No. The Leave campaign was not about synchronisation of minor trading regulations when there's no real disagreement over policy. Plenty of Leave supporters and campaigners actually support that strongly, hence the divisions within that camp over whether to try and become a part of the EEA.
The UK's position is that lack of trade barriers does not require an ideological project to convert all of Europe into a single country under the rule of a non-democratic, unelected and all powerful executive branch, which is openly and proudly the goal of the EU project. That's why the same government that's (now) committed to Brexit is quite happy to consider joining Asian free trade zones.
As for a "strong" regulatory system, the whole world just got to see in crystal clear detail what that looks like in the medical area. Pointless delays, failed obfuscation of contracts, lying about the contents of those same contracts, imposing hard borders on Northern Ireland without even bothering to tell the countries in question and then immediately backpedalling. There's no strength in this system, just incompetence, chaos and greed.
> non-democratic, unelected and all powerful executive branch
This is just not true. The EU is run by the Council of Ministers primarily (who are the national ministers of the member states), with a side-order of democracy from the European parliament.
If you're going to argue about something, please choose an accurate thing to argue about.
> imposing hard borders on Northern Ireland without even bothering to tell the countries in question and then immediately backpedalling
Again, this isn't what happened. One interpretation of a proposed order would have necessitated some kind of border. The Republic of Ireland vociferously objected, and the proposal was withdrawn.
That being said, I think the EU could be a lot better, and am deeply sorry that the UK left (especially vis-a-vis the consequences for Northern Ireland).
The Council of Ministers does not run the EU. The EU is run by the Commission. Where does EU law come from - it comes from the Commission. Not the Council nor the Parliament (which means, it's not a Parliament).
If the Council ran the EU then EU law would come from there, but it never does. The power to make law is the ultimate power, the source of all government power. The Council is in contrast a sideshow. Nobody even knows what they talk about.
And the Commission is entirely undemocratic. How was von der Leyen selected again? Nobody can say. Oh, there was a vote. It was a vote in the EU Parliament in which vDL was the only candidate on the ballot sheet. That's not a democracy, is it?
Again, this isn't what happened. One interpretation of a proposed order would have necessitated some kind of border. The Republic of Ireland vociferously objected, and the proposal was withdrawn.
Are you aware that the Commission was condemned by everyone across the board including its own diplomats? The order wasn't proposed, it was made and the only possible interpretation was for a hard border, hence the immediate and strong objections. That, after 4 years of the EU constantly claiming a border in NI would create terrorism and must never happen at any cost.
> The EU is run by the Commission. Where does EU law come from - it comes from the Commission.
The Commission propose the laws. I agree that this is problematic, but since Lisbon, it's been a lot better in terms of directly elected representatives making decisions.
Regardless, nothing the Commission propose becomes European laws/directive without the assent of both the Council and the Parliament.
It's rather democratic, as a matter of fact, especially given the use of proportional representation for EP members in many of the member states.
> If the Council ran the EU then EU law would come from there, but it never does. The power to make law is the ultimate power, the source of all government power. The Council is in contrast a sideshow. Nobody even knows what they talk about.
I personally follow the council discussions, as they are where things actually get decided. I'm not unique.
> And the Commission is entirely undemocratic. How was von der Leyen selected again? Nobody can say. Oh, there was a vote. It was a vote in the EU Parliament in which vDL was the only candidate on the ballot sheet. That's not a democracy, is it?
Von der Leyen was selected by the Council of Ministers. They refused to go along with the proposal from the groups in the EP that whatever candidate they proposed should become the Commission President. Again, not a fan of that decision on democratic grounds, but it's what happened, and it rather puts the lie to your comment that the Council is powerless and nobody even knows what they talk about.
Literally all of the consequential decisions made by the EU have been decided by the Council of Ministers. Those overnight summits that are particularly characteristic of the EU, are summits of the Council of Ministers.
