Democracy hasn't failed here. Your MPs have.

Humphrey in Yes, Minister puts it very aptly: the UK joined the EU to try to screw it up from within after failing to screw it up from without. De Gaulle saw through this and that is why he refused to let the UK join while was at the helm.

The UK leaving the EU and/or disagreeing with what it stands for (to the UK: a market; to the rest of the EU: a peace project with benefits) has been a debate ever since the UK joined. If I am not mistaking, nearly all challenges to PMs in the UK since have been about the EU.

True, the EU is not perfect. But it's more or less functional and it's brought us peace since 1945. Plus, as an EU citizen, it's wonderful to be able to move from one point on the continent to another on a whim.

A large chunk of EU MP's time is actually spent transcribing EU law into Member State law, which is to say a lot more -- good -- stuff gets done in Brussels and Strasbourg than gets reported by the media. The EU, as an aside, happens to be a convenient scapegoat across the EU: when it's good, it's because of us; when it isn't, it's because of Brussels. But you'd never know that reading UK press.

To me the real WTF is that Brexiters didn't even believe in their own project all while pushing for it [1]. They had done such a good job in the decades prior at scapegoating the EU for just about everything, that UK voters ended up voting Leave, thereby pointing a gun at their own face.

More outrageous still is that some of the movement's leaders, such as Farage, are jumping ship by moving to continental Europe.

Frankly, as a continental EU citizen who has been watching this circus with growing awareness since the late-80s, the only thing that comes to my mind is: unless the UK public gets its act together (in which case I fully expect the rest of the EU to insist on the UK abandoning its budget rebate nonsense and adopting Schengen and the Euro, on top of aligning with the EU project once and for all), good riddance.

[1]: Mehdi Hasan's take on this in Chris Hayes' podcast is spot on: https://player.fm/series/why-is-this-happening-with-chris-ha...

UK? No... This is an issue of English imperialist history. British Empire is dead, but too many people forget that.

English majority was lying all the way from mid 20th century. Last two blatant lies - promise to the Scots to keep them in the EU and 350mil to NHS(which was really a front for "they are stealing our benefits").

Democracy didn't fail - the process of legislation failed. The UK didn't vote on how they would leave the EU or what was wrong with the current arrangements, they just strung together a poorly-worded promise and played chicken with the constituency.

That's not so much the problem here. The problem is that the voters answered the wrong question, as a result of a bad binary choice and lying campaigns.

If voters had known what they are in for, they wouldn't have voted to leave.

Have you asked each and every person to come to your conclusion? I voted "leave" because I don't want unelected officials like Junker deciding the law of the land in a UK.

Perhaps you should get more informed and read up on the Kalergi Plan.

There is such a thing as surveys which can capture motivations and reasoning. And then there is the rhethoric of the leave campaign, some of which was obviously untrue back then (the famous NHS line on that bus), and some have turned out to be lies after the referendum (like the optimistic assumptions about a brexit deal). At the very least the voters did not have a clear picture of how the deal would work out.

Your point about "unelected officials" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EU works. "The EU" or its officials don't decide that much, if anything at all. Most of it relates to being able to exchange goods and services in a fair and safe manner. And even then, these decisions are driven by the elected governments of the member countries, because the "unelected officials" are selected and directed by those.

For example: if a company from country A is providing a service in Country B, using workers from country A, then there need to be certain rules. Labor protections should apply equally, as should professional qualifications and such. Similar things apply to goods traded between countries. If one country lowers its standards, for example for medical equipment, and the other members are forced to accept that equipment, then there is both a safety concern and a competitive concern. That's why so much regulation is coordinated at the EU level - and driven by the member states.

And no, bilateral treaties can't keep up the slack, because 28 member countries would have to have bilateral treaties with each other, which would be impractical.

It looks like what this guy was saying was that people would be fucking a lot and ethnic groups would mix as time moves on. I mean, this is literally the story of homo sapiens. Mass migrations and ethnic mixing - been happening for hundreds of thousands of years.

You really shouldn't have voted leave my friend.

as you are telling others to be more informed, and you said that Junker is unelected.. how do you think Junker ended up in there? Do you think he can just do whatever he wants without having to asked? Or you think every important official should be directly elected by the citizens? Spoiler: it does not happen in the main democracies for roles such as president or even head of state, and of course it does not happen for the Queen. I would be more upset bout that than about Junker.

Particularly these "unelected officials" are a necessary part of every burocracy.

Unless a voter spends a ridiculous amount of time studying and keeping current in politics, he can only meaningfully participate in a limited number of elections and issues. "Down the ballot", even for things like AGs or Judges, much less regulatory officials, people lose interest and competency.

Politics failed, not democracy. Failed to offer an intelligent question, failed to present rational argument (never have I seen such disingenuous campaigning, by both sides, in UK politics as for the referendum), failed to present the result in the context of our constitution and system.

The referendum was called by Cameron to try and keep the party hardliners in their box. Nothing more than playing politics. The remain vote was supposed to be a foregone conclusion or he'd have not called that referendum at all. Cameron's reaction the morning after says it all.

In the words of Chris Patten, former Tory chairman:

"The whole sorry shambles began with a decision to call a referendum in order to try to manage the English nationalist right wing of the Conservative party."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/07/uk-must-have-s...

More immediate access to information leads to more direct democratic pressure on legislators. This is not necessarily a good thing.

I agree, however I feel the same about the election of President Trump. The founding fathers created the Electoral College to prevent the masses from doing something stupid. The US Constitution is a document that was designed to only allow as much democracy as needed to prevent a dictator (King) but no more. The founding fathers, internally vs what has been publicized, were teriffed of the masses. The masses in charge get you the French Revolution. While I agree there where some that needed to loose their head it became a blood bath. I would say the same thing of China, where the masses happily killed everyone Mao pointed at.