch of offshore bureaucrats.

martin8412 7y ago
It is not quite true. Certain things can indeed be implemented without a local law being passed in parliament. But that is very rarely used, and when used it is for actual important stuff that a lot of people would agree is a good thing.
- repolfx 7y ago
  None of this is true! All EU law is automatically implemented in the UK, parliament cannot stop it, and most things are no longer vetoable at the Council level either. What little veto power remains is under attack by the EU itself which wants to move to qualified majority for everything, and that assumes votes actually matter in the EU, when there's lots of evidence that they don't. The reality is the goal of the EU is to replace national governments. That replacement provides an illusion of democracy but without actually being democratic. Just go read the various statements of the people who control the European apparatus, or witness how the people's primary concerns as measured by opinion polls are simply ignored in Brussels (which does the opposite in fact).

martin8412 7y ago

The officials in the EU are just as elected as the officials of the UK. They voted for someone to vote for them. Similar to multiple other countries.

skummetmaelk 7y ago

Can you explain which unelected officials you are talking about specifically. How does the number of unelected officials differ from the national government of the UK? In both cases there is a parliament where you vote for someone to represent your area. You cannot vote for anyone outside your area. In the EU your area is a country and in the UK your area is a smaller part of the country. If you live in Scotland, northen Ireland or Wales you are also governed by a different "country" with unelected officials. Then you have the truly unelected members of government. Advisors and ministry beaurocrats and administrators. I simply cannot wrap my head around how people can keep regurgitating this crap. All western democracies are full of "unelected" officials. The EU is not some special unelected body. You have your vote and you vote for a representative to represent your constituency. Stop spreading this nonsense.

brmgb 7y ago
Wanting to retain local sovereignty rather than be part of a larger block seems to me like a legitimate reason to be in favour of Brexit regardless of the democratic legitimity of the EU. It's not one I agree with but it certainly seems respectable to me.
08-15 7y ago
> which unelected officials The European Commission. Remember, the Commission gets to propose legislation, the Parliament (which you elect) doesn't.
- renaudg 7y ago
  This is the executive arm. Commissioners are appointed by each member state's governement. This is no less democratic than the way UK cabinet ministers are appointed.
  - 08-15 7y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. But the UK parliament gets to propose legislation, doesn't it? The German Bundestag sure does.

thefinalboss 7y ago

but eveyrone elected those unelected officials in the European elections a few months ago.

te_chris 7y ago

No I mean now, today August 18 2019, now that we actually know what it means and, more importantly, what it will cost. Why on earth would we do this?

michaelt 7y ago
now that we actually know [...] what it will cost Why on earth would we do this? To some euroskeptics, the cost is irrelevant. Before the referendum, I heard euroskeptics call the EU undemocratic citing the process where the 2005 EU Constitution / 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. They saw the constitution-to-treaty change as bypassing the rejection of the former by French and Dutch referendums; and the second Irish referendum as bypassing the rejection by the first Irish referendum. They saw this as analogous to an election in a tinpot dictatorship, where the Glorious Leader winning is the only possible outcome. That the EU had no taste for hearing the the average citizen's voice, unless it was supportive. If you honestly believe the big thing that's wrong with the EU is that votes are only allowed so long as the outcome is pro-EU, earnestly implementing the referendum result come what may is really the only option. Anything that stands in the way of doing that only serves to prove the importance of doing that. And unfortunately, the Tory party has a lot of euroskeptics.

arethuza 7y ago

I seem to remember that one of the pro-Brexit arguments was to "retain sovereignty" for parliament which, rather ironically, doesn't seem very keen on the idea at all.

pknight 7y ago

The sovereignty argument for Brexit in practice is counterintuitive, it often implies it enhances ones choices and power over things. But being an EU member state doesn't give away sovereignty, it's a way of expressing your sovereignty; it's pooling it with others in order to do things you can't do on your own. A leaving member state has a different menu of choices it can make, but because it's position is weaker, the choices are at best narrowed down, or at worst set by other parties. In the case of the UK, it can choose between favouring a US market over a EU market, but each choice imposes restrictions set entirely by others. The EU will insist on a higher bar of conduct to pass, as part of its level playing field approach. The US will insist on limiting the UK's ability to raise the bar where it sees fit, so that US companies can more readily exploit the UK market, unencumbered by impediments it finds today in the form of things like food safety standards. And you have to pick one or the other. Today the UK was able to influence the environment that most affected it, because it was a member of the EU. Tomorrow larger parties are shaping what the UK can choose from, with little say in it for British voters. This is a form of sovereignty shrinkage. The idea that Brexit returns sovereignty is misleading and I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed when they find out in practice what it means.

pjc50 7y ago

The "unelected" line is moronic in a country with an unelected head of state and the only unelected legislative chamber in a "democratic" country.

jimnotgym 7y ago
Something we will have to deal with before the next generation rejoins the EU. Having an unelected chamber would disqualify us from joining!

mikedilger 7y ago

I was regurgitating the positive case for Brexit that I've heard, not making a case myself, because the previous commenter said he "had not heard" a positive case that is still relevant today (a sovereignty case is still relevent today). I wasn't making the case myself. I'm sorry 'unelected officials' triggered everybody, but that is what they say.