Brexit

[Jason]

Well Theresa May has been globetrotting and was seen holding hands with Donald Trump.

May and her party spent the last year disparaging Trump, but now they are in a hole and desperate for just about any help they can get. So Theresa was off to America to talk up a deal with a man whose rhetoric says just about the opposite of what May believes. The salvation for Brexit britain will be free trade. trump wants to rip up all the trade deals, and impost punitive surcharges on all imports. Bring back torture, throw out refugees.

In her desperation May seems to have gone too far, and now has to face down attacks for her appeasment of someone who believes the opposite of her and her party. brexiteers believe Britain just voted for torturing and throwing out foreigners, but maybe this was not what Brits understood their vote to mean.

The price for being allowed to be the US poodle is too high. May offered Trump a state visit, but it sounds as though the Uk could not protect him if he came.

Oh put a sock in it!

Trump is president of the USA. We all know he's nasty. Nonetheless the whole world still has to deal with the USA. May has met Trump. She managed progress in two key areas: he's stepped back from torture and said he supports NATO, so what she achieved is better than nothing and well worth a meeting to get even this far. Every US president - every world leader of a nation of any size - gets a state visit to the UK. We make progress by engaging.

May is trying. She might have done some good from her meeting. Whether she did or didn't at least she tried. The endless carping of the virtue signallers has become just boring. The UK talks with the USA and Russia and China. We do deals with nations around the world. We don't approve everything every nation and every nation's leader does.

 

[dandelion]

So the alternative to making agreements with our EU allies, where we all meet as equals and decide on mutual rules for us all, is to go cap in hand to sell fighter jets to the Turks who are busy suppressing democratic opposition, or pander to president Trump in a desperate attempt to get a trade deal which will be no more than show, if it ever happens. May ended up in a press conferent where the Turkish PM was defending the rights of refugees while she stayed silent, for goodness sake!

One of the reason for belonging to the EU is so that we are able to stand up to the US. Brexiteers have placed us in this position where we are forced to obey the US and even Turkey. Wasnt it a leave claim that had to leave the EU so as to escape Turkey?

 

[southeastone]

So the alternative to making agreements with our EU allies, where we all meet as equals and decide on mutual rules for us all, is to go cap in hand to sell fighter jets to the Turks who are busy suppressing democratic opposition, or pander to president Trump in a desperate attempt to get a trade deal which will be no more than show, if it ever happens. May ended up in a press conferent where the Turkish PM was defending the rights of refugees while she stayed silent, for goodness sake!

One of the reason for belonging to the EU is so that we are able to stand up to the US. Brexiteers have placed us in this position where we are forced to obey the US and even Turkey. Wasnt it a leave claim that had to leave the EU so as to escape Turkey?

I think "we" were quite happy to make agreements with the EU but maybe the EU does not want to make agreements with us, they want to direct us sure, they want to rule us by closer integration sure, they are happy if they are the leader and we follow sure, but we have no real sway in any agreements so that's why people want to get out of the club and try something else. As to any deals we do with the US turkey or indeed anyone else is it not better to do those deals ourselves and have the power to set the rules and indeed change the terms in practice, if we use EU deals we are stuck with them good or bad as long as the deal suits the other EU countries, regardless of your EU dream the UK was only ever a cash cow, albeit an inconvenient one who moaned but could be ignored as we had no teeth, we are a very small cog in the machine and the EU leadership have proven by their actions past and present that we are totally expendable, they will just miss our subscription and our fishing waters.

 

[185248]

Oh put a sock in it!

Trump is president of the USA. We all know he's nasty. Nonetheless the whole world still has to deal with the USA. May has met Trump. She managed progress in two key areas: he's stepped back from torture and said he supports NATO, so what she achieved is better than nothing and well worth a meeting to get even this far. Every US president - every world leader of a nation of any size - gets a state visit to the UK. We make progress by engaging.

May is trying. She might have done some good from her meeting. Whether she did or didn't at least she tried. The endless carping of the virtue signallers has become just boring. The UK talks with the USA and Russia and China. We do deals with nations around the world. We don't approve everything every nation and every nation's leader does.

That may be all well and good Jase. Don is forcing everyone to pick sides. I don't think other nations are doing this...well not that I'm aware of anyway.

