Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

[Burney]

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask.

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

[Peter]

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

[Burney]

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

[Peter]

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

Which is a far more honest and accurate description of the common view than some old horse**** about democracy. Not that I am suggesting that honesty and accuracy should play any part in our political process.