Juncker did give the UK a little. The problem is that as ever the UK wants more than a little. As is made clear by their current behavior.
Yes, Juncker and the others gave the UK government a little. They gave the UK people nothing.
There is a structural problem in that the EU bodies deal wth the member state governments.
Now the member state governments primary concern is for their own position and they will
agree things with the central EU bodies provided of course that the EU bodies do not sidestep
them by dealing with the general populace. This means that there is no perceived relationship
between the EU Commission, EU Council, Council of Ministers, EU Presidents etc and the peoples.
Global corporates have access via lobbying pathways, but John public knows he does not.
Yes, there is the European Parliament but that is in itself not quite not enough.
The people correctly feel that they are shut out of consultation and decision making; and suspect
that national governments and corporate lobbyists are colluding with the EU to stitch them up although
they are not sure how. Examples being of course UK steel industry, Greek debt crisis, banking etc.
The French, Irish and Netherlands had beforehand referendums on the EU constitution that were lost.
This rang alarm bells, but got the wrong response. What was needed was a general rethink of the
relationships between EU national government and the EU government and the peoples. It did not
happen as the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately structured to create the same outcome as the Constitution.
This was when flexibility and imagination were needed to find the best way forward for all.
By ignoring the referendum outcomes, the EU enthusiasts demonstrated their distaste for democracy.
If asked beforehand, the UK voters would have voted against the EU constitution and probably
by a much greater margin, so John Major and Tony Blair simply decided not to hold referendums.
By pressing ahead with treaties they knew the voters did not want,
two UK governments demonstrated their distaste for democracy.
That was the fatal mistake. Engagement with the various publics and perhaps even a more US style
constitution with a more substantial direct relationship between the voters involving electing european
house and senate and Presidents and commissioners might have won public suport even in the UK.
When presented with a belated opportunity to ratify the two treaties in the 23 June 2016 referendum,
the UK people were presented with a very hard choice:
(a) Remain (which means go forward with the EU project)
or
(b) Leave (which means abandoning the EU project).
Neither of the two middle options were there (c) the choice of remaining with the EEC or European
Community was not there because the EU had decided to remove them to bounce member states
(there is no alternative into moving forwards) and (d) the David Cameron deal was suspect because
it was to be a separate parallel agreement between member states and it was not expressed as a
change to the EU treaties and EU law and the European Court of Justice might rule it irrelevant.
Belated attempts to find another compromise (e) leaving the EU but remaining in the EEA have
fallen, largely because the UK won't swallow EU demands for an unlimited right to mass migration.
And right now Tim Farron's (leader of UK liberal democrats) dishonest claim that the vote to Leave
the EU was not a vote to leave the Single Market, demonstrates his distaste for democracy.
While up north, they are trying to fool the Scots with an independent Scotland within the EU.