Now that he has the executive pen in hand, he is doing as I thought he would, push it to it's limit. He is not uniting a country or nations. In fact he is increasing his strength by building up a radical movement behind him, by his radical actions. So if it at some point he is threatened to resign by pushing things too far, impeached, his radicals will act. It's pretty plain to see what he is up to.

And once again, the rest of the dunderhead conservative Republican party will be too slow to react.

In our area of the world it's becoming increasingly apparent that Don is not good for international harmony when it comes to trade. I am kind of glad the TPP went away though, there were no real benefits for Aus, the whole purpose of it really was to slow Chinese expansion in the neighbouring countries with regard to buying up ports, harbours etc. It's quite astonishing just how many ports in our region are now controlled by Chinese interests.

In London now with the your prime real estate Wharf and Dock areas where major Chinese and State owned banks are buying up big to create an Asian business hub and gateway for Chinese products to Europe. Products your own local manufacturers will be competing with down the track. So it looks like London will be the launch point where China takes on EU manufacturers, after they take over yours first though.

Better start tightening up on foreign ownership law too, as well as monetary jase.

 

[dandelion]

The debate on article 50 in the house of commons is here. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fe6bc3c9-5d0b-4808-ba0b-8ce9c08475c1

I heard a bit of Cleggs speech on the news, can be heard at 14:20. Makes the point the public was never told what form brexit might take, and the government has no mandate to choose hard Brexit.

Ken Clarke at 13:25, opens by observing he seems to be the official opposition on Brexit. That his parliamentary career has coincided with our joining and now possibly leaving the EU. Recalled how the EU allowed the UK to recover from the state of economic collapse it was in before joining. Noted how much of the structure of the EU was created by the UK to benefit us. Observes that a referendum is an inadequate way to discuss such a complex issue, and expressed incredulity that anyone in a democracy should be expected to accept the result of a vote instead of continuing to fight for what they believe in. Noted there is no way to replace the harm to Uk trade which leaving the EU would cause. That any MP who believes leaving the EU would harm the UK, would be betraying his constituents if he voted to leave, whatever way they had voted. (quoting a famous speech by Burke on the duty of MPs, googling I see it quoted by the university of Chicago on their website http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html . plainly a principle the US respects even if the conservatives do not)

Also a speech by labour MP David Lammy at about 19:42 summarising much of the nonsense which the government has cited to justify choosing to leave the EU and why there is no mandate to leave at all. About 27% vote to leave, he reckons.


As to Trump, he is not nasty. frankly, he is effective. He has already achieved the impossible by first becoming candidate and then winning the presidential election. His aim is plainly stated as America first. He means to accomplish this by repatriating manufacturing to the US. He means to start a trade war, because free trade no longer suits the US. He needs to weaken the EU, because it is a real threat to US dominance in the world. Sure, he would love a trade agreement with the UK. For the two reasons of demonstrating to the US public that the UK supports him, and to further his policy of America first. Because any such agreement would inevitably be based upon this principle.

Trump is not unique in his view, UKIP was also an unfocused demand for UK first. His ideas are not going to go away. His aim is to make a complete course change in world affairs, which the US is capable of dictating. He is calling for the end of the era of free trade, just as the UK is thinking of leaving the protected trade block it belongs to and stand in isolation as a free trader. It isnt going to work. It wasnt working when we joined and that was why we joined.

 

[dandelion]

Yougove survey, which says 51% to 34% that the UK should not leave the EU unless a deal can be negotiated acceptable to parliament. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...nBritainResults_170130_ExitNegotiations_W.pdf

 

[dandelion]

I see in yesterdays parliamentry debate, Alex Salmond suggested the phrase 'full English brexit' to describe the situation of which Scotland wants no part. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6c20216a-6561-414d-8ad9-2d3a0036cab1

osborne observed that the government had chosen not to prioritise a good economic outcome for the Uk from brexit, and looked forward to debating that question in more detail.

Interestingly a conservative back bencher stood up and congratulated everyone for obeying the voters, but then wanred that a new deal would take ten years to negotiate, and during that time the country would suffer economic loss. he expresse the hope, no more than that, that in the future this would come good.

Clealry the conservatives are now seeking to argue that the pain from brexit is only temporaty, which seems highly unlikely. They are determined that when it does go wrong, they can blame the voters for forcing them to do it.

