Brexit Thread

[Slyspy]

Socialists are mentally ill.

Good work mate, good work.

[Beskar]

Socialists are mentally ill.

I recommend reading the following website, because such a comment is disappointing.
http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/men...lth-and-stigma

Especially for someone who identifies their issues and heritage by the moniker: InsaneApache.

[a completely inoffensive name]

[Greyblades]

The retort to scientists worrying over budget:

[Gilrandir]

...dude, go look up how many times we have fought the french, we've done it a lot, even after the 1707 act of union. Scratch that, especially after the 1707 act of union.

The Auld alliance ended in the 1500's.

Dude, I'm aware of at least some of those wars. But you said that the Scots had a special cordiality towards the English when Britain went to war with the French. That was the statement that I doubted. It was certainly wrong in respect of pre-1707 wars. And I wonder what was the Scots participation in post-1707 wars and what was the popular feeling in Scotland when the British crown started a war with their long-time (although not current) allies. I'm sure it was far from unanimous in support of the English.

That would be if you consider the EU as a pact intended to create a federal government, when we joined it was with the understanding it was a free trade agreement and nothing more and with that context it becomes clear that we have been imposed upon incessantly.

Unions may evolve. The rules of evolution are to be discussed along the way. You should have put your foot down when it was being introduced. And you have lived with those changes for quite a time without any apparent (to an outsider) catastrophe. Now when Cameron has wheedled out significant preferences, I see no reason for raising hue and cry.

[Greyblades]

Significant preferences that may as well be piss in the wind, the trust to give those promises meaning is long gone both with brussels. The EU is constantly pushing for more integration and has a disregard for the decisions of the member states as shown with the first Irish referendum on the lisbon treaty. With a combined attitude of "this time they'll do it" in the EU and a general trend among our politicians to not consult the electorate when signing the country to integratory agreements, we cannot trust that the promises will be upheld by either side for very long.

Yes, that is correct. France, the Netherlands and several other countries postponed the free movement of those "new EU workers" for several years, which was allowed at the time under EU law. Britain voluntarily decided against these measures and instantly became the favourite destination.
Since that happened during Tony Blair's run as Prime Minister and seeing as how he is widely disliked nowadays, this is of course no obstacle for Brexiteers to blame Brussels for everything.

Some people also need to educate themselves on the difference between a Visum and the ability to migrate somewhere...and the fact that for the UK it doesn't matter one toss to whom the EU offers a visum, because it's only valid for the Schengen area.

Not being part of the schingen area means we can still check people's passports when they try to enter the country. It does not change the fact that being part of the Eu means we cannot refuse EU citizens from immigrating here.

Some people need to educate themselves on the difference beteen border controls and immigration controls and also need to an attitude adjustment.

That's what I thought, that the we'd opted out of the free movement rule, that any such free movement was decided by the Downing Street government rather than by Brussels. But as Greyblades explained in an earlier post, his intention is to stick it to all politicians by means of Brexit, so it doesn't matter whether something Brexiters dislike is decided by Brussels or Downing Street; everything that is bad is blamed on membership of the EU.

I am sure it is comforting to reassure yourself that your side is sane and their side isnt but it is quite ugly to witness..

I do not like the EU, I do not like politicians who consider it more important than thier own country's well being and self determination, I consider makng those politicians panic a bonus but it most certainly is not my main goal. An anticipation of well deserved schadenfreude does not automatically make me an ill informed idiot blaming the EU for all my problems at the behest of another politician and your assumption is frankly depressing to witness in a fellow countryman.

I have made it clear multiple times I blame our problems on our own politicians as well as the EU so it is somewhat idiotic for you to claim otherwise. Thier time will come in 2020, 2025, 2030 and on and on but the EU can only be dealt with here and now.

[Gilrandir]

a general trend among our politicians to not consult the electorate when signing the country to integratory agreements

When you vote for some politicians you impart them with the authority to decide the course of the country. They don't have to ask you for permission on any issue which is within their responsibility. If you don't like decisions they adopt, vote them out next time.

[Greyblades]

We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.

We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.

[Gilrandir]

We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.

We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.

According to recent polls the "we" vs the "them" is about 52% vs 48%. So I wouldn't be so bold as to extend your opinion to the whole nation (especially Scotland). As someone here put it (referring to Ukrainians, though) the British are a deeply divided nation.

