Question for this mostly Remain audience on MN

[7salmonswimming]

If you’re a remainer and are also in favour of a second referendum and assume the outcome will be Remain, what sort of future do you envisage for the UK inside the EU? What negotiating power do you think the UK would have? I ask this in light of the increasing intransigence of Tusk and other major figures inside the EU (with the exception of Angela Merkel) in Brexit negotiations.

Disclaimer: I’m a UK citizen but live outside the UK and no longer have the vote

The 'mission creep' was negotiated and agreed by a series of sovereign U.K. governments and agreed by parliament when necessary.

On this and other threads Brexit supports imply that closer political union was brought about by 'stealth' or 'mission creep'. No it wasn't. It was discussed, debated, negotiated and agreed in full public view.

Parliament voted, scrutinised and then supported the negotiated decisions.

It was democratic, above board and public.

No secret, no stealth no hidden mission creep.

If 'mission creep' improves the lives of all in the union then that is fair enough. Unfortunately the EU rules are not far reaching enough to 'force' a more equal life experience. The regeneration funds are a start but it is down to individual countries to administer and it does not always get to where it should.
One of Mr Macrons (?) stated aims is to provide good healthcare, education and housing for all children up to 12 or thereabouts across the EU (I am forgetting details).

Even now the question by the OP hints at the need for the UK to have special deals and be a special member inside a club. I mean the empire died 70 years ago but it still shapes our thinking. Johnny Foreigner needs to do as they are damn well told.

What is their to negotiate if we wanted back in. There are rules and treaties and agreements. The Euro would not be forced on us but I am not sure the rebate would be available again, given that we were the only ones getting it.

If the only people being intransigent are the EU then there is a mighty line of xenophobia going on. Look at that staircase. Look at what the UK actually wants. It wants none of the rules but all of the benefits. How is that not an intransigent starting position? The EU are clear that there is a Canada or South Korean style deal on the table. Why should a club that is bound together by rules change the rules for the UK and the UK alone.

The EU only works as there is an overarching legal process and voting process to enforce treaties and rules for all members. The UK doesnt want that so it cant have the things in those treaties and rules. Because there is no agreed, unified arbitration group that the UK would now accept (cause of a fetish over sovereignty).

I don't think we'll have a second referendum. If we did, the choice would be
a) cobbled together deal to avoid a feckin nightmare;or
b) a feckin nightmare.

Either way we leave. Badly or REALLY badly.
Of the two, I'd pick a) Which is no choice.
How do I see us in the EU? As we are now-noisy, truculent, often frustrated but with access to a huge market, with close mates to work with on global issues, continued peace in Northern Ireland, being able to push back on Putin, continued inward investment into parts of the Uk that Westminster ignores, right to live and work in 27 other nations, no need to have Schengen or the Euro. That kind of shit.