 

[dandelion]

There seems to be a Trump presidential order which has escaped publicity because of the attention on those producing a more immediate effect. He has instructed the US immigration services to prepare a uniform immigration regime which will apply to everyone. Naturally, no one knows what that might mean in practice, but what it could mean is an end to preferential treatment for people from some countries, such as the UK.

 

[southeastone]

There seems to be a Trump presidential order which has escaped publicity because of the attention on those producing a more immediate effect. He has instructed the US immigration services to prepare a uniform immigration regime which will apply to everyone. Naturally, no one knows what that might mean in practice, but what it could mean is an end to preferential treatment for people from some countries, such as the UK.

Not sure how this is relevant to brexit thread tbh but presumably if waiver is withdrawn it will be from all the eu countries currently covered by it? As eu countries are in the majority on the list and trump is allegedly so anti EU we in the UK may have a good case to keep our waiver as we are leaving the EU.

 

[dandelion]

The reason it's relevant us because we are about to find ourselves with no trading partners and no trade treaties with any on. Maybe you missed it, but leave have been arguing we will be save because Mr 'America first ' rump will be pleased to make deal with the UK. This is only a small part of UK trade, but trump is already showing he meant what he said about only making deals which benefit the us. There are no deals to be made which could save the UK economy if we leave the eu market.even the conservatives admit to 'short term pain'. And then after a parliament or two they will say recover is taking longer than they thought, and close some more hospitals.

 

[dandelion]

Third reading of the article 50 bill to give notice to leave the EU passed the commons. Large majority because both major parties officially supported it. Remains to be seen if the Lords will have more independence.

The conservatives have concluded their best chance to be re-elected is from supporting Brexit. The promise of a referendum got them a win in 2015, and they are riding high in the polls on supporting it now. When I say high, a typicall poll puts them at 28% national support, whereas labour are on 18%. ( eg https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...75w134q2/LabEUpolicy_01-Feb-2017extraCB_W.pdf ) The SNP score 4%, but since they only stand in Scotland and it has only 1/10 of the Uk population, roughly multiplying by 10 means they enjoy 40% support at home. Far and away the best performance of any UK party. The same poll lists 12% will not vote and 19% dont know. Closer examination reveals that there are a lot of undecideds who voted labour last time, suggesting the potential for labour to recover these voters. By contrast, in the 2015 election labour got about 20% of the voters to support them, and the conservatives 24%. Leave got about 37% support in the referendum, and remain 35%. These figures ignore people not registered to vote, so in reality would be a lower percentage of the total pool who could vote.

The massive conclusion is that there is no party the UK public really likes. The public was shocked into action by the referendum, but still ony 2/3 of people expressed an opinion. Conservative success right now is due to adopting a policy which 1/3 the nation supported, more than the 1/4 who support conservatives as a party. They know this, and it is why they have chosen to do so despite the majority of conservative MPs opposing Brexit, and believing it will harm the country.

Given that conservatives do believe the economy will worsen, and after 6 years in power it is already no betterand in some respects even worse than when they took over, how do they plan to remain in power when the Brexit recession hits? The first answer is that UKIP will disappear, because it will have got what it wanted, and therefore they expect the national 10% or so of rather right wing UKIP supporters to find a new home, mostly with them. So the plan is destroy the economy but hope you gain more happy Ukippers than lose discontented bankrupts. Whatever happens to the poorest doesnt really matter, because they would never vote conservative anyway. But regardless of what happens after Brexit, failing to support it now would mean conservative voters moving the opposite way now, towards UKIP. So they have decided Brexit is the only way to go. The future must take care of itself.

The second answer is.....blame the voters! The line willl be that the conservatives did not want Brexit, but the voters forced them to do it because of the referendum result. This is nonsense, because there was no real majority in the nation for Brexit and the referendum was quite deliberately advisory only. The conservatives are now spinning this as hard as they can that the referendum was always absolutely binding, in order to reinforce their own excuse for the forthcoming economic collapse. The reality is that it is all about defeating rival political parties and nothing whatever about what real people want or what might be good for the nation. Just look at the consevatives attacking the labour party right now for being divided and therefore unelectable, and you see how much emphasis the conservatives place on public unity and getting elected, rather than striving for the good of the nation.

