[gambiting]

>> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government

It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit.

Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was given to a foreign government borders on Russian trolling, it's just so extremely untrue.

>>And this position is very popular.

Which one? And with whom?

[qcnguy]

Both Eurosceptics and pro-federalists routinely claim that 80% of all European law originates at the EU Commission - the exact number surely depends on the precise definition of law, but if both sides of this argument agree on a number as high as 80% then summarizing it as "most" is the right wording.

And if 80% of your law is coming from the EU Commission, then it's correct to say most power was given up to a foreign government. Because the EU is a government, according to its own fiercest proponents.

>> That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions.

> Which one? And with whom?

All of them. You may have noticed he won the referendum to leave the EU and now his party is the most popular party in Britain according to the polls, largely due to his policy of leaving the ECHR too.

The European institutions are captured by an ideology that there can be no compromises on mass migration ever. This position is insane so they can't win votes on this platform, and therefore their strategy is to abuse various supra-national institutions that were sold to the public as doing other things and then written into the constitution so their decisions can't be overruled.

[gambiting]

>>And if 80% of your law is coming from the EU Commission, then it's correct to say most power was given up to a foreign government. Because the EU is a government, according to its own fiercest proponents.

The crucial part you are missing here is that EU Commission doesn't set laws in any EU member country. They set directives, which if approved by the elected EU Parliment every member country should implement as they see fit - or not implement at all, the penalty for not doing so is so laughable even smaller newer EU members routinely ignore it. UK has always had that power - if it chose to implement EU laws within its own legislative framework then it was by choice and it wasn't forced upon it. So no, no power was given away to any foreign government here, just like British parliment isn't giving away any power to anyone when it uses one of its own many comissions to draft legislation. This is the lie that people like Farage kept peddling here - that anything has been forced on the UK in this relationship, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

>> largely due to his policy of leaving the ECHR too.

Citation needed, seriously. To me it seems it's largely due to Tory party self imploding(finally) and Labour being completely incompetent and walking back on most of their own promises which angered a lot of people. I bet most Reform supporters wouldn't even know what ECHR is, nor do I see why it should matter to them - in all of 2024 ECHR has issued exactly one rulling against the UK, and it was about Daily Mail winning a case against the UK government. If anything they should love it, but of course there's still some idiotic propaganda about ECHR blocking deportations and such when in reality the UK government is just simply incompetent on that front and cannot agree a simplest deal with France on that topic.

>>The European institutions are captured by an ideology that there can be no compromises on mass migration ever.

Which is why this is such a debated topic within the EU all the time and countries are implementing their own laws around it, right? You say it like there's some dogma that has to be obeyed - which anyone can see is not true, with major fractures along this exact point within the EU itself.

>>and then written into the constitution

Which consitution? EU doesn't have one, and I don't recall anything being added to the consitution of my native country for a very long time now - where exactly are these things you speak of written into?

>>so their decisions can't be overruled.

EU doesn't have any insitution that "cannot be overruled". Every member state retained full legislative and judiciary independence from every EU institution. ECHR is a sole exception to this, but it's not an EU insitution, and again, there are no real penalties for ignoring it nor does it have any impact on a country like the UK.

[traceroute66]

> UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to.

And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table.

The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.

[qcnguy]

If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying.

In reality the exceptions were mostly a work of fiction. For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law. Then the EU did that anyway, so the UK got a "carve out" written into the treaties, and it was reported as such to the public. Then the ECJ ruled that it wasn't allowed to have such a carveout and would have to enforce ECHR and ECJ rulings on human rights anyway.

In other words: people were lied to. There was no carveout, not even when every country signed a treaty that spelled out one clear as day. This is how the EU rolls.

[gambiting]

>>If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying.

Having the best deal out of all members states in a union is a reason to leave that union? Are you even listening to what you say, or do you just say it so quickly it doesn't process? If you negotiate with your employer to have the best working conditions of everyone at your company, according to you that's the reason to leave - why? You tell me.

>>For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law.

Can you give a specific example of a human right principle that wasn't suited to be a law please?

[mathiaspoint]

Yes if the best thing you can say about the deal is that you don't have to have much of it that's an argument for not doing the deal.

[phatfish]

The UK "didn't have much" of all the things it didn't want. But plenty of the things it did want. That is a great deal, Trump would be proud. Plenty of Brits too dumb to understand that though.

[qcnguy]

The UK didn't want unlimited immigration from the EU, and the EU refused to even consider the possibility of an exception, so the UK left.

It's not complicated, it's old history, and the fact that people are still describing this as "brits dumb hurhur" is racist and abusive. The idea that it could have got an exception, by the way, is yet more federalist lying. Cameron did a tour around Europe directly visiting member states, begging them to grant such an exception, and they refused. He returned with his "deal", presented it to the country and never mentioned it again during his campaign because it was an insult to the concerns of the voters.

[Chris2048]

> the UK had the very best seat at the table.

> The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions

The EU had many things that didn't benefit the UK, which happens when you don't share a mainland with the rest of Europe. e.g. Schengen area didn't make as much sense for UK,

The UK got to not adopt the euro, but then it's currency was particularly strong in the first place. The Rebate is usually what is spin as the great advantage given to the UK, but was mostly justified by the fact that the UK didn't benefit as much from agricultural subsidies.

[foldr]

The Schengen area is only loosely connected to the EU. Not all EU member states are in the Schengen area, and not all Schengen area member states are in the EU.

[Chris2048]

25 of the 27 EU members are also in the SA, I disagree that it has nothing to do with it.

[foldr]

Mostly just for geographical reasons, no? If you have a free travel area covering a large swathe of continental Europe then it's inevitably going to include mostly EU member states. AFAIK there has never been any substantial objection to Ireland and (formerly) the UK opting out of Schengen, which obviously wouldn't make sense for those countries given where they're located.