Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Interesting guidelines. I'm not aware of just who in the EU, or the member national governments developed them, but evidently they have been collectively approved by some process. I have my own opinion about the division of Ireland, however it is a political fact. If the UK separates itself from the EU, becoming again a sovereign state, it can do whatever it wants with respect to its borders.

Before long we'll likely have to face the question of whether the member countries in the EU are truly sovereign.

On the EU, May was tackled [in today's BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday] about reported comments from Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, that she was “living in another galaxy” when it came to her demands for trade talks before an exit bill of up to £50bn a year was settled.

May denied this was the case: “I’m not in a different galaxy but what this shows is that there are going to be times when these negotiations are going to be tough; we need strong and stable leadership.”

Britain’s last EU commissioner suggests this could form part of talks with EU27 after bloc agreed tough negotiating guidelines

Britain’s most senior EU official has warned that a post-Brexit Britain would have to recognise the rulings of the European court of justice if it wished to maintain the current level of cooperation in countering terrorism and organised crime.

Sir Julian King, the European commissioner responsible for security, said the UK’s security services had become increasingly reliant on shared crime-fighting tools to carry out their work.
[...]
King told the Guardian that security cooperation would have to be maintained to avoid breaking new ground for the various institutions and would involve tough political compromises including over the role of the ECJ.

In the latest example of the work of Europol, the UK joined 16 other member states earlier this year in uncovering the identity of child victims of sexual abuse posted on the internet.

“The UK has exported 8,000 people under the European arrest warrant and imported a thousand, it is an active user, but there you are talking about an element of the acquis [EU law] and legal and criminal proceedings, so you have to have some level of arbitration,” King said. “The existing level of arbitration is the European court of justice, so that is an issue that will have to be worked through in the negotiations.”

He added that it may be possible for a new independent arbitration body to be established to avoid the ECJ being directly involved, but that it would be rulings made by the court in Luxembourg that would be at issue when the new body came to adjudicate. “By definition the jurisprudence relating to the European arrest warrant is ECJ jurisprudence,” he said.

georgeob1 wrote:

Before long we'll likely have to face the question of whether the member countries in the EU are truly sovereign.

Defined by you or by whom?

Just based on news reports, I expect that the number EU nations, already dealing with internal political action on sovereignty issues will likely increase.

Theresa May accused European politicians and officials of deliberately misrepresenting the UK position over Brexit in an attempt to affect the result of the general election, as she formally launched the campaign.

Speaking in Downing Street a few minutes after meeting the Queen following the dissolution of parliament, the prime minister said that “some in Brussels” did not want the UK to succeed with Brexit.
[...]
Referring to leaks in a German newspaper about the supposed strained atmosphere at a Downing Street dinner last week involving May and the European commission’s president, Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister rejected the idea that her guests had found her ill-prepared and unrealistic.

“And in the last few days, we have seen just how tough these talks are likely to be,” she said. “Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press.

“The European commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election which will take place on 8 June.”

May did not specify who had sought to affect the general election result, or what influence they hoped to exert.
... ... ...

As Article 50 makes clear, from the moment it is triggered there are only two years to correctly pre-apportion blame for the failure of Brexit and so we must commend our Prime Minister for getting on with the job with such terrifying gusto.

There she stood, on the steps of Downing Street, accusing Brussels politicians of ‘seeking to affect the outcome of the general election’ and, despite the shock, despite all the manufactured outrage, she was absolutely right to do so.

You can never be too careful, with a twenty-one point lead against the least credible opposition leader there has ever been, so if Jeremy Corbyn does do it, historians will soon agree she was absolutely right to start pointing the finger at Brussels now.

"Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press," she thundered. Somewhere on an unwatched mantelpiece, a cup and saucer shattered. "The European Commission’s negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June."

That’s right. Course they have. And while we’re at it, it was Brussels that called for the referendum in the first place. It was Brussels that triggered Article 50. It was Brussels that called the general election and so, of course it follows that if Theresa May loses it, it will be Brussels’ meddling that did it.

Of course, "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal," we know that, even if Theresa May did say so again. But hang on (and with full apologies for the length of the quotation but every next line is just that little bit more sensational than the last), what’s this?
[... ... ...]
That’s right people. It’s Brussels playing fast and loose with your children’s future. They did all this. Not me guv’. Not my party. There’s the plane door. Put that parachute down and jump. It'll all be the ground's fault.

We've hardly got going yet. What happens when Brussels won't stand for it? It'll be the Remainers next.

The President of the EU’s ruling Council has intervened to calm Brexit tensions 24 hours after Theresa May launched a vicious attack on “Brussels bureaucrats” on the steps of Number 10.

Donald Tusk warned that talks would become “impossible” if emotions got out of hand between the UK and EU and called for “mutual respect” between the negotiating parties.

Conservative parliamentary candidates in marginal seats have started referring to themselves as “Theresa May’s local candidates” in an apparent attempt to win votes by distancing themselves from their party and instead associate themselves with the Prime Minister.
[...]
It comes after a leaked memo from Conservative Campaign HQ reportedly said Tory candidates should tell voters: “The only way to be sure of strong and stable leadership through Brexit and beyond is by voting for Theresa May and her local Conservative candidate on 8 June."

Those who have been Conservative MPs for many years were reported to be amused that they have now been reduced to being called the Prime Minister’s “local candidate”.
[...]
Last week, 'Conservative' branding was all but removed from banners during a visit by Ms May to Leeds. The Prime Minister spoke to party supporters in front of signs reading "Theresa May: Strong, Stable Leadership in the National Interest" but featuring no mention of the Tories.
[...]
The Tories’ decision to make Ms May the centre-point of their campaign stems from the fact the Prime Minister is significantly more popular than her party among voters.
... ... ...