Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If Britain was so damn sensitive to legitimacy as that Quora article believed you wouldn't have made a referendum that was impossible to draw conclusions from and then drawn conclusions from it anyway. Or still be using first past the post, for that matter. Or running Brexit referendum campaigns with blatantly ridiculous messages. Or... etc etc ad nauseum.

The notion that Britain cares about legitimacy while the EU does not is borderline fetishism.

I'd argue that the UK's defining national trait is stubbornness or, more charitably, tenaciousness. Churchill was almost an incarnation of this, being brilliant when he got it right ("We shall never surrender!") and a downright disaster when he got it wrong (Gallipoli). 14 years ago experts told you that Iraq had no WMDs and that going in with troops was dangerous. You didn't listen to the French or Germans then, because you had stubbornly decided you were right and that's that. Take care that you don't get another Iraq -03 rather than a Dunkerque -40.

At this point, you have to be here to understand it.

However, if you want to give it a try - sit in a dark room with a bottle of good whisky. Put Pink Floyds The Wall on full blast, and constant repeat, and start drinking. After several hours, and the pain, anguish, fear, narcissism, rage, and the sad. pitiful regret for a time that never was have completely taken over your soul - then shall ye know Brexit.

"Would you like to see Britannia rule again, my friends?"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?

Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?

The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.

Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.

Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.

Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.

One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.

It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.

You go through my post history and what do you see?

You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.

I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc

And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.

I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.

It's a mad world.

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?

Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?

The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.

Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.

Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.

Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.

I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?

No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.

I make that claim on the basis of reading newspapers, listening to experts being interviewed, and my long years of following politics.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?

No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.

I can only speak for the UK, but 99 times out of 100, a government minister will be an MP, so he or she will be accountable to somebody, somewhere.

Well as the eu want the money im sure the eu accountants can supply a break down of the charges (in money and not just direction) they want us to pay over and above membership untill 2019. Then talks can start.
Its like leaving a restaurant you get a bill, you dont get asked how much you want to pay.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?

Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?

The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.

Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.

Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.

Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.

I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.

That's a bit different than just walking away (your words).

A quick compromise still requires negotiation to get there.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

And you know this how exactly? If I said you should sell you house to me for £1000 because that is what I think it is worth (not that I have ever seen it, been in the area etc) do you think that this is a reasonable request. Because on your basis you would be happy to do this.

I make that claim on the basis of reading newspapers, listening to experts being interviewed, and my long years of following politics.

How does that make you know how much we owe now? Which newspapers, how do you know they don't have a vested interest either way. The experts, who are they, what is there source, did you validate this. The BBC have put plenty of climate change deniers on as 'experts' for the case against - 99.9% of the scientific community are aghast that they are considered experts. Why does following politics give you an advanced understanding of accountancy surrounding EU capital and revenue budgets?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:


Yes it would. WTO doesn't have a framework for the passenger aviation industry. No deal and flights stop.

Even at no deal there are different shades of grey but in the purest, one-party-storms-off-and-slams-the-door no deal flights between the UK and just about everywhere else (since UK airlines now fly to places thanks to EU brokered deals) would stop overnight.

I'm sure a compromise would be quickly struck. Business on both sides would demand it, like a thirsty man demands water.

That's a bit different than just walking away (your words).

A quick compromise still requires negotiation to get there.

I'm not sure you really understand the complexities involved. Suppose the UK does walk away, the UK does not have the infrastructure or resources at the time to replicate the current aviation controls. Either the UK would have to pay (something you are opposed to) or it could set something up. But then it has to interact with the European version. That requires specific dialogue that has nothing to do with negotiations but at the operational level - e.g. how does then handover work, where does it, what are the communication codes etc. It's unlikely to stop all flights but it will cause disruption because of the lack of interaction in a reasonable time frame. That means less flights possible simply because of safety. Still it would solve the Heathrow problem

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.

You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.

You strike me as the kind of person who would cheerfully strike out, on your tod into the wilderness whilst the rest of the tribe were preparing and getting their hunting gear together. They'd find your well chewed bones a couple of miles away after you'd tried to domesticate a pack of wolves.

Just saying.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.

It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.

You go through my post history and what do you see?