 

[southeastone]

Third reading of the article 50 bill to give notice to leave the EU passed the commons. Large majority because both major parties officially supported it. Remains to be seen if the Lords will have more independence.

The conservatives have concluded their best chance to be re-elected is from supporting Brexit. The promise of a referendum got them a win in 2015, and they are riding high in the polls on supporting it now. When I say high, a typicall poll puts them at 28% national support, whereas labour are on 18%. ( eg https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...75w134q2/LabEUpolicy_01-Feb-2017extraCB_W.pdf ) The SNP score 4%, but since they only stand in Scotland and it has only 1/10 of the Uk population, roughly multiplying by 10 means they enjoy 40% support at home. Far and away the best performance of any UK party. The same poll lists 12% will not vote and 19% dont know. Closer examination reveals that there are a lot of undecideds who voted labour last time, suggesting the potential for labour to recover these voters. By contrast, in the 2015 election labour got about 20% of the voters to support them, and the conservatives 24%. Leave got about 37% support in the referendum, and remain 35%. These figures ignore people not registered to vote, so in reality would be a lower percentage of the total pool who could vote.

The massive conclusion is that there is no party the UK public really likes. The public was shocked into action by the referendum, but still ony 2/3 of people expressed an opinion. Conservative success right now is due to adopting a policy which 1/3 the nation supported, more than the 1/4 who support conservatives as a party. They know this, and it is why they have chosen to do so despite the majority of conservative MPs opposing Brexit, and believing it will harm the country.

Given that conservatives do believe the economy will worsen, and after 6 years in power it is already no betterand in some respects even worse than when they took over, how do they plan to remain in power when the Brexit recession hits? The first answer is that UKIP will disappear, because it will have got what it wanted, and therefore they expect the national 10% or so of rather right wing UKIP supporters to find a new home, mostly with them. So the plan is destroy the economy but hope you gain more happy Ukippers than lose discontented bankrupts. Whatever happens to the poorest doesnt really matter, because they would never vote conservative anyway. But regardless of what happens after Brexit, failing to support it now would mean conservative voters moving the opposite way now, towards UKIP. So they have decided Brexit is the only way to go. The future must take care of itself.

The second answer is.....blame the voters! The line willl be that the conservatives did not want Brexit, but the voters forced them to do it because of the referendum result. This is nonsense, because there was no real majority in the nation for Brexit and the referendum was quite deliberately advisory only. The conservatives are now spinning this as hard as they can that the referendum was always absolutely binding, in order to reinforce their own excuse for the forthcoming economic collapse. The reality is that it is all about defeating rival political parties and nothing whatever about what real people want or what might be good for the nation. Just look at the consevatives attacking the labour party right now for being divided and therefore unelectable, and you see how much emphasis the conservatives place on public unity and getting elected, rather than striving for the good of the nation.

This is nothing new at all from you, the same old same old rehashed so maybe we need to go back over more old ground. You still say the majority do not want brexit and you have banged on and on that we should have another referendum which you assure will swing the other way now all the stupid uneducated racists who voted out have woken up and changed their mind about the Armageddon you say we face, so if the government decide to ignore the majority of the voters and stay in the eu why will so many punish them and vote ukip, with labour hanging in tatters it would take more than the handful of ukipers to tip the Tories out of bed.

The way you bang on without drawing breath I am starting to think you are actually George Osborn in disguise.

 

[dandelion]

There has been an interesting BBC documentary about the state of the EU. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08dx4lz/this-world-after-brexit-the-battle-for-europe

While on the face of it the EU might be seen as in an existential crisis, it is plain that various players do not see it this way at all. Guy Verhofstadt, appointed chief EU negotiator for Brexit, seems particulalry bullish that what is happening now is a great opportunity for the EU.

Similarly, Jean-Claude Juncker seemed pleased at the referendum result and was trying to encourage Farage and britain to hurry up and leave.