As for removing the option, it is always the best decision. Let's remove football, and we will see no fan clashes any more. Let's remove gays, and we will witness no gaybar shootings any more. Let's remove Muslims and we will suffer no terror acts any more. Removing a cause always works.

[Greyblades]

Those suggestions would work, they are last resorts in the situation where all other alternatives have and will fail, and continued persistance is untennable which is what we are in with the EU.

You have one poll saying close remain, I have one saying certain leave.

[Pannonian]

We did, that's what the conservatives won for and they're now resisting this tooth and nail. They cant be trusted to keep the status quo any more than the alternatives so we must remove the option. This referendum is how we do that.

We want the EU politicians out and they wont allow a next time.

That's the rationale for why any intention to leave must mean taking action now. Ask why we should leave though, and the reasons make less sense.

Hence the fears about being flooded with immigrants because the EU imposes them on us. Except that the EU has no power to do any such thing as we're not in the Schengen zone, and any wave of immigrants is the decision of Downing Street, not Brussels. Or the fear that Turkey's accession will mean a wave of unsuitable EU members entering the UK. Except, as Furunculus points out in the Turkey thread, Turkey wasn't accepted back in the days before Erdogan's lunacy and IS, and indeed he blames the EU for not including Turkey as IHHO they should. Perhaps the two of you should have a chat to straighten things out, as one of you blames the EU for possibly accepting Turkey in the future as a reason for Brexit, while the other blames the EU for not accepting Turkey as a reason for Brexit.

Never mind about the mutually contradictory reasoning, the common theme is blaming the EU and thus necessitating Brexit. Once the UK is outside the EU, the EU will no longer be able to force the Schengen rules on the UK, which the UK isn't subject to anyway. Nor will it be able to introduce a wave of Turks into EU countries. Even though it's decided not to back when Turkey was rather more acceptable than now. I wonder when arguments about the euro will crop up, which the UK isn't subject to either.

[Greyblades]

Red herring: the schingen zone just stops a nation from having border checks. The right to live and work in the UK by EU citizens was laid out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 (i assume act).

Yep most of our problems stem from our successive governments attempts to steer towards integration with the EU Brussels didnt exactly dissuade them from adopting thier faulty ideals to fit in with the club but the fault does indeed lie with the politicians charging towards the cliff like so many lemmings. We gave them many chances but the political class appears too invested in the EU to undo it on their own so we must remove thier end goal and shake things up.

They couldnt play nice so now they cant play at all. To hell with thier tantrums and threats.

[Gilrandir]

Those suggestions would work, they are last resorts in the situation where all other alternatives have and will fail, and continued persistance is untennable which is what we are in with the EU.

Untenable is too grim a word for current situation in the UK. And it is too conclusive to claim all other alternatives have failed. Presenting situation like the country is on the brink of the abyss and only a step back will save it is the rhetoric employed by both sides. Should the voting go either way I doubt if anything serious will ensue. Unless the Scots will start a to-do again in case a leave vote prevails. Which is serious.

You have one poll saying close remain, I have one saying certain leave.

Did you read the article carefully? It says:

The Ipsos MORI poll for the Evening Standard newspaper shows Leave with 53 per cent of the vote and Remain on 47 per cent cent.

Leave was up 10 per cent on the previous poll while Remain was down 10 per cent.

It means there is a growth of leavers, but the overall situation is still precarious. The 6% difference leaves the result still doubtful.

Red herring: the schingen zone just stops a nation from having border checks.

Like there were ever border checks even before Schengen was introduced. Moving between European countries you could sometimes fail to notice you have crossed into in a different state already.

[Kralizec]

Not being part of the schingen area means we can still check people's passports when they try to enter the country. It does not change the fact that being part of the Eu means we cannot refuse EU citizens from immigrating here.

Some people need to educate themselves on the difference beteen border controls and immigration controls and also need to an attitude adjustmen.

Seems I misread part of your statements, my mistake. A lot of people on the interwebs that talk about it in the context of Brexit discussions have no idea what it actually means. Turkey isn't going to become a member state anytime soon. Even if Erdogan leaves tomorrow and Turkey becomes a paradise with rainbows and fluffy unicorns overnight, which is unlikely, it could still easily take 6-8 years before their entry for the plain reason that it's a lengthy process.

