The reality is that the EU legislation was toxic and loopholed at the behest of the UK and its special interests. The UK was not a moderating influence, but the UK was the one calling for no encryption and spying of the population.
If given a chance to improve or remove legislation the UK government will remove it NOT because its an assault on freedom and liberty, but because they dont think it goes far enough in curtailing freedom and liberty.
As a UK national, I have to prefer being beaten with relish by genuine sadists (the UK government), rather than by sadists who pretend to have some heart left over.
Most EU countries have an ultra-right wing, nationalist and euroskeptic party in their parliament (I just don't want to say "fascist"). At least three (Italy, Hungary and Poland) have one in government. In France, Mme Le Pen has consistently got to the second round of presidential elections for the last ... three? Four? elections?
Things aren't going well.
Leaving was their 'controversy of the day', there are other ones they can use to pent up dissent.
You mean might be a new union? I can agree with that. A fragmented Europe is not stable, if the EU dissolves in the next 10 years, it's almost certain there will be some sort of union in the next 2 generations. Whether there'll be another war in Western Europe between now and then is another question altogether.
Johnson was asked directly about workers rights prior to Brexit and said that we would improve them and that it was so totally wrong of Remainers to assume any rights would be eroded... and no-one paying attention is surprised to find that was a lie. But it probably worked for a small margin of voters in the referendum.
As soon as anything impedes special interests even slightly, be sure it will be legislated out of existence if possible.
One argument brexiteers trot out commonly is that EU regulations make it hard to be competitive. But human rights should impede "competition" otherwise it's a race to the bottom.
This contrasted with the weak response from the government after the sordid London bridge attacks, with the mayor even stating that "Terror attacks are 'part and parcel of living in a big city'". Is this what people in the UK want?
"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for these things. You have to be vigilant."
The context was talking about working with other big cities, specifically New York as it was just before a meeting with Bill de Blasio to talk about cross-training and information exchange.
Personally, I would take a guaranteed "90% right" system (aka the EU) over a random number generator (aka Brexit)...
Even when it's legally dubious we'll do our damnedest to look like we're surveilling the ** out of you.
That said, I didn’t think London was nearly as bad a Singapore for number of cameras. And their aren’t closed, I have no doubt that’s all to a central store, facial, and AI all rolling now.
In the US, I worry that some anonymous fellow citizen packing heat is going to snap and decide to execute a lifestyle change on me I didn't ask for and then melt away, unaccountable. The US unsolved murder rate is at a record high. Between the lack of firearm rights and the ubiquitous surveillance, I never had that fear in the UK.
They say a fish isn't really aware of the water they're swimming in. Visiting Europe was like having a weight lifted off me, a tension released, that I'd been carrying my whole life and didn't know was there. Americans just live with the spectre of death due to random gun violence perched on their shoulder these days.
But the kind of people who want the policy that Brexit is - i.e. xenophobic nationalists - are not the kind of people you'd want to take such an opportunity.
Membership of the EU was a great opportunity. Brexit is an opportunity for fascists.
I'd be curious to hear how exiting the European Union relates to the doctrines of Benito Mussolini.
Phew, that was a close one!
I need propositions, not further slander.