So I suggest the plan is something like this

1) Britain is a strong opponent of EU integration and would veto such measures. So Britain has to cease to be a member.
2) The solution to the euro banking difficulties is more central bank willingness to create new money and give it away to write off debt. Therefore the rules have to be changed to explicitly allow government bailouts, and to allow assymetric assistance so they would explicitly be bailing out the weakest countries, implicitly at the expense of the strongest. Germany has to agree to this, as the country with most to lose. Therefore there has to be a eurozone crisis of sufficient magnitude to persuade Germany to agree. Such as countries leaving (see 1), and movements in other countries for similar.
3) lots of propaganda about how Germany is benefitting unfairly from the other countries in the euro keeping down the value, so as to encourage Germans to want them all to stay.
3) After Britain leaves a new deal can be thrashed out, Hence the need for Britain to leave ASAP and without any special deal. This emphasises the nastiness of life without an EU.
4) There will also be new rules to limit migration, but not until after britain leaves, in case they change their mind.
5) Given the restored stability of the reformed EU, the discomfort of life outside, Britain will rejoin. It will this time be obliged to adopt the euro and new areas of integration. Double whammy victory for EU.

So Jason if you are reading, maybe it is the EU who you work for. You have always said you were once an ardent europhile. Maybe you never gave it up, because Brexit seems to be part of a plan for creating that european superstate.

The documentary made another point, that the public is increasingly dissatisfied with how it is being governed. The exact forces harnessed to win the Brexit referendum, to elect Trump, and which various parties across europe are seeking to harness now. Plainly reform is needed, and as I just explained, the EU is also seeking to harness this. However if we consider Britain and forget whatever might happen to the EU, Brexit will not satisfy those people. It will make matters worse, because the economy is going to take a hit, and it will solve nothing otherwise. If the EU were to completely collapse, this would simply make matters worse because it would further depress world trade. These voters will demand further revolution once Brexit is out of the way, and especially because they were told Brexit was the magic bullet when it was not.

In 2008 there was a near miss on a collapse of the world banking system, which in effect would have made anyone with a bank loan bankrupt. And those with assets in banks would likely have lost them. Such a possibility has not gone away while much of the ability of the system to refinance such losses has been exhausted. A collapse of the EU would likely precipitate such a world banking crash. Heady times.

 

[dandelion]

54% oppose unconditional brexit. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...to-leaving-eu-without-exit-deal-a3465081.html

Brexit regret rising. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/britains-brexit-regret-survey-shows-9805513

 

[dandelion]

It seems there is a problem over all those europeans living in the UK. Unlike other EU countries, the UK does not track people who come here or leave so it knows who they are or where they live. It has no idea which have been here for 40 years, and which came yesterday. Should it decide to let them stay because they have married locals, had families, it cannot do so because it has no way to distinguish them from other nationals who might have turned up here illegally. In fact, in law they are regarded as having no right to be here aside from being EU citizens, which right they are about to loose. Then they stand to be deported.

The situation is ridiculous and is being made worse because the government refuses to guarantee they can stay. possibly for fear of upsetting the UKIPPers who want them all deported. Because if it does, it will lose their support and UKIP will get it. this isnt about the right thing to do but about conservatives taking votes away from UKIP.

The reason behind all this chaos, of course, is that the UK welcomed all these people and had no reason to track their movements, because it was simply glad they came. The beauty of the freedom of movement is that no bureaucracy was needed to organise additional labour for UK companies when they needed it. The system simply regulates itself, people coming and going back as needed. Governments were delighted. it cost nothing, Industry got the workers it needed.

And of course, we do have the right to send them home after three months if they cannot support themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-britain-chaos

 

[dandelion]

Just had the two by-elections, in Stoke and Copeland. Both in areas of strong support for leave. In both cases the MP resigned, probably for career reasons because they did not fancy continuing as politicians in opposition. Both had other jobs lined up to go to. This did not show startling belief in the labour party.

Both elections were in traditional labour seats, though support has been slipping for years. In both labour achieved 37% of the vote, resulting in a win in Stoke but a loss in Copeland. This level of support approximates to the size of the remain vote. Although labour were better described as supporters of soft Brexit than of Remain, in neither case did the more pro- remain liberals stand any chance and presumably voters knew this. So labour was the natural party for remain supporters.

Labour won in Stoke because the leave vote was equally divided between UKIP and conservative. UKIP might possibly have won if they had a better candidate, because Nuttall ran into trouble with a past history of mistaken statements about him issued on his website, which must have undermined his credibility. But he was the best they had. In Copeland UKIP did less well, more of the leave vote went to the conservatives and so they won.

