fahrenheit451:174

For the past twelve months and more, the anti-brexit,seditionist EU Remain Campaign has stressed how much better educated,intellectually superior,cultured,inclusive,progressive,informed,enlightened,socially liberal/tolerant of degenerate sexual practices they as a Tribe are compared to the 52% of the British electorate that voted to Leave in the binding EU referendum.The Social Class breakdown for those voting in the Referendum was:-
The report from the Centre for Social Justice and Legatum Institute found that people in the “AB” class – the middle and upper classes - were the only group which had a majority voting to Remain at the June 23 referendum.
The majority of people in all the other income groups - described as C1, C2, D and E - all voted to leave, the report said. While 57 per cent of voters in the more affluent AB group voted to remain, the proportion in the other four groups was 36 per cent.
It said: "At every level of earning there is a direct correlation between household income and your likelihood to vote for leaving the EU — 62 per cent of those with income of less than £20,000 voted to leave, but that percentage falls in steady increments until, by an income of £60,000, that percentage was just 35 per cent."
***   ***   ***
Which brings me to WTF,if anything, do our social superiors really know about and can demonstrate a depth of knowledge and understanding of the most intrinsic operations of the EU? For instance, its basic bureaucratic mechanism. The comitology process :-

The comitology process is not well-known outside of Brussels, it is the way the EU adopts most legal acts. It involves a committee of member state experts or representatives, who meet outside the public limelight.
The comitology process was “born out of necessity” in the 1960s, in the early years of the European Economic Community.
The Council of the EU, which represents member state governments, decided to delegate powers to the commission.
“Ministers did not want to convene for all sorts of ad hoc decisions on, for example, milk prices,” said Vos.
“However, they also did not want to give the commission a carte blanche. The commission was given the authority to take decisions, but only after it consulted a committee of representatives of member states.”
That system worked fairly well, according to Ellen Vos, professor of European Union Law at the Maastricht University, but then it was overhauled with the adoption of the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force in 2009.
The Lisbon treaty introduced a division between implementing acts and delegated acts.
Implementing acts involve a committee of member state government representatives, which take the decision, with no involvement from the EU parliament.
Delegated acts are adopted by the commission, after taking advice from a committee of member state experts. The latter can be vetoed by the EU parliament.
“The irony is that the idea behind the changes adopted in the Lisbon treaty, was to simplify things,” said Vos.
“However, the situation has become more complicated. I have never really welcomed this development and think comitology should be simplified.”
During negotiations on general regulations or directives, which are adopted by parliament and council, a contentious issue is often one where detailed rules should be adopted by means of implementing act or delegated act.
“There is a lot of case law emerging about what the difference is between a delegated act and an implementing act,” said Vos.
***   ***   ***
Thought as much. Fuck all.Which is precisely what the 48% Campaign, Remoaner seditionist EU metropolitan elitist shills will achieve.