Yeah, then the other countries and then London and other regions. People shouldn't be part of a wider group for mutual benefit - well, they have to be obviously, but the lines should be re-cast so people feel better about it (despite being worse off).

So would I be correct in assuming you would be happy to live in a country run by the EU? If the USE then decided to merge with Russia, would you be ok with that? And if it wanted to then merge with China or India, would you be okay with that?

Do you think your vote would be less or meaningful in any of these scenarios?

If decisions are made that are bad for your region, how does your democratic contract feel for you then?


Obviously there is no truly ideal size, but nation states seem the best to me - the people inside each state have way more in common with each other than people with a different cultural background, ideals and language.

Also, can I take from this you are anti Scottish independence?

Seems consistent I guess. All good EUers value economic comfort over democratic accountability, it feels like. They never consider what they'll do when their lost democratic imperative is of little use to more and more remote and unaccountable decision makers make decisions that don't work for them (a common and valid complaint from the Scottish seperatists imo)

China (communists) merging with who? And Russia? You may as well start talking about preparing for the possible alien invasion.

Also, the EU only care about things related to trade - which does, admittedly, cover a lot of things. And yes, I'd be happy to be part of a country that plays it's part in a collective of countries that standardise certain laws for the greater good. Sounds great in fact.

Re country size - perhaps the USA should break up then and they'd do better?

To be honest, talk of cultural background and ideals etc sounds a bit worrying.

I don't have any strong view, not being Scottish, but I'd prefer they didn't break away. It's up to them though of course. The main thing I'd want to see is an honest debate so that both sides have the best data and info available.

A leave campaign now may actually be able to justify economic benefits in leaving, assuming they could join the EU. It really isn't the same as the UK leaving the EU.

are you serious?

Please name another trade arrangement where the organisers want their own flag, anthem, army etc...

I agree. I'm fine with standardising agreements and laws for the greater good - defence, arms proliferation, environmental issues, possibly some aspects of infrastructure... What I'm not fine with is some other extranational body making new laws and each participant having to cowtow and take newly generated laws as a rubberstamping exercise, robbing their respective parliaments of the power they have been temporarily gifted (at the time of national election, for the lifetime of that parliament) because some fly-by-night politician signed it away in perpetuity cos he/she was made to feel good about it at some summit.

What are some of these laws that you object to that have been forced on us?

It's more like, are you serious? The firm I used to work for had their own logo, song, slogan etc. What's the big issue with that?

You really don't get that the EU is really about trade? You can't have one EU country working people 80 hours a week and other capping it at 40. That's not to say that all working conditions are standardised, as they are not, but we have laws about workers rights for that reason.

In before something about straight bananas.

We know what James Dyson thinks about that. He wants to be able to fire workers on a whim and pay no corporation tax (not that the latter is a EU thing, he's just a huge A-hole).

I’m not looking for a gotcha or anything, I’m genuinely quite curious.

A lot of my Tory voting friends support the exact same thing and I think only one is a company owner. Apparently a lower corp tax will allow large companies to employ more people. I’m coming to the conclusion that those on the left and the right are just wired differently.

You make my point for me. Orgnisations have logos, not trade arrangements. The EU is definitely not just about trade, it's a long game political plan to create a superstate of common political union.

(Isn't plans for an army a really, really, really obvious clue that its not just about trade?)

Read anything coming out of Macrons mouth right now, or any number of europhile politicians in the past, whose pushy disregard for their populaces will create more and more far right support in the next few years.

They are the creators of discontent, thinking they can push their own agendas without proper regard to democracy (other than hide behind it as they wheedle concessions out of countries they are slowly making completely dependent on them).

Ultimately it really comes down to do you want a USE or not, everything else is distraction

Yeah you can expect nothing but crickets in reply to the simple question.

See his last post for some more complete idiocy.

****ing gibberish and false.

I know but I am genuinely curious what the gripes are cause all I see him pointing to are vague notions of becoming a vassal state of the EU at some undetermined point in the future. It really is like they were duped into it and are now scrambling to rationalise their decision.

I think many on the right want fewer workers rights - this is just a basic Tory philosophy. Whether they want less than the bare EU minimum you can argue, though some do and have stated this, but being able to squeeze certain classes of worker if they have enough MPs is what the Tories want.

It really is amazing though. The EU have a process for making key decisions but it just takes one leader to muse about something or other and we hear about a superstate, an army etc.

Would you call a people who are asked by referendum to join an organisation for trade purposes only , to find that 40 years later and without a chance to stop the process, who then find they are in an international organisation that can override their national law, have control of their borders and fishing waters, 'duped'?

I would.

I haven’t looked into the exact history because lol you don’t care anyway, but I’d be very surprised if the organisation the UK signed up for didn’t already have those characteristics.

Edit: except the UK has been able to stop progress along the way and has often done so.

I’m not really able to parse this as written but if border control was your main issue why not just say it.

What laws have the EU overridden in the UK against the UK’s will?

EU imposed the law that took sovereignty from them, also removed the democratic accountability they all have against their wishes and maroon passports.

But don’t forget our fishermen will be free of the common fisheries policy. They won’t be able to export their fish to Europe so it will all be for naught but it’ll look pretty great seeing all of those trawlers coming in full to the brim.

Thought I’d look into the control your fishing waters thing a bit more. There are 12500 fisherman employed in the UK and 75% of their catch gets exported to Europe. Jesus Christ.

I've really never looked into it, but I assume that the EU rules on catching fish are about trying to ensure that stocks don't get depleted. Fish don't respect national boundaries I assume so having a common agreement sounds like a good idea.

The burgundy passport is Thatcher's. She brought that in. (She also created the Single European Act.) It could have been blue all along, but Thatcher for some reason wanted a burgundy one. The format, however -- the annoying little booklet as opposed to the proper hardback format we used to have -- is something required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, not the EU.

Yep, that's the joke.