Yes ofc subsidies, but also tariff free access may not be a good thing according to more trusted sources than the eu itself, including African leaders, workers reps and NGOs. There's also continued structural adjustment, openings up economies for Western multinationals in exchange for 'aid'/loans, obv goes beyond the EU but the EU is part of the problem as a global competitor to the US/China-Russia etc..

What checks and balances are we talking about though? Next elections are due in April and the main balance missing is that there is no opposition with credibility in Hungary after it effectively abolished itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%90sz%C3%B6d_speech

Orban is likely to get a third term because he's preferred to the alternatives, there is no magic about it.

It's pretty interesting to learn that the previous pro-EU government stuffed the constitutional court with its own people (they had 14 out of 15 nominees), without anyone from the EU complaining. When the current government redresses the balance (there are now only 9 nominees of the previous government so 60% of the total) the EU has a problem. Also it was the previous government that raided wprost magazine not the current one. You don't learn about that kind of stuff reading BBC news.

What other freedoms are we talking about? I don't much care for the Polish view on abortion but its their decision. In the UK don't impose the majority view on abortion on all the constituent countries (NI doesn't have it) so not sure why the USE needs to.

Other posters ITT say the EU is just about economics and trade - it's always good to have a poster here who's actually from Europe showing them the reality.

BBC is a remain website, but even they aren't arguing that:

"UK manufacturing output at its highest for 10 years"
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42633502

It is reasonable to predict there will be a lot of disruption after 2020, a lot depends how much we on-shore our supply chains before then, how ready we are to substitute imports from the EU with local production and so on - also depends what's negotiated before then but it isn't harming manufacturing yet.

I've said before, if you think the world will end in 5 years anyway, then Remain is by far the simplest and best option. Longer term than that, if it's difficult to trade with the EU from outside then we're better off on the "world" side of the barrier rather than the EU side.

With 17 million voters you can find all kinds of reasons why people voted. Undoubtedly there are some who wanted to stop all those black people coming over from Poland.

You also have people who see the situation as discriminatory:
Waiter from UK marries person from India. Cannot get spousal visa due to low income.
Person from Portugal marries person from India. Can come to work in the UK as a waiter and bring wife with them under EU freedom of movement rules.
Waiter from UK marries person from Portugal. Spousal visa not required under EU freedom of movement rules.

A lot of people on the wrong end of that voted out.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38762034
"in parts of London some Asian populations were more likely to support Leave"
though overall it's true that more white people voted out that people from other races.

I'm not claiming to speak for all the different reasons why people voted leave, but I just think habsfan's assertion that the EU is against people who want immigrants only from particular countries doesn't make sense when the EU has that built in.

I just googled him, apparently he changed his endorsement several times between Trump, Clinton and Johnson. Sad!

In my opinion the bar here is where the law passed interferes with the ability of the populace to remove that government at a later time - e.g. cancelling elections, removing voters from electoral rolls etc.

Something like in the UK moving from drawing constituencies based on number of registered voters rather than total population doesn't qualify for example.

Maybe, but in practice people who link to the output of these models are never offering a discussion on the assumptions behind them. It's like Schumacher's "calculating machine" that serves only to hide the assumptions when it would be more honest just to assume the result.

Yet you approach published studies on leaving the EU without the same ability to think critically about how the results are arrived at and why all the predictions so far have been wrong, because "experts".

In both cases ministers/commissioners are indirectly appointed rather than elected directly. Maybe we should elect each minister or commissioner directly but no country does this so ok.

The problem is the following: it's highly unlikely in any election that one vote will change the outcome, and even if you do happen to cast the deciding vote, you may have got it wrong in the end or it may only make a small difference. Therefore voting is very close to 0EV, and bad move compared to e.g. working an extra hour overtime, watching TV, playing online poker or whatever which are all +EV.

It only makes sense to vote if you see yourself as part of a large group of people doing something collectively, "we're all voting Obama this time, we're all kicking the Tories out, we're all voting Leave" or whatever.

That's why European elections don't work. They are treated as opinion polls on the situation in national politics or on the EU in general. "We're giving Labour a bloody nose this time", "We're going to say up your Delors this time" or whatever.

The thing here is that individual countries can have good or bad policies too. Don't choose whether you're going to be British or a USEan based on whether you like or dislike particular policies of the UK or EU government as that stuff is all transitory.

But why isn't this a problem when a pro-EU government does it?

Seems weird to blame the EU for the UK's restrictive immigration policy. The fact that the UK chooses to put severe restraints on spousal visas has virtually zero to do with the EU.

Fine, but as Anderson explains eloquently it is the content not form of these structures which creates an unaccountable bureaucratic mess, and this is a far more convincing argument. The Euro parliament is the only directly elected body and is a farcical institution with very little legitimacy, low voter turnout etc. Your comparison with sovereign democracies is again not convincing, constitutions are such that executive bodies eg UK cabinet is accountable to UK parliament, which has legitimacy and real power. And again as Anderson points out, then EU structures are devoid of actual Politics, politics being a mere instrument to convey economic doctrine decided behind closed doors, hence the imposition of technocratic governments. Where is the opposition in other words.