> Are you aware that the Commission was condemned by everyone across the board including its own diplomats? The order wasn't proposed, it was made and the only possible interpretation was for a hard border, hence the immediate and strong objections. That, after 4 years of the EU constantly claiming a border in NI would create terrorism and must never happen at any cost.
Yes, because I live in the Republic of Ireland. It was super bad what happened there, and the proposal literally lasted 8 hours before being buried.
And with respect to terrorism, there's no easy way out of that I'm afraid. The irish government lobbied for the EU to take NI into account in the negotiations, and that happened.
Unfortunately, with the situation in Northern Ireland, any border anywhere was going to create tension (and the potential for smuggling/terrorism). I'm unhappy about the sea border as it's a provocation to Unionists, but it is maybe 100 times better than a land border.
Please show me the meeting notes where vDL was decided to be the new Commission head. As far as I'm aware they aren't public, but I'd be very interested to read them as would many other people.
The Commission has the exclusive power to propose changes to the law. That makes the non-Parliament worthless. There is no point in the so-called parties that populate this so-called Parliament having any policies because they can't do anything. In turn that makes so-called political campaigning also useless because there's nothing to campaign about. They can only rubber stamp the Commission's prior decisions. It's a fake Parliament which is why such a ridiculous proportion of MEPs are actually against the EU as an institution, something you don't find anywhere else.
Literally all of the consequential decisions made by the EU have been decided by the Council of Ministers
Where were they on vaccines then? The Council "decided" to give all the responsibility for that to the Commission. That's the general flavour of their decisions: give the Commission more power.
> Please show me the meeting notes where vDL was decided to be the new Commission head. As far as I'm aware they aren't public, but I'd be very interested to read them as would many other people.
> The Commission has the exclusive power to propose changes to the law.
Yes, but those laws have no effect until both the Council and the Parliament accept them.
In many ways, it's similar to the fact that most governments (i.e. the executive) have practically exclusive powers to propose laws (as they'll have a majority by definition). I agree that it's not ideal, but things are trending in the right direction.
> That makes the non-Parliament worthless. There is no point in the so-called parties that populate this so-called Parliament having any policies because they can't do anything. In turn that makes so-called political campaigning also useless because there's nothing to campaign about. They can only rubber stamp the Commission's prior decisions. It's a fake Parliament which is why such a ridiculous proportion of MEPs are actually against the EU as an institution, something you don't find anywhere else.
So, from Wikipedia, it appears that approximately 130 of the 700 representatives are considered to be Eurosceptic. So that's about 18%. I think that's a fair reflection of the level of EU-scepticism across the continent.
> which is why such a ridiculous proportion of MEPs are actually against the EU as an institution, something you don't find anywhere else.
I'm going to make the assumption that you are British (apologies if this is not true). In the current UK parliament you have 47 SNP MP's, and 6 SF MP's. Neither of these accept the validity of the UK parliament, making that approximately 8% relative to the EP. This is lower, but definitely it's possible to have people like that (another good example would be the pro-separist parties in Catalonia).
> Where were they on vaccines then? The Council "decided" to give all the responsibility for that to the Commission. That's the general flavour of their decisions: give the Commission more power.
Speaking as a member of a small EU state, I'm glad the EU took on procurement as we would be in a much worse state otherwise. That being said, the Commission fucked up here, I don't think anyone denies it, but hopefully they will learn from this mistake.
The UK's position is that lack of trade barriers does not require an ideological project to convert all of Europe into a single country under the rule of a non-democratic, unelected and all powerful executive branch, which is openly and proudly the goal of the EU project. That's why the same government that's (now) committed to Brexit is quite happy to consider joining Asian free trade zones.
As for a "strong" regulatory system, the whole world just got to see in crystal clear detail what that looks like in the medical area. Pointless delays, failed obfuscation of contracts, lying about the contents of those same contracts, imposing hard borders on Northern Ireland without even bothering to tell the countries in question and then immediately backpedalling. There's no strength in this system, just incompetence, chaos and greed.