Brexit Update

[Hymie]

Having not posted on Brexit of late, and to ensure TTT is not suffering withdraw symptoms, here is an update on the disaster that keeps on giving.

When Daily Express readers acknowledge what a disaster Brexit is, you can be sure it is a disaster.
Interestingly one Daily Express reader said ‘Of course Brexit is a failure, it only takes someone with a fraction of a brain to observe the damage it has caused to our economy and the havoc it has played with our businesses – the lifeblood of our nation.’

Unhappy with a Yougov survey which showed those thinking the UK was right to leave the EU at its lowest level of 31%; the Express ran its own poll amongst its readers only to find 62% responded that Brexit had been a failure and only 29% a success.

Some may ask why I’m continuing to post on AB what a disaster Brexit is – based on the replies to my posts, many ABers are of the opinion that Brexit is a fantastic success for the UK – they are wrong.

[bobbinwales]

But NJ don't say it was undemocratic does he?

[New Judge]

//As 1 of 28 member States, why should the UK have had a greater proportion of representation than other member States..//

When did I ever suggest that it should? If I was to argue that the UK was under represented on the Council and the Commission I would suggest that it should have about 13% of the seats of each of those institutions because the UK had about that percentage of the total EU population.

But I'm not arguing that at all because such details do not interest me. I was fundamentally opposed to the UK's membership precisely because it could only ever produce decisions and legislation that would be, at best, a compromise of interests. Those compromises could (though not necessarily would) be against the best interests of people in the UK. Such compromises are a necessity in a sovereign nation because there will always be issues that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of everybody. But the EU is not a sovereign nation. Its biggest drawback (among many) is that it tries to behave as if it is. And it cannot provide sufficiently robust compromises that satisfy the requirements of so many very disparate nations.

//…whether or not we are members of the EU we’re not always going to get our way in a world where we no longer have a controlling influence//

I don’t know why you think that’s what I’m seeking. I’m not looking for the UK to always get its way in the world; I’m not particularly bothered whether it does or it doesn’t and I didn’t vote to leave expecting we would. As you rightly say, whether we are EU members or not, we would not get it.

It is quite clear to me that you will never understand my opposition to the UK’s membership of the EU. It is far more than worrying about a few percentage points on GDP; it is far more than worrying about what queue I must join when entering an EU country. It is fundamentally simple – who decides what is best for the UK? Is it the UK Parliament or is it a supra-national body which has the wishes and requirements of 28 disparate nations? f 28 disparate nations? You know my answer. To continually claim that the EU had little or no influence over the UK’s affairs and any it did have was of no consequence demonstrates either naivety or duplicity. I’m not entirely sure – and utterly unconcerned - which it is.