I'm neither. The UK pioneered most of the terrible politics the EU is following. Anybody arguing hard and fast either way is bound to be caught in a web of hypocrisy.

If this is your conclusion on something so trivial to research it's hard to put any stock in anything of actual importance you might say. Adam's "endorsed" the three candidates but was always a Trump supporter. It takes about 30 seconds of research to realise that the endorsements of the other candidates weren't true endorsements - hell he specifically said the endorsement of Hillary was for "personal safety" because he thought it would be dangerous to publicly admit to being a Trump supporter.

He is hugely egotistical and has been an avid follower of Trump's cult of personality since day 1. "Wise and subtle" he is not.

In my opinion you're describing systematic problems with western democracies. I agree with you, it's just I don't see it as a specific EU problem, and so I find using it as an argument against the EU in particular distorting.

Again, specifically, I think the current situation in the UK, where the previous general election result has somehow lead to a more right wing Tory government, which looks set to serve a full term no matter how internally dysfunctional, an obvious sign that it is not robust in the terms you're describing. Certainly not robust enough.

In France Macron is demonstrating how much power the President has to pass laws under that authority and nothing else. For the moment he's popular enough that enough people are, broadly, fine with it, but, again, it's absolutely not a democratic system with robust checks.

Re UK election, are you referring to 2015 or 17, because post 2017 the tories lack an overall majority so they are just about stumped and can't carry out their manifesto priorities, there is a block on the worst as they rely on DUP and others, owing to the grass roots success of the labour left. It's these kind of spaces, admittedly available to the right as well as the left, that I can't see developing within the EU as a whole as it is structurally designed to promote neo liberalism only. Any deviation by member states seems to create a crisis.

Not that western democracy is robust ofc, just marginally better. This is the problem with a binary vote that presented a false choice between racist leave/progressive remain. In my view the vast majority of progressive forces in the UK, trade unions, labour, green party, campaigning groups etc, were mistaken in supporting remain, but I understand why people did it, it's a seductive idea to be part of a borderless continent, the eu flag is much more appealing, and the eu ofc has left cover of workers rights / environment (but EU in reality has weakened collective bargaining imo)

Could you post a few points describing why you think they were wrong to vote remain? (assuming it's not just because you feel the EU has weakened collective bargaining)

Because basically the fundamental principles of the EU are designed to protect employers. While collective bargaining and the right to strike, social dimension etc are enshrined in charters and so on, in all cases the 'right to run a business' has trumped all other concerns. Freedom of association etc is also an international right enshrined in UN convention (which the UK is often falling fowl of) so the EU role is much overstated, the directives are limited and arguably we can negotiate these at a national level anyway.

John Hendy argues:

The level of [collective bargaining] coverage in Europe is falling under pressure from the neo-liberal policies of the Troika, especially the European Commission and in the shadow of the EU-US Trade Agreement. Schulten has revealed that a report prepared by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) lists the following measures under the heading of ‘employment friendly reforms’:

General decentralisation of wage setting and collective bargaining.
Introduction of or wider scope for opportunities to derogate from industry-level agreements at workplace level.
Limitation or abolition of the ‘favourability principle’, under which the most favourable agreed term provision in a hierarchy of agreements will apply to employees. Typically, this means that workplace agreements may not provide for poorer terms and conditions than those negotiated at industry level. Limitations and reduction in the scope for the extension of collective agreements to non-signatory employers.
In addition, the recommendations also refer directly to:

‘decreasing bargaining coverage’ and
‘an overall reduction in the wage-setting power of trade unions’.
The principal means of achieving the reduction of coverage in Europe has been the decline in national and sector level bargaining and limitations on the extension of collective agreements to non-signatories. Yet industry-wide agreements and the extension of more limited agreements has been a central feature of European industrial relations and one reason for the success hitherto of the European economy and the standard of living enjoyed by its peoples. Collective bargaining has been damaged by (purported) austerity measures – none more so than Romania where the national collective agreement has been abolished and sector level agreements much restricted in coverage. The effect on collective bargaining coverage there has been catastrophic, a reduction from 98% in May 2011 to 36% at the end of 2012. This is a decline as dramatic as (but much more sudden than) the UK.

I do not doubt what you've posted, but if you look at countries like Denmark, it must be imminently possible to have strong protections for employees in place (including union driven minimum wages (sector specific) on a national level without it being in conflict with any EU law.

Furthermore, the EU does seem to impose on member countries a set of regulations protecting worker rights, no?

Yes, Denmark has 80% of its workforce covered by a collective agreement (compared with 23% for UK) and is one of the highest with Finland and Sweden, and obv all have high union density. But coverage there and right across Europe is falling due to EC pressure as described above. Individual states could ignore EU recommendations but the tide is flowing.

Directives on workers rights cover just a few areas - European Works Councils, parental leave, part-time work and burden of proof. Don't know much about works councils, talking shop I suspect. Maternity leave in UK is 52 weeks statutory, EU is 14 weeks statutory (cite BBC). Burden of proof on employers accused of tolerating sexual harassment is a good thing ofc and one of the red tape measures the brexit right would love to stop. Its worth mentioning here that for example when the tories introduced fees for tribunals it was the unions which campaigned and won for them to be scrapped.
There is also agency workers directive - good, but this is alongside massive increases in casual workforce on inferior terms and conditions, which is a consequence of neo liberal policies of the EU and member states.