You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.

I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc

And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.

I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.

It's a mad world.

You keep invoking Newton and Brunel, and how we could do this and that in the past, and should just get on with stuff now with no oversight.

So you've been using the past to justify us doing modern things using outdated methods.

So maybe we've misinterpreted you. But that's easy done because you run away from questions like a tory cabinet member.

@whirlwind

I've never been a professional football player, but I've watched hundreds of matches in my life time, and as a result, I have a good working knowledge of tactics, formations, and player ability.

Does that make me good enough to be a manager? No, but I could hold my own in a discussion and offer a reasoned opinion.

Similarly with the EU budget, am I an accountant? No. Can I vouch for every Euro spent in a multi-billion Euro budget? No.

But I've read enough articles over the years, and listened to enough experts and often they were pro-EU politicians, to come to an informed opinion.

Informed citizens like me are perfectly capable of drawing conclusions on political issues and voting accordingly.

We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.

That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.

25 billion. I think that's a reasonable estimate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.

You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.

No there would be a thoughtful discussion as to what might be best for all tribes that would make them safer, build stronger housing and a Stonehenge monument. You approach is to say "I don't like another tribes leader telling me what to do, I'm going that way" pointing to a hill. The other tribes point out that the hill ends in a cliff, but they are naysayers so off we march blindfolds on happily believing that on the other side of the hill is a fair and pleasant land (and not as the evidence suggests a cliff edge, ragged rocks and rough seas!).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

However this is being changed and no longer a real argument against the EU. Part of the current proposals for the EU looking forward is to make things more democratic and that commissioners and the president become elected. It might not be the public voting but, but we get to vote for the MEPs instead which as has already been pointed out is no different to what we have in the UK

More democratic? Is that an admission it was less democratic in the first place?

No less democratic than most national governments fill their ministerial positions.

I can only speak for the UK, but 99 times out of 100, a government minister will be an MP, so he or she will be accountable to somebody, somewhere.

Accountability wasn't originally mentioned. But the Commission is accountable to the directly elected EP, who can dismiss the Commission. So yes the Commissioners are accountable to somebody somewhere too.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...No disrespect to the naysayers on this site but thousands of years ago, I'm the kind of person who'd be curious about what was over the next hill.

You lot would be warning me not to leave the cave.

You strike me as the kind of person who would cheerfully strike out, on your tod into the wilderness whilst the rest of the tribe were preparing and getting their hunting gear together. They'd find your well chewed bones a couple of miles away after you'd tried to domesticate a pack of wolves.

Just saying.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

And somebody did succeed in domesticating those wolves a long time ago


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
One of the myths about Brexit supporters that annoys the hell out of me, is the idea that people like me have this yearning for the past. That I want a return to the days of General Gordon under siege at Khartoum, or the relief column marching to lift the siege of Delhi during the Indian Mutiny.

It's concentrated hogwash from start to finish.

You go through my post history and what do you see?

You see me talking about trade deals with emerging markets, urging Britain to focus on the new money of the future - Asia.

I talk about building more ships to defend this island, building flood defences to secure us against rising sea levels and climate change, heavy investment in R&D for robots and AI, a massive infrastructure programme, new ideas for dealing with a NHS facing an ageing problem, a taskforce for investigating things like citizens' income etc etc

And above all, the idea that we should get Britain ready for the 21st century.

I'm thinking about tomorrow, not today, and yet, I'm accused of being some Victorian statesman dreaming of painting the globe red.

It's a mad world.

You keep invoking Newton and Brunel, and how we could do this and that in the past, and should just get on with stuff now with no oversight.

So you've been using the past to justify us doing modern things using outdated methods.

So maybe we've misinterpreted you. But that's easy done because you run away from questions like a tory cabinet member.

I try my best to reply to the many posts replying to my original post.

Sometimes, it's not possible, because obviously, I can't sit at the computer all day, however much I'd like to. Often, I'm away for days on end getting stuff done.

But even my most vocal critics can't accuse me of ignoring people.

I may not give the answer people want to hear, but I try my best to be polite and attempt to answer the question.

