The 'better' argument of the leavers is the same one as used by Scotland in their independence arguments. It's the idea that the political decisions taken more locally by people elected locally will better serve that locality.

It's why the 'taking back control' argument was so powerful. It can only be countered by arguing that increasing pooling sovereignty (in effect if perhaps not in pure nit form) is in fact better. Sadly the remain camp can't make that argument because they keep denying the EU is about any transfer of sovereignty.

Which just leaves arguing 'what better looks like' which totally fails to address the point - they dont really know and for the purposes of this debate they correctly dont care.

Nobody has moved anything yet. Pure speculation and more Project Fear noise. I guess if you repeat this nonsense enough someone might believe you.

Also our Political process should not be decided by big corporations. If you knew anything about the current state of politics in the UK you would be aware that threats from big businesses are not going down well at the moment.

Which countries are going to make war when article 50 is invoked? I haven't heard any threats on this but the Remainers were warning of WW3.

It's also clear that we will still be trading with Europe (and the world) when Brexit is completed. Just the terms to be finalised.

Pretty much all the Remainers threats have turned out to be false.

Even the BoE has miraculously helped us to avoid a recession, which they said was inevitable. (Not sure who believed them on that though).

Basically nothing the Remainers said would happen has came to pass. Unless we count the 24hrs in the stock markets the day after the vote - at that point they were quick to say they were right. However since the FTSE is now close to a 1yr high they now say we can't tell yet..........!

It's amazing these people once tried to make the intellectual argument, they've been wrong on basically everything.

No, not 'finalised'. Whole trade agreements have to be negotiated and written from scratch. That can take well over a decade. And the most important foreign parties will have us at a considerable disadvantage.


We haven't left the EU yet, and Art.50 hasn't even been triggered. So nobody knows what the position is, or what it's going to be.

I've offered such a defense (as have others in this thread) and you ignored. I invited you to sketch out how a "more rational and democratic" European cooperation would look like, but you abandoned that effort after my first reply.

Maybe because you fear discovering that you would turn out to actually want many of the things the EU is. Just a guess.

Everything is going easy, because not much more is happening yet than Brexiteers discovering what the EU actually is.

^ You do know, "Europe" isn't actually a thing, right? It's just the part of the Eurasian continent where the white people live.

If the continents had originally been defined by subsaharan African geographers they would probably have drawn an arbitrary line across their continent too, to separate themselves from the Arabs in the north.

In the Slovak geography my kids learn it's even better - the Isthmus of Panama makes North and South America too joined to be considered separate continents, whereas thousands of kilometres of land between the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Sea pose no problem for separating Europe and Asia.

Of course I know that, but I fail to see what's your point?

^ That "Europe-wide, Europe-only" is a pretty irrational basis for international cooperation, so its my own answer to the question you're asking diebitter

I never said it has to be Europe-wide, Europe-only. DieBitter claimed himself that he hoped the EU would collapse to make room for a "more democratic and more rational" cooperation. And I am inquiring how that would look like.

And I annswered you.

Yeah, but then you abandoned the topic as soon as I followed up.

At least on this page, you asked:

"...more rational and democratic" European cooperation would look like"

Cooperation based on a figment of people's imagination a priori isn't rational.

This is just something you want to believe so you try to make up a reality to fit it.

There's been nonstop talk about how much losing the single market would hurt and constant arguments for how great free movement is. It's been pointed out that the EU is a really good tool to solve collective action and tragedy of the commons type problems with regards to stuff like fishing, pollution, state aid and so on.

I'll add a couple more: pulling Eastern European countries closer to the rest of Europe and, at the same time, forcing countries to enact liberal reforms if they wanted partnership/membership have both been fantastic developments that couldnt have happened with just bilateral agreements between countries.

The reason the British woke up much poorer after they had voted out was is because the EU is a great thing.

You ignore all that and instead imagine that some future where the EU change by sneaking through a treaty change without telling anyone about it.

What concerns me more is these treaty changes have a high penalty clause if you want to change back, so the EU elite get their changes in by hook or by crook with temporary promises, and then nations are straitjacketed into their world view, good bad or terrible.

If you dont see that, then grow up.

The scenario on which predictions were based was that Cameron (as promised) would go to Brussels and leave the EU the day after the referendum.

As we are nearly 3 months on and the UK still has no clue when it will leave, what it wants after it leaves and whether there is any chance of actually getting what it wants, you should be able to imagine the chaos that would have resulted from the immediate triggering of Art. 50.

Probably almost exactly the same as happened without that. But I could be wrong. I'm willing to express a level of uncertainty in my predictions, something that was utterly missing in all the bremain predictions of doom.

There is no penalty clause. In the EU there is always room for compromise as you should know with the special exceptions that the UK always got. But there are some things that are fundamental to the membership that cannot be changed through compromise. It needs to be done in consensus.

There is no other penalty for leaving the EU than missing out on the huge benefits it brings, mainly, but not exclusively, because of the free trade enabled by the single market.

I guess I can live with a penalty like not paying in 200 mill a week, tbh.

That's not a penalty.

If you don't see the benefits then leave. But as you have no clue about what the EU is, you really have no idea what you are giving up.

I was just repeating diebitter's words (slightly paraphrased), so have a go at him if you want.

So who is leaving the EU dictatorship next? How do I apply for UK citizenship? i am ready to move to an independant UK!

Shutters are down. No one gets in.

I'm pretty sure 50% of the countries that signed up for the Euro had plenty of gold stuffed in their mouths to keep them quiet.

What does that have to do with what we are discussing?