What I object to is the caricature of the eu as a progressive body putting the block on the worse parts of the UK government when the eu does very little for the UK workforce. There is also the rather big issue of employers under cutting wages using freedom of movement. I'm all for no Borders but workers have to be projected by collective agreements which the eu is trying to dismantle.

The EU isn't the problem here. The problem are the people in each country who vote against their own best interest again and again. You would think that if people want to have better wages/better protections they vote left by now. But they aren't. The people who have a job are afraid of losing them so they mostly vote for parties that keep the status quo. For example people in Germany see how high youth unemployment is in countries like France and Spain. Esp France who has more worker rights afaik so of course they vote for the current establishment. You could say that the CDU lost votes but thats more due to the refugee crisis. AFD and FDP gained votes who are even more neo liberal than CDU.
Unions also mostly care for the people still in work. They dont move one step if you want to get more people to work. If you are in the right industry like car manufacturing in Germany you can earn decent wages often with additional bonuses. But that is only for employees of the parent company. Supply firms often cant afford to pay the same wages because the big firms pressure them and they often have to compete against firms from the Czech Republic or other neighbouring countries.

story: My uncle works for KBA Planeta who manufactures printing machines and delivers them worldwide. My uncle was one of the people who often went to the delivery sites and set up the machine for the customer. He got extra money for that to pay for food etc.. My uncle of course was upset when the firm discussed to eliminate this extra money. My dad had shares of that firm and would love to see something like that because it would increase share prices and dividends for him. Its crazy. I asked myself the question whom serves the money more. My dad who probably reinvests it or my Uncle who uses it for consumption? Its insane in my eyes.

^ while your dad might re invest, the trend is to stash profits in tax havens whereas in the back pocket of the worker it gets spent. A good reason why austerity won't deliver growth.

Another area where the EU is looking to regulate tighter (which was met with derision by people like Aaron Banks (afair)). I mean, offshore tax haven opportunities.

Another good example would be Apple and Ireland. The EU wants Ireland to collect the full amount of taxes yet Ireland rather wants to keep the business or whatever. Thats ridiculous. These rich firms try to play both ends against the middle. So if the Eu breaks up we have a lot more of that. May already threatend with the UK becoming a tax haven. But in the end we all just lose out on taxes that could be spent on so many things.

The Tories are already planning to turn the UK into another Beggar Thy Neighbour type champion country post brexit, or at least threaten to do it.

To me, most of the complaints about the EU, that you hear in the UK, are really about policies enacted by ~20 years of national government. That mixed with a lot of fraudulent claims about EU regulations, money for the NHS, the scourge of the eastern European countries etc.

I get that old people want Brexit, largely for romantic reasons, but I'm baffled when young people get on the same wagon. Then again, maybe next time will be a repeat of 1966 and England will be world cup winners again...

1. data is old. Growth has slowed this year as weaker pound (higher costs) are starting to hurt more than it helps.
2. UK growth lagged behind EU, US, and most of OECD, despite having the short term boost of weaker currency
3. even when UK was growing, it was mostly in increased utilization. Investments, which is a stronger predictor of future production, have slowed dramatically and a lot of it was permanently relocated to Europe.

Longer term, the world has been moving toward trade blocs with countries racing to join/create the biggest trade blocs they could. This has been happening since pretty much WWII. Good luck with negotiating favorable deals on your own in that environment.

That assumption, and your reasoning behind it, are going to be a huge problem in understanding the arguments on both sides.

I certainly do not think that voting Corbyn will boost my real spending power. If you mean nominal wages, then maybe.

'Protections' are usually another way of saying 'banning people from making a deal both parties would otherwise freely make'. I don't like the idea of a state banning people from doing jobs they want to do, it forces people to work at Sports Direct or cycle for Deliveroo on zero hours contracts.

How is it possible to be so consistently wrong about everything? Do you actually try to do this?

"without the same ability to think critically..." - this is beyond a joke. We have lots of actual experts providing similar opinions, and we have things actually happening which back up their fears. The people on the "other" side provide no detail, just plain rhetoric with nothing substantive at all.

I also love the way that you say "Because "experts"" as if it's a bad thing. No, relying on experts is actually a good thing.

It feels like debating with a 12 year old to be honest.

In that previous message, "Because "experts"" as slang referred to systematically assuming anything said by any type of expert was correct.

Just like assuming anything experts says is wrong, it is a mistake, but unfortunately it is a mistake that can take a lot of expertise to recognise. It is quite a tricky one to get from the context

Who is saying that everything that "experts" say is correct?

I believe it is a reference to the stereotypical 'Remain' argument that the treasury forecast was a definitive piece of evidence against Brexit, and ignoring it was dumb because it was made by experts.

Experts would have considered that forecast a small, weak, and biased piece of evidence against Brexit.