Can't be, those people get elected too. Hmm. Hmmmmmmm. Quite a few Brexiteers seem to struggle with this part, even now. Can't expect it to be any better in California.

I also wonder what qualifies a decision as "real". And if it's still a bad thing given that these countries in the EU have elected people that get to contribute to that decision... probably that's less handy for the likes of Greece. It ain't perfect that's for sure.

What Smithy said.

It's a myth that we're ruled by Brussels, but it's nice propaganda for the anti-EU folks.

All these people in positions of power are elected by the public, or by the people we elect. If we're really not happy about who is representing us we can stand ourselves, we can join a party and campaign for selection. We have these opportunities. And I believe in the UK it is much much less dependent on money than in the US.

Also, with a direct presidential election, like in France, there's more of a chance of an outsider having a genuine chance of winning. What with not requiring electoral college votes, or constituency MPs (not that we have a president).

It depends on the decision though, surely? If you want in the EU then you have to abide by its (for example) environmental laws, and human rights, and so on. You get to have an input on what those things actually are. If you don't want to, you get out, but then you don't have the same trading privileges. It's not like you just turn up and whoever's got the rotating presidency gets to call the shots. (That's still Germany, France, UKohwaitnotanymore and Spain, right?)
 

As others have said, the idea that "all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives" is not true.

In the UK, around 5% of our laws (at present) are EU laws. These mainly cover areas of trade, human rights, etc. The other 95% are purely the responsibility of Britain and our politicians here, similar to in France (although not completely the same as we do have some additional devolved powers in Britain).

Even then, the EU parliament consists of elected politicians from all nations, that's why countries vote for MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). Finally, there are vetoes where countries can reject the implementation of legislation if they disagree with it.

I am simplifying things here a lot, but the idea that rules are forced onto countries without any control is not true. Also, the whole "unelected representatives in Brussels" is the line often trotted out by the anti-EU brigade, but it is simply not true.

How soon we forget.

I guess because trade imbalances are such a big issue for me, not having control of your trade laws is giving up a lot.

Of course it makes perfect sense to have a group of countries working together to achieve an economic critical mass of common trade among themselves, that is for sure.  As a business traveler, using the Euro is certainly easier than before with so many currencies. (other than having way too many types of coins, when only 3 are needed)

What are your thoughts around the power that negotiating as a 28-country bloc vs. a single country might have on trade deals outside of the EU?

It is an interesting question.  Obviously the normal perception is that you would have more negotiating power as a bloc, but if you are being represented by someone with trade priorities substantially different than your priorities, it might not turn out so well.  If you are from a "Fair trade philosophy" vs "Free trade philosophy" you will view any deal differently.

It also matters a lot on if you are a large consumer vs large exporter. 

For example, US trade priorities are typically supporting aircraft, weapons, beef and wheat exports, with a slight second tier for banking and insurance.  The rest are more or less tossed out there as pawns with no concerns for the effect on trade deficit, employment, or the budget deficit.

In the UK, the priority appears to be banking and insurance first, then weapons and sheep.  The rest are tossed out there for pawns.

Certainly Greece has not benefited from EU trade deals.

China protects it's entire business infrastructure core and is mostly focused on exports that bring in cash.  If any other country protected its business core to the level that China does, it would be called out and strung out.  They run the country like a business and for better or worse, have beaten out a lot of other countries in the process.

Taiwan has carefully protected its industries, especially the semiconductor industry until recently, and that is when it's problems really started.

Similarly, Japan has carefully protected it's industries from outside competition until the last decade or so and that is when it has met it's downfall.

As far as the UK and the US, a trade deal will be easy, as we more or less think of the UK as our weird but likable uncle.  The deal will only be complicated by UK banking regulations, and the US is right now moving to match these. (for better or worse)

The bigger challenge the UK faces, IMHO, is that it is no longer a critical mass.  They tried to play both side of being part of the EU and being a bridge for China to more easily enter the EU markets and now with Brexit, this falls apart.

The risk is that the UK ends up being pulled too far under the influence of China and is eventually forced to be part of China's sphere of influence, obvious or not.  With the current tax structure oriented toward VAT vs a sales tax, I don't see how this will change.

I am just an ordinary guy though, so those might be completely useless personal opinions.