Originally Posted by: letmethink 
Is it that all we're fighting for (going forward) are those (very likely) extremely rare occasions when we veto a global regulation, plus the satisfaction of knowing that we had our say in the framing of those regulations even if the outcome is nevertheless decided in the same way (and with the same result) that it is now.
Chewing over the general issue of what changes/doesn’t change :
I understand the focus on countering the myths that TPTB are fielding, and on selling Article 50 + EFTA/EEA vs. UKIP’s ECA repeal. Hence the line that X,Y and Z won’t change, and there won’t be the disruption claimed. In fact, honestly presented, Article 50 + EFTA/EEA should be non-controversial. It is much closer to what we were told that we were signing up for – the free market – and is allegedly what the Tories say they want.
But it doesn’t solve a lot of the problems, such as immigration, that that people associate with the EU as the result of the erroneous conflation of EU/Europe/single market. So, as part of selling Article 50 + EFTA/EEA I think that we will need a list of the immediate benefits. Otherwise, there is the objection “ why bother ? ”. I’m not 100% clear on what this list would be. Hopefully, we should distance us from eurozone integration measures, we should be able to re-establish the primacy of various UK institutions, we should be able to control/phase out contributions to the EU budget, we maintain/recover direct representation on global organisations, plus ...... ?
But also, there is the key point that a UK withdrawal from the EU, particularly if smoothly executed, “breaks the ratchet”, wrecking the concept of irreversible “ever closer union”. I don’t think that the importance of this can be overstated, the world would look a very different place afterwards. It is an existential threat to the EU / global governance etc., and hopefully a fatal one long term.
What happens next, as the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world would still not be defined in the way most people want? Is this where the Harrogate Agenda kicks in ? There has never been an honest debate in the UK over the EU / supra-national governance and we would need one, held within the context of a revived democracy, before the country could agree the next step ?
