You cant counter factual observations about trading arrangements with a complete hypothetical.

LOL extrapolation is beyond some people

You came straight out and acknowledged that we're unlikely to ever get a trade deal as good as the one we already have with the EU, and you know full well that this will mean economic catastrophe for the UK. You don't care about any of that because who cares if we drive straight into an iceberg, at least it will be white English people people steering the ship.

Suppose you're organising a holiday with family and friends and you're unhappy with the current plan. You keep saying 'a good holiday would provide a,b,c ..' At some point you have to be able to come up with some idea for which 'good place to go' would provide a,b,c (and one that's acceptable enough to the rest of your party). Can't reasonably keep saying 'Erm a good place to go is somewhere that will provide a,b,c ..'

So I'm asking you what deal would deliver those good things you want. Then I'm asking whether you think there's any sort of majority for that sort of deal in the UK.

Maybe, but providing any kind of substantiation to your Daily Mail fuelled fantasies is beyond you.

The premise from which he’s extrapolating is based on a precedent that does not exist. If the EU expands its power it will be because the member states all agreed to do so. Apparently this is undemocratic.

It's usually about this point that diebitter goes offline for a while, to return when he thinks people have forgotten about his unresolved contradictions and unanswered questions.

When they agree to lock themselves into a change to the EU's powers that give up more national sovreignity without national referendums, that's profoundly undemocratic. DUCY?

And yes I realise the national here today, gone tomorrow politicians that agree to this are responsible, but that doesn't make it any less undemocratic.

As opposed to the lifetime politicians we have in the UK?

If the EU was undemocratic then democratically accountable politicians giving away power to the EU would be a huge issue. It would be like voting to end democracy - a real problem if a democracy wants to do it.

But the EU isn't undemocratic so it's not an issue.

Yeah. But it's more I realise it's a bit of a waste of time to argue with people that see the EU as a good thing without major flaws when it seems so utterly unfit for purpose.

LOL.

You really missed the point here. First I was talking about UK politicians, and other country's politicians too.

Our own politicians are the stewards of our democracy during the brief periods they are in charge. If they give it away during their transitory tenure without clear consent from the people, it's gone forever and beyond the power of the people to get back... Unless we leave the EU.

So how about answering the questions you've been asked, and addressing your self-contradictions?

I don't see this long term downside, because I don't see the EU Superstate ever coming into existence. Part of what limits pure democracy in the EU is the primacy of the council and the equal say of all 28 (soon to be 27) members, irrespective of size. In that way the MEP elections aren't truly representative, but that's because your own government have a veto no matter how many MEPs you send. I struggle to see that ever been done away with and - as such - power is never truly going to be centralised in the way you fear.

As always, we return to the basic considerations of whether this EU we reside within in is positive or negative. The longest period in Europe without a major war and the general rise in living standards as part of the EU project clearly indicate that being in the EU is a good thing for me and you, the average man (I'll choose to describe 'average' here in a modern context as educated to a minimum standard and forced to pursue a living to some extent or another). The EU taking robust standards on workers rights, quality of produce, protection of data and privacy codified in law are the types of things that benefit the average man also. You might consider whether such things are of benefit to a man like Jacob Rees Moog and his wealth and business interests...

The rise of anti Eu sentiment is not being ignored either. They did a deal on immigration recently driven by the new Italian PM. If you ask me, ultimately the EU will let Syrian refugees and similar get the boat (pun intended!) before they compromise the essential harmony of the EU. There is too much at stake. Similarly, they will allow a disorderly Brexit before they allow a compromise on the four freedoms of the Single Market.

Your two aims for Brexit are freedom from the ECJ and the ability to make your own trade deals. You may well get that in a Hard Brexit, but is it worth the economic calamity it will involve? It will be worth it for JRM and his ilk, there is a veritable river of gold to be made from a sharp market crash and a desperate Britain willing to significantly lower workers rights and produce standards in a free trade deal with the US (or anyone).