If I go back and quote all the unanswered questions do you fancy having a pop at them? I'm not going to waste an hour if you're not.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.

That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.

We pay about £8.3b after rebate. We've covered this about a dozen times.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.

That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.

We pay about £8.3b after rebate. We've covered this about a dozen times.

Which makes the 25 billion an even better offer than it is.

I foolishly forgot about the rebate

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind

I've never been a professional football player, but I've watched hundreds of matches in my life time, and as a result, I have a good working knowledge of tactics, formations, and player ability.

Your analogy is flawed. Your interpretation should read that you watch someone on TV talking about football having no idea whether they have a grasp of the game or not. You also don't know whether they are telling all the parts of the game (let's suppose they concentrate on the goalkeeper but rarely talk about the centre half) - does that give you a good view of how it works altogether) However based on this you are confident that you know how a good game is played.

If you said you had watched hundreds of accountants doing multibillion finances then I might believe what you are saying. But listening to someone on TV where the articles are selective (i.e. not give the full picture) is not grounds to say you have expertise enough to know about the EU/UK finance agreement.

We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.

That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.

OK what about the EU Galileo GPS system that is running to about £10bn in capital costs and then the ongoing revenue costs for maintaining it (replacing faulty satellites and so on). Did you account for this project? The UK has signed up to the whole project are you saying we should stop funding it and walk away now despite that it will probably fully operational in the next five years or so. The UK has spent and has committed money to this project.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We, the UK, pay what? 14 billion a year to the EU. For argument's sake, let's say we really do leave the EU in 2019.

That's 14 months away. So, we have 14 billion for covering 2018, and another 11 billion for pensions and other projects we may have signed up to.

We pay about £8.3b after rebate. We've covered this about a dozen times.

Which makes the 25 billion an even better offer than it is.

I foolishly forgot about the rebate

You're claiming to be an expert in eu finances and forgot about the rebate?

I haven't had a full nights sleep in 4 months (new baby) and I remembered the rebate.

Sorry if you think I'm being too harsh on you, I just hold you to a higher standard than that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Replace Juncker with Theresa May. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I’m going to call absolute bollocks on this. We had several candidates to vote from, and ultimately it was a choice between May and Corbyn.

.. Actually, if you recall, May was already Pm prior to the general election, having been, so to speak, the last candidate standing from the Cons' MPs who stood for the role after Cameron stood down.

So in fact we did not get a chance to approve May's initial appointment.

In fact to hold the election she had to use parliament to be able to so this, due to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011.

IIRC she could have been Pm for .. about 3 years or so without having to call for an election.

And, of course, it looks quite likely she might not see out her current term doesn't it ?

Presumably our elected officials will then decide which plucky young rogue will draw the short straw step forwards into the role.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.

The council is made of elected members of parliaments of EU nations. The EU parliament also is elected.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.

The council is made of elected members of parliaments of EU nations. The EU parliament also is elected.

Exactly. I still don't understand how people can say Juncker wouldn't have been chosen, as during the EP election it was pretty clear that the party with the most votes would likely get their pick in as President (similar to a PM). Guess what, people still voted for Juncker's party in the EP election. Maybe the majority of the electorate didn't like Juncker, but then the majority doesn't care enough to show up and actually vote. Now what was that thing people said about the opinions of people who don't show up to vote?

I think both sides are being a bit disingenuous here, to be honest. We've had this discussion in the past at least twice.

IIRC, it boils down to the fact the the European system is slightly less directly democratic than the British one, but not by much. Some people don't mind that fact, others do. It's also less answerable purely to the British people than their own elected body is. Some people are happy with that. Some aren't.

It really depends what level you think democracies function best at, and how much control you like to exert as a voter over what appointments. Which is a personal opinion. No right or wrong answer. Which sadly, means no internet points for winning the debate.

Thus is the way of life.


I think we can use a few good breakup lines.


I think the UK and the EU are great, they just aren't great together.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Thus is the way of life.


I think we can use a few good breakup lines.


I think the UK and the EU are great, they just aren't great together.

We're co-dependent.

 welshhoppo wrote:



I think the UK and the EU are great, they just aren't great together.

You are correct. Together they are greater than the sum of their parts!