[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.

[gambiting]

>>The UK didn't want unlimited immigration from the EU,

It was never unlimited and it's yet another lie peddled by Farage and the Brexit campaign.

UK could have always at the very least enforced the basic of the EU free movement principles in terms of limitations - namely that anyone without a job or means to provide for themselves for over 3 months can be kicked out. That would have solved most of the discontent around the issue. Similarily, UK not being in the schoengen zone could have interviewed everyone arriving from the EU - why are they coming here, do they have funds, do they have a job and turn around people it suspected are coming for benefits etc. It chose not to do that. It was entirely legal at the time and it could have been done. But instead politicians lied about UK being "forced" to accept unlimited immigration, which was never true.

It's not even about exceptions - it could have just used the existing laws that were there.

>>Cameron did a tour around Europe directly visiting member states, begging them to grant such an exception

You and I have a very different understanding of how that visit worked.

>> it was an insult to the concerns of the voters.

It's just really funny to me how after Brexit yes, migration from EU has gone down but it was replaced entirely by migration from former British Empire instead. So I'm not sure if the "concerns of voters" was really respected here either way.

[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.