Pundits have been spinning this as an amazing success, for a governing party to actually improve its vote in a by-election. It is nothing of the sort. The conservatives stood in 2015 on a policy of remaining part of the EU. Their success now is because they switched to a policy of leave, and they have therefore attracted support from UKIP by trying to unify the Leave vote for themselves. It is not a case of a governing party gaining support for its policies when it puts them into practice.

Meanwhile, labour has failed to consolidate the remain vote for itself. Had they solidly supported remain, it is unlikely there would have been the big jump in liberal support in both constituencies. If they had grabbed these votes in Copeland it would probably not have been quite enough, but conservative and labour would then have been virtually tied. The question would be whether labour would have alienated any of the voters it did get by being firmly against leave, or motivated more remainers to turn out because there was a party with a chance of winning which shared their views.

As it is, neither election had a pro-remain labour candidate, so we still do not know whether such a person would have done far better, and won both elections. The result does suggest a slight move to remain favourable parties and away from leave favourable parties.

 

[southeastone]

It seems there is a problem over all those europeans living in the UK. Unlike other EU countries, the UK does not track people who come here or leave so it knows who they are or where they live. It has no idea which have been here for 40 years, and which came yesterday. Should it decide to let them stay because they have married locals, had families, it cannot do so because it has no way to distinguish them from other nationals who might have turned up here illegally. In fact, in law they are regarded as having no right to be here aside from being EU citizens, which right they are about to loose. Then they stand to be deported.

The situation is ridiculous and is being made worse because the government refuses to guarantee they can stay. possibly for fear of upsetting the UKIPPers who want them all deported. Because if it does, it will lose their support and UKIP will get it. this isnt about the right thing to do but about conservatives taking votes away from UKIP.

The reason behind all this chaos, of course, is that the UK welcomed all these people and had no reason to track their movements, because it was simply glad they came. The beauty of the freedom of movement is that no bureaucracy was needed to organise additional labour for UK companies when they needed it. The system simply regulates itself, people coming and going back as needed. Governments were delighted. it cost nothing, Industry got the workers it needed.

And of course, we do have the right to send them home after three months if they cannot support themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/18/eu-citizens-right-to-stay-britain-chaos

surely looking at their NI records would tell all that is needed, unless they have been working cash in hand of course

 

[southeastone]

As it is, neither election had a pro-remain labour candidate, so we still do not know whether such a person would have done far better, and won both elections.

The result does suggest a slight move to remain favourable parties and away from leave favourable parties.

And maybe if labour had fielded a pro remain candidate they may have lost the stoke seat as well as the copeland one, all speculation.

A move to remain? what the tories winning a seat where they would likely have been tarred and feathered in the past, remind me when did they last win in that seat?, you have said many times that the tories are not for the working man so in that case they must have won that seat purely on the leave ticket

 

[marinera]

'
While on the face of it the EU might be seen as in an existential crisis, it is plain that various players do not see it this way at all. Guy Verhofstadt, appointed chief EU negotiator for Brexit, seems particulalry bullish that what is happening now is a great opportunity for the EU.

Similarly, Jean-Claude Juncker seemed pleased at the referendum result and was trying to encourage Farage and britain to hurry up and leave.

So I suggest the plan is something like this

1) Britain is a strong opponent of EU integration and would veto such measures. So Britain has to cease to be a member...'

Let's suppose this is true : who decided that? Who Juncker was representing? If EU wants UK out, shouldn't other EU' citizens have their saying on the matter? You know I don't hear Italians going around saying 'Fuck those Brits have to leave Europe they are a pain the ass.'; what you hear is 'WTF Turkey in EU?'. You are not seeing the democratic deficit here?

 

[dandelion]

And maybe if labour had fielded a pro remain candidate they may have lost the stoke seat as well as the copeland one, all speculation.

But if they had fielded Remain candidates, we would now know for certain that a remain candidate can win in an apparently Leave seat.

A move to remain? what the tories winning a seat where they would likely have been tarred and feathered in the past,

Actually thats wrong. The seat has had boundary changes so it did not exist before 2010. On this configuration, conservatives would have won it in the 80's.

'You are not seeing the democratic deficit here?

What democratic deficit? If the Uk leaves the EU, then each of the remaining states will have a bigger say in its future. Especially since the Uk has often been driving the agenda and getting its way most of the time.