As for the current wave of asylum seekers that has reached the EU...even if the majority of those people get residence permits, they will not have unqualified freedom of movement in the EU since they are not yet EU citizens. That would take many more years, for instance in the Netherlands you have to be legally resident for 5 years before you can naturalize. And the idea that those migrants will hop over to the UK en masse a soon as they're able is just fantasy, plain and simple.

As for the current batch of workers that have already migrated to the UK:

1) all the data shows that EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they receive, and are actually more often employed than natives
2) I don't see that there's a problem at all...but even so, British politicians are to blame for the scale of the "problem", not the EU
3) it's hardly fair to demand that the EU gives up one of its core achievements (freedom of movement) to counter the consequenses of British failures in policy

[Greyblades]

Untenable is too grim a word for current situation in the UK. And it is too conclusive to claim all other alternatives have failed. Presenting situation like the country is on the brink of the abyss and only a step back will save it is the rhetoric employed by both sides. Should the voting go either way I doubt if anything serious will ensue. Unless the Scots will start a to-do again in case a leave vote prevails. Which is serious.

Well untennable depends on if the EU army becomes a thing, or the lisbon treaty loses it's opt out option. A while ago I'd say we'd be safe as the conservatives dont like giving up power, then Boris rebelled and the chances of teh conservatives surviving in one piece approached zero. A Labour/SNP coalition would basically make that it certainty.

I think unsustainable is a better descriptor, there are only so many bailouts and charity drives before the economies of the EU becomes too sunken and socially there is only so many immigrants people will put up with taking in before they start rebelling, perhaps not violently but we're already seeing nations going against Brussels. The way I see it the economic bailouts and migrant waves are not going to stop unless the EU's leaders change direction, which all signs point to not likely, and the longer it goes on the union is going to slump and decay until it is finally abandoned by the member countries. Point being I think we'll be better off getting off now than waiting for it to collapse, and we've lost the option to leave if things go sour in the short term.

Did you read the article carefully? It says:

The Ipsos MORI poll for the Evening Standard newspaper shows Leave with 53 per cent of the vote and Remain on 47 per cent cent.

Leave was up 10 per cent on the previous poll while Remain was down 10 per cent.

It means there is a growth of leavers, but the overall situation is still precarious. The 6% difference leaves the result still doubtful.

Sorry, wrong independant link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7075131.html

The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for The Independent a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned.

Even when the findings are not weighted for turnout, Leave is on 53 per cent (up three points since April) and Remain on 47 per cent (down three). The online poll, taken on Wednesday and Thursday, suggests the Out camp has achieved momentum at the critical time ahead of the 23 June referendum.

Differential turnout could prove crucial. ORB found that 78 per cent of Leave supporters say they will definitely vote – describing themselves as a “10” on a scale of 0-10, while only 66 per cent of Remain supporters say the same.

Like there were ever border checks even before Schengen was introduced. Moving between European countries you could sometimes fail to notice you have crossed into in a different state already.

Would have been a heck of a thing to get through the channel tunnel without noticing!

Point being they dont need the schingen agreement to move into british houses and take british jobs, they can do that with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations which keeps us from refusing them.

[Greyblades]

Seems I misread part of your statements, my mistake. A lot of people on the interwebs that talk about it in the context of Brexit discussions have no idea what it actually means. Turkey isn't going to become a member state anytime soon. Even if Erdogan leaves tomorrow and Turkey becomes a paradise with rainbows and fluffy unicorns overnight, which is unlikely, it could still easily take 6-8 years before their entry for the plain reason that it's a lengthy process.

As for the current wave of asylum seekers that has reached the EU...even if the majority of those people get residence permits, they will not have unqualified freedom of movement in the EU since they are not yet EU citizens. That would take many more years, for instance in the Netherlands you have to be legally resident for 5 years before you can naturalize. And the idea that those migrants will hop over to the UK en masse a soon as they're able is just fantasy, plain and simple.

As I said: "give it time".

As for the current batch of workers that have already migrated to the UK:

1) all the data shows that EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they receive, and are actually more often employed than natives

...yeah to the detriment of the natives, they're coming in faster than we can employ or house them and thier lower expectations in standard of pay and living is helping them outcompete the locals.

2) I don't see that there's a problem at all...but even so, British politicians are to blame for the scale of the "problem", not the EU

The scale of the problem is proporitionate to the number of immigrants, and right now we cant put a cap on them to keep it sane, and that happened because our politicians started repeating the EU mantra, and that happened because they're idiots and/or greedy.

