Brexit

It. Certainly performs many of the functions of a state and has many attributes of a state but is too constrained by the heads of member states so, it's often a semi paralysed state , democratisation and turther integration though is ultimately inevitIt able.

Fallacy #1: The EU is undemocratic.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon, no body which is not directly elected has unilateral legislative power within the EU. The EU is at least as democratic as the UK itself. unless you're suggesting that UK constituencies are just as legitimate as sovereign entities as nations are :|

Fallacy #2: The EU has uncontrolled immigration.

As of Regulation 492/11, Member States are not required to take EU migrants who cannot prove they can support themselves in the destination state. Insofar as EU immigration is uncontrolled, it is the fault of the UK government, not the EU.

Fallacy #3: The EU has unnecessary control over UK laws.

The EU operates according to a principle of subsidiarity, which requires that law is made at the level which is most appropriate. While, for instance, regulations which are necessary to the operation of the internal market clearly need to be made at EU level, planning law, for instance, remains under UK control.

Fallacy #4: The UK could operate as effectively as regards non-EU economies outside the EU.

Like it or not, the EU has exceptional bargaining power due to the sheer size of the market involved. The UK could not get nearly as good a deal with China, the USA etc on its own (for reference I'm not a fan of the state liability provision of TTIP but that's one of the only downsides of EU membership).

Fallacy #5: EU membership affects UK sovereignty.

The UK can unilaterally leave the EU, without a referendum, simply by repealing the European Communities Act. 'Sovereignty' is a legal, not a political concept. Sure, the EU limits what the UK government is capable of doing, but that is due to accession to an international treaty. If you want to leave the EU due to sovereignty concerns, by the same logic you are committed to wanting to leave NATO, international intellectual property organisations, the UN, etc.

Fallacy #6: EU membership clearly negatively affects the UK economy.

While the preponderance of studies show that EU membership benefits the UK economy (see recent PwC, Oxford Economics, KPMG studies as well as the Treasury report), there is not an undeniable case either way. Nevertheless, taking the raw net contribution number and using that as conclusive proof that the UK is harmed by EU membership is economically inept at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

I would vote to leave if economic wasn't a problem.

it's preferable to have a bad parliament to a good dictatorship - because one day, that dictatorship might be horrific, whereas at least the parliament can change for the better in the future.

yeah, regulations that are based on directives from the european commission -_- they'd be binding upon the UK legal system whether our parliament passed it or not - it would simply mean that if we left the EU, all the EU-based laws wouldn't suddenly disappear along with it
and if you think the EU is beyond realpolitik or political ideologies you're in for a surprise

Or more importantly, British goods become cheaper overseas.

how is it a long-term problem, though?

What about home?

Short run price increases is a price worth paying, if you pardon the pun.

nah. the EU blurs our representation into a collective of many other countries. at least the UK represents our nation as a single entity.

wow. that's really setting the bar low. how about us controlling our quantities of EU immigrants?

yes, because I'm sure the shape of bananas is extremely necessary to regulate

nah, not really. it all comes down to the question of "who benefits from what deal?" - all members of the EU benefit from a free trade deal. why would france, germany, italy, spain, etc, damage themselves just to damage the UK? why would the constituents of those states put up with more unemployment and less sales just for some childish realpolitik that will go nowhere once a referendum settles the question fairly? it just makes the EU look like it's throwing an imperial tantrum

again, that's setting the "sovereignty" bar laughably low! -_- the ECA'72 basically says "from now on, until this act is repealed, the UK parliament is not sovereign". that has been the interpretation in UK case law - it's a fact! it's like you're saying that even if the ECA72 was permanent, we are still sovereign because we have the technical capability of staging an armed revolution :|

I wouldn't say that's even a widespread claim - it's just a fact that the UK would best suit itself with its own trade deals compared with an EU-wide one where there is no clear benefit to our nation in particular (as there is no UK-self-interest at work).

Higher cost = less goods for the same amount of money = average households are worse off in the short-term.

oh my god.

I don't have the time to go through all this now but honest this one just begs a response...

firstly, I *am* a supporter of country-based UK federalism.

secondly, do you really think "regions" as arbitrary land masses have the safe self-governing claims as countries? really? :| you think geography, as opposed to culture, history, language, etc, is the only criteria for federalising a country/state? (I'm referring to the languages in wales/ireland and the cultural and historical distinctions of scotland)

also, do you think every country in the EU feels like it is in unison with the other countries of the EU? I am making an argument about consensus here; do you think the UK as a nation feels like part of an EU-organ just like every other EU member nation? I would say "definitely not". because you can't just create nations out of nowhere. however, in contrast, do you think manchester and kent feel as if they are part of a unified political community? how on *earth* would you really think not?

there is no coherent reason to compare regions of a country to regions (member-states) of the EU. because if you do that without some kind of logical criteria, you might as well just say "democracy isn't as good as individualist anarchism because the lower down the chain the power for the individual, the better", seeing as you're saying "having power closer to home is the best" - in that case, democracy gives the individual less power than individual self-government.

Okay, that's fine, but the logic dictates that you support not just federalism (the EU is a weaker form than federalism), but actual independence. Geography is no less arbitrary a factor than language or culture. History, except insofar as it affects culture, language etc., is essentially irrelevant to everything. Countries exist, but they are just arbitrary constructs, not necessary elements of global cohesion. Indeed, the world would work better with fewer, larger states.

I wouldn't necessarily mind independence (seeing as my nation, england, has a lot of power independently compared to scotland, wales, etc), but I think that england, scotland, wales and northern ireland don't feel like such distinct countries that they wouldn't consent to federalism over individual constituent-independence. the thing about federalism is that there is usually some kind of power argument amongst the consent. the EU might be powerful, but where is the consent, really? we'll have to see in june. I see, however, the overall trend as being less consent the more the power of the EU increases. that's why we originally joined - because it had much less power. now we're saying we might want to leave because the power of the EU has increased so much

What would be wrong with being a citizen of the EU as a superstate?

1) less democracy for the UK, by definition.

2) the EU isn't a nation, so why should it have a state? nations are things containing language, culture, history, (etc), so how is the EU one of those? there are commonalities between england, scotland, wales and NI enough to justify a federation, but the commonalities between, say, the UK, france, poland, romania etc is the fact that they are in one continent. that's pretty much it. they have vaguely similar value systems (well, western europe does, but not shared by eastern europe) but why should that be the reason to federalise nations? japan has similar values to some european countries, but that doesn't mean that japan should join europe

errrr... no. Each individual has proportionate representation in the relative state size. It's still 1:1 representation rate.

'Nation' is an outdated concept which should be abandoned ASAP.

not really - do you think, for example, that each maltese individual is represented by the same number/share of MEPs as each UK individual? certain nations in the EU are technically overrepresented and some nations are under-represented. the last time I checked, I think it was france that was the most under-represented while malta was the most overrepresented. and this is in the EU parliament we're talking about, not some kind of senate

but surely it would only be outdated if people believed that it was outdated, yet today they still see legitimacy in nation-states over remote bureaucratic organisations which they have almost no power over. a good indication of this would be the turnout rate of the UK 2015 general election being so much higher than the turnout rate for the 2014 EU parliament election in the UK