If we don't hear about these bad laws, how do you know they exist?

Which law? After being asked a million times I am sure you can provide an example of a single law the UK was forced to implement that deep in their hearts they didn't want.

Here's a BBC reality check piece from 2016 on EU law in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36473105

Arguing about whether it's good or bad law is totally besides the point. The EU is about pooling sovereignty to some extent. Those of us who are happy about that should have no qualms about saying so, while those who are against it have a genuine objection. Most also have strong views on the direction of travel which makes it a huge issue that cannot be dismissed.

As a slight aside, anyone listening to Any Questions last night heard Paul Mason talk about himself as a remain voter who voted reluctantly because of his concerns about sovereignty.

Not as amazing as the idea that Brexiteers are playing some sick long game and everyone else is myopic, when you can't even agree between you what you want. Without us, a USE is more likely. We are viewed as a useful handbrake on the lunatic fringe of Schultz etc. Besides, we would never have been a full member given the opt-outs we have regularly secured. We are a senior member of the EU with considerable clout within it.

lol at the idea of listening to Paul Mason.

lol at anyone sad enough to listen to any questions.

Paul Mason is ok to listen to, don't have to agree with him while listening although there's no reason to doubt that, like so many people, he sees sovereignty as a big issue. His not up to lofty 2+2 standards of course but at least he thinks about politics a lot.

I listened to him talk about how the mainstream media had the knives out for Corbyn, along with the flow chart on a blackboard. That was enough Paul Mason for me for one lifetime.

Oh look its I am really pro remain (honest guv) Chezfarage arguing the Leave case again.

Also revealing once more that he buys heavily into faragian narratives of lost sovereignty, nasty wasty EU to fishermen etc.

The laws that the EU most heavily influences are ones to do with trade, because its a trading block, outside of that and other to human rights (how dare it protect those) its influence is pretty much insignificant.

The UK still has massive power though in relation to trade, for example it recently vetoed the imposition of increased tariffs on Chinese steel. Most of EU wanted it, UK said No, it did not happen. The idea that Brussels says Jump and the UK has to say how high is again pure faragian nonsense.

Indeed. The last paragraph of the article posted above summarises it pretty well.

People like Oaf being afraid to discuss sovereignty is a huge part of the problem. It's not making the leave case to argue for the EU as a good thing. Worse, for decades, people like oaf have left all of the discussion on the EU to the leave camp because they are so afraid to stand up for the EU as a good thing politically.

Pooling sovereignty is a good thing and of course the UK has tons of influence. In many ways we have more power and influence by pooling sovereignty - Oaf portraying it as jumping when Brussels says jump is the faragian nonsense.

Fairly detailed polling analysis if there's a 2nd referendum

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/b...wing-to-remain

The potential to convert labour leavers stands out.
Also that demographics have already reduced the leave votes lead by half.

Im not afraid to discuss it at all in any shape or form. I just want a rational discussion on it based on facts etc, not chezfarage daily express narratives.

You linked an article which btw does not support the idea that we "pool" sovereignty" whatever faragian waffle that means.

We are in a collective agreement over trade, if we want to continue trading to the terms of the agreement we have to follow them+some stuff on human rights.

Other than that the UK can pretty much go about its business as it sees fit.

If you can do better than DB and actually come up with some concrete examples of wtf you are talking about, please do.

Then you need to stop your faragian nonsense - You seem to have bought hook line and sinker, the faragian / hard brexiters argument that political aspects of the EU are automatically bad things, that somehow would make leaving correct!

The article is brief but decent imo which is why I linked it. Glad you liked it. No idea why you think it supports leave.

Quoted is nonsense that does not even parse, seems like a school yard attempt to go no u, but does not even achieve that lowly ambition.

I dont accept anything faragian, I am just trying to argue on facts and objective realities not narratives.

I did not say the the article supports leave, if you read the whole thing it correctly points out that most "sovereignty" or whatever that is given up, is related to trade, because that is the factual situation. In essence the EU is a trade agreement.

Still waiting on some clarification in cold factual terms about wtf you are talking about.

I did read the whole thing. As you say it points out that "most sovereignty" or whatever that is given up, is related to trade, because that is the factual situation".

That is what I'm talking about and you now seem to agree. It's faragian nonsense to equate that giving up of sovereignty (or whatever you want to call it) as automatically a bad thing that has to be denied at all costs.

So many, very much including me, are considering the direction of travel as well. We should be arguing why we want to be part of a united political force to stand up for our interests and decent values vs trump's america, Putin's Russia etc (as well as more reasonable places). The pro-EU side has abdicated this debate for years, leaving any idea of being part of something bigger like a bad smell

This is just one massive backtrack from there is a "pooling of sovereignty".

The point is that you want to have the discussion on turf and terms defined by Farage.

Maybe giving up sovereignty is not a bad thing, maybe it is, but the discussion is largely moot, because its not really happening in any meaningful way, this is not denying anything, its framing the debate in rational, factual terms not faragian ones.

Farage tilts at phantom windmills and you want to be the windmill, its strange.

The EU is not a windmill. it's a very real and developing political entity. Farage thinks it's bad and you are effectively agreeing with him.

I think it's a very good thing. That why I want the UK to be part of it.

Saying I agree with farage is just empty flailing because you are getting so wrecked.

Farage says EU is bad because of X
I correctly and factually say X is not real.
You say it is real.

You are the chezfarage, its that simple.

Lol

The arguement is:

The EU is a powerful and developing political entity
I want to be part of it
Farage doesn't

You have to pretend it doesn't exist. In trying to maintain this bizarre position you have conceded all the ground to farage and have been doing so for decades.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m.../Barney-Lane-1

Chez, you’re constructing a really odd argument here. I want to be a part of it because it’s beneficial to us and we are one of its major power brokers. There’s a difference between that and what you’re arguing.

Trying to deal with someone denying that the EU is a real political entity is always going to lead to a weird discussion.

It it's very real and I want to part of it because in my view it's beneficial to us and I mean 'us' in the very broad sense - way beyond the UK borders.

To risk an example. The Galileo project - This isn't a trade issue at all and I want us to be a fully integrated part of any sucgh European project. I absolutely don't want us to have a shared project involving the usa and 'going alone' is plain stupid. I believe it's best for all of us for the UK to be part of the EU project - hopefully we will even if we leave but who knows.

This is just typical chezFARAGE disingenuous bollox. A huge shameless goal post shift because you know you are getting utterly wrecked were the goal posts where originally.

No one is denying that the EU is a political entity, or discussing the size of the entity etc. Lol at mentioning Gallileo, nothing to do with sovereignty.

We are discussing how much sovereignty in actual factual non farage narrative land the UK passes to the EU. As the article you posted evinces, not very much.

Again you were absolutely talking from the perspective of farage, just as in the fishing debate you basically quoted his position verbatim.

Dont you ever wonder why your forum rep is lower than whale ****? Just look at your work in this discussion, utterly horrible.

Lol.

You realise that after we leave the EU, we will still have experts in regulation in single sectors. If you think say the USA does not need compliance experts in single sectors, because regulation is not super complex, then lol at you you sweet naive summer child.

Also you know when you export to a market, you have to comply with it, that is not going to change.

@oaf

So we all agree the EU is a powerful ans developing political entity. Progress at least

Now tell us why you want to be part of it. I can give tons of reasons why I want to part of it. Farage disagrees. Where do you actually stand?