I did google it first too.....

I'm fine, I hope you and yours are fine too.

If I see someone on the street that looks like a Brexiter I give them a disapproving look.

Actually, it was about sovereignty first and foremost, that's what the 12,000+ Ashcroft polling returned on the 24 June '16. Sovereignty meaning the principle that decisions about and concerning the UK are taken solely in the UK. Immigration was distant 2nd, with the risk of potential future loss of sovereignty in 3rd spot.

Do you think it is mainly principle or practical considerations?

Quite clearly my outlook on many matters is different from a Brexiters but I have never found myself worrying about decisions made by the EU.

It's perfectly valid if others are worried about it it, particularly if there are tangible/practical examples of what we can't do because of the EU.

Although we all have principles about all sorts of things - I don't really like 6N bonus points for instance - I'd be concerned if we voted for a damaging course of action just because - on principle - the EU shouldn't be involved in the UK's shit.

All the bendy banana and blue passports stuff seems quite insignificant to me in the grand scheme of things.

Edit: As a follow up for sovereignty Brexiters - what sort of stuff would you like to do when we leave the EU that we can;t now?

and the irony of that simplistic statement is that thanks to the Brexit vote, we will have to follow EU regulations but have no say or vote on those regulations.

Sam,

Can I throw the question back at you? Why does there need to be a Political Union and not just a Trade Union?

I don't necessarily care whether there's a political union or not. It doesn't appear to interfere with my daily life, neither do I wander round thinking "I'm so glad the EU exists".

I appreciate EU rights and protections and feel politically aligned with other European types. But while I like to think I'm reasonably aware about politics and current affairs, I can't really pretend to know categorically what has or hasn't happened because we're part of a political union.

My opposition to Brexit isn't because of any particular attachment to the EU.

By looking around at many and varied sources of information I think that leaving the EU will make our country poorer, will leave us with less influence around the world (possibly sometimes isolated) and will take up huge amounts of time for Government, business and wider society that could be much better spent on something else.

It will very possibly lead to the break up of the UK and a symptom of Brexit could well be a much more extreme Government - not sure which side of the spectrum yet - than I'm happy with.

Things I care about - the NHS, tackling inequality, education - will be quite considerably damaged in my view, directly by Brexit and decisions made because of it.

And quite frankly the people trying to run the show currently absolutely sicken me. We have no right to scoff at Trump when our own public servants now openly pan judges, the Governor of the Bank of England, Civil servants.

I preferred the status quo thanks.

Admirable and heartfelt post, you didn't answer the question though.

I don't see why the taxes of this country should be spent trying to make Romania, for example, a better place to live, especially when huge swathes of our industrial heartland is on it's collective arse.

I thought I did.

I have no ideological attachment to any European system. We put money in, as a big country more than some others, but the overall impact of sucking this up, and staying, to me is more positive than leaving.

Why would I think it's better to be poorer and less influential - to damage the wellbeing of many people - just for the feeling of no longer sending money to Romania?

I believe quite strongly that areas on their arse - like the area I grew up which is reasonably strongly Brexit - will now get a kick in the face as well as being on their arse. The people trying to run Brexit don't give a shit about working people in the North.

Why would I support that?

Because spending that money in Romania or not spending that money in Romania won't make a damn difference to said industrial heartland, it's the governments we elect who are responsible for that. Plus also sharing is caring.

Just checked - where I grew up was 67% leave. fudge me.

It's not one or the other though. Even allowing for most of our EU spend is spent on us that which builds the market allows us way more in benefits than our costs, frankly it's not even close.

What are you on about? Why not?

Can't you see the banality of having a political union though? We're giving them money, they take a cut, and give the rest back to us? There isn't any need for a political union when it could all be managed under a trade union.

No it isn't, it's not "most"

It seems to be a matter of principle for you - fair enough, but I just don't get that.

I hope it's worth it.

I don't want to be a part of a Federalist Europe, which is coming, no doubt about that.

I'll cede thats because of who I am, it's perfectly fine with me if someone thinks that's going to work out well in the end.

Have you asked anyone from there why they voted the way they did?

He's a Yorkist, they are scum.

Well anything north of Watford to be fair.

It wasn't on offer though, deeper integration is their direction and goal. The very same direction that successive British Governments have sought and strained to deviate from for decades with various opt-outs. Politically we are a thorn in the EU side, and its Franco-German axis that want to progress with their plans. We're in there as a handbrake, and are fairly criticised for not being there in spirit. If this is an organisation that is right for us why is this the role we have assumed? Is that what Britain in the EU should represent?

The alternative is for us to be there in spirit too. Would remainers be content to see further and deeper integration into the EU, to have our politicians hand over more powers to the continental European institutions? to have our Parliament become as Ken Clarke put it "a council chamber of the European Parliament". Perhaps they would, but surely you can see why British leave voters were (and are) concerned and do not what that to happen. This was their only chance, they weren't going to get another say.

lies.

It was stay in or leave.

Notice the EU Army being set up? Political union, monetary union, military union, ECJ oversight. It's where it is going and it is where it has always been going, we've just been negotiating opt outs until they said no more. But keep your head in the sand if you wish.

Yes.

Not sure it matters why anyone voted the way they did any more, more what we are all going to get.

Chlorinated chicken!

Eh? I'm interested again in the twisted logic here.

Someone, somewhere, voted Brexit specifically in the hope of getting more chlorinated chicken.

I wonder if Jeremy "champion of a role for members in decision making" Corbyn, will be keen on this occasion?

The German and the French can get on with it. They can pay for the rest of Eastern Europe to lower the retirement age like the Polish have just done. I don't want any part of that

He uses the word democracy where his members are concerned a lot so I'd imagine he's keen on their opinion.

Has the policy changed since the last election ?

So you are quite happy for the UK to raise your retirement age to 70 ? 75 ? 80, or any arbitrary figure.

Well he can vote that government out can't he.

So, Japan basically telling the May government that if the UK leaves the customs union that Japanese FDI into the UK will relocate to inside the EU.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42994603

And it appears that the UK may need to sign up to the 1968 Vienna convention to allow UK motorists and vehicles legally drive in the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-hauliers

They thought they were voting to leave England

There will be a lot more than a loss of sovereignty if it goes badly. Potentially leading to the break up of the union. How would history rate call me dave and weak and wobbly?

That's because the big countries, with the UK at the helm, felt it was a great idea to have a huge market to their shit into, like services, banking etc.... In order to do so, you need to help building local infrastructure etc....

Ultimately, you did it because it was good for Britain.

Within the UK, there is similar investment and subsidy. eg Northern powerhouse and so on. Also it is cheaper to employ government officials in Scotland or Belfast than in the south east. The only thing you disregard is that leavers cannot tolerate anyone not British getting a collateral benefit. They would rather stay poor but be better off than a Romanian than we all gain. That why economic argument doesn't cut it with them.