3) it's hardly fair to demand that the EU gives up one of its core achievements (freedom of movement) to counter the consequenses of British failures in policy

Yes it is, we should leave.

It was a great achievment when you could maintain the borders controls with non members, when they started to fail the core achievment became a flaw.

[Beskar]

We have the option to remove a Cameron 2.0 and undo what he does, we don't have that option with the EU comission, not in a peaceful manner anyway. And with the comission hanging around his neck Cameron 1.0 or anyone else in power is limited in what they are capable of changing to make things better, even if they want to.

EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.

[Greyblades]

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

[Kralizec]

EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.

That's not true, AFAIK. Commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of all the member states. A state cannnot unilaterally withdraw "their" commissioner once he or she is in office. Allthough in practice, if he/she has lost favor it would generally be easy to persuade the president of the Commission to sack him or her.

[Gilrandir]

Sorry, wrong independant link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7075131.html

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole with these pollls. This one was published ON JUNE 10, the previous one - TODAY. So you see that the number of the leavers has actually decreased - on June 10 it was 55% vs 45%, now it is 53% vs 47%. Anyway, it is too close to predict anything.

[Beskar]

There was the Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof boat battle on the thames too.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3272161.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewel...dwv#.ii31Qrq3m

[Husar]

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

You think you're as strong as 27 other EU people/countries?

edit: Terrible assassination, not exactly a way to defend democracy.

[Husar]

I claim victory for Britain.

Do you have a nuke?

No nuke no victory, you cant have one. That's the rules that I just made up, and I'm backing it up with this bomb, that was lent from the National Nuclear Security Administration.

I love Eddie Izzard.

The only one of you who could actually fire back at the same scale as us at this moment of time are the French so I stick to my assessment of us having strength equivilent of 1 out of 2.

Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eapons_sharing

You forget three things:

1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.

2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...

3) Poland has a missile shield.

[Kralizec]

Rest in Peace, Jo Cox.

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

A few problems with that:

- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.

- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population

- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.

[Husar]

As the vote comes closer, civil war breaks out on the Thames:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewel...nbB#.il8VDbgGk

As for the fishermen, has anyone ever considered that they may be overfishing the waters without EU regulations? Much like it happened in the Mediterranean? Didn't the Somalian pirates mostly come up due to EU countries overfishing in Somalian and other countries' waters?
If so, cry me a river...

[Greyblades]

Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...

On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.

Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eapons_sharing

You forget three things:

1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.

2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...

3) Poland has a missile shield.

Wiki link:

However, since all U.S. nuclear weapons are protected with Permissive Action Links, the host states cannot arm the bombs without authorization codes from the U.S. Department of Defense

1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.

2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.

3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.

The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.

The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.

A few problems with that:

- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.

I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.

- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population

The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.

- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.

The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 13 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.

[Husar]

Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...

On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.

If the Spanish are doing that, then I'm right and regulations should be tighter. Mandatory GPs modules that turn the boat around once it leaves the designated fishing zone, for example.

Wiki link:

1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.

2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.

3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.

The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.

The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.

I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.

The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.

The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 14 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.

Well:

1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain?

2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?

[Greyblades]

1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain?

The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.

2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?

I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.

My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.

We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.

[Fragony]

France needs the EU, UK doesn't. First tanks now banks, thank you Germany, the childles mother is the best thing ever

[Husar]

The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.

How often does such legislation pass? I.e. where is the use of that if the chance that it actually passes is around 1% or so?

I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.

My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.

But that is only in one body of the EU and we seem unable to actually figure out how powerful it really is compared to the EU parliament. Of course you will now say it's the most important body of the EU and basically decides everything by itself, but I have my doubts about that, just like I do about the usual argument that the EU only works for the corporations. Because so do a lot of national governments and it doesn't even explain all the punishments and legislation the EU dished out against certain corporations. For example several tech fiants from the US are under constant scrutiny by the EU, discriminatory business practices by online shops are being reviewed, misleading advertisement on water and regarding other food was banned and so on. The idea to privatize all basic water supply seems terrible though, I'll agree with that. The point is that it's not nearly as one-sided as Brexiteers make it out to be. The EU is what the members make of it, much like a national government. In both cases you have to make concessions and fight corporate influence.

We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.

We'll see about that once you have left.