Fundamentally, the EU or the US or the WTO or the G8 or NAFTA or whatever isn't to blame for working class 'blue collar' woes in the western world. Technology, automation and rising competencies in the 'third' world have put a squeeze on that Trump won't solve, that Brexit can't solve and that isn't the fault of all those dirty immigrants sullying glorious Britain. The anger, fear and disenfranchisement is real. People are doing less well than their parents and are ever more threatened. Brexit has been successfully sold to the North and Midlands of England as a salve to their problems when it may very well decimate their biggest remaining employment sources. I'm not sure what the answer to their woes are, but leaving the biggest free trade block in the world isn't it. Leaving a rule making body that has consistently demonstrated a consistency in terms of workers rights over and above the instincts of the Conservative party is not either.

As a nation, you've been duped. And those behind it are close to the real objective being realised: money.

As a matter of fact most decisions are made without and single nation having a veto.

This is a good thing. Unanimity is reserved for for the more sensitive matters but hopefully nationalistic issues will become less sensitive over time and more will come into majority type voting.

^ link for above http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/co...fied-majority/

The EU project has coincided with a massive increase in the power and accuracy of 1-to-many military weapons, and a huge reduction in global national army headcount. And there have still been conflicts during that period.

It has coincided with global wealth increasing massively, while the EU region in recent times is one of the slowest growing areas globally.

All those 'workers rights' and people still worse off than their parents. What are the much vaunted 'workers rights' ? I am yet to hear anything beyond basic holiday entitlement and maternity leave for which there is a consensus of agreement and no indication that Rees-Mogg et al are keen to end it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Some bits from an interview with Nathalie Loiseau, the French Europe minister.

So just maybe we get the EU/May saying there's simply no way forward to a deal. Then it's wto (maybe with some ++) or if we like we could change our minds and remain on the same terms - a straightforward referendum.

Full of false assumptions.

Blair gave away a stack of veto rights, for example.

If that's on the table, why haven't the EU stated that?

Smells like remainer wish fulfilment bull****.

Sorry, you’re correct that it isn’t *everything*. I doubt more sensitive matters will ever move here but we’ll see.

You have the temerity to throw that meme at me with that post?! Conflicts in the world? Yes. Conflicts between EU states (or members of previous variants of same)? No.

Global wealth is increasing massively in the developing world and growth is slowing in the developed world. This is well understood, but it is not a problem caused by the Single Market. Or, to put it another way, it is not a problem that will be solved by Economic nationalism.

It’s much more difficult to lay off an employee in the EU than it is in the US.
The current Conservative party champions job stats as a measure of progress but I question the value of zero hour contract service jobs - I certainly don’t see them as a path to closing the gap between generations for lower educated western workers.

I believe Brexit is being driven by those who crave a lower regulation, lower tax model for the UK economy and believe (rightly) that such things could be more ably achieved outside the Single Market and Customs Union. I also believe that dismantling of the NHS is an ideological goal for certain elements on the right of the Conservative party and a chaotic Brexit could aid such a cause. You may choose to disagree with all of that.

Where it moves out of opinion into objective realms is in the various studies that indicate the negative economic impacts of a Hard Brexit. If you’re happy to wait 50 years for the benefits as JRM suggested on Channel 4 that is your prerogative, but it falls short of what was sold to the people two years ago.

You can only cross your fingers. But I fear Brexit is too much an article of faith honed over 25 years of media disinformation and ever deteriorating societal discourse to simply be abandoned by the faithful.

Well that was the French Europe minister. I don't know how powerful that position is, or how considered the answer was, but it's not some rando.

Other such as Tusk have made their views pretty clear but it's very much NOT for the EU to lead the way on us changing our minds. The UK has to push for a 2nd referendum and, as part of that, discuss with the EU how it would work. I hope and largely expect that the EU will do everything they can to facilitate us if we vote to stay.

I plead guilty to some that. Then again there's no better way to make our dreams come true than to keep fighting for them. Maybe we cant get a 2nd referendum, maybe we would lose it if ewe got it, maybe the EU would say no - all these things are possible and yet no reason at all not to keep on going.