Although the EU has a parliament, a single state's objection to a new piece of legislation would make no difference if the other 26 states were in favour of it.

Nation states no longer get a veto when deciding on new legislation. New legislation is put through either by consensus among the members, or by qualified majority voting. Thus countries cannot block legislation they strongly disagree with.

Essentially the EU is too great a body to legislate and the power should be handed back to Westminster.

The EU does not regularly legislate on minor issues that would adversely affect individual nations, but rather issues of common trade or foreign policy. To this end, although it is indeed true that individual member states do not have as great a say and are potentially unable to veto legislation, this should not be a problem.

Also, the idea that the EU is too 'large' a body to have a common parliament is untenable when you consider that other large geographical territories with different cultural 'zones' such as Canada, India and Russia have a single federal parliament.

The EU is arguably a drain on the British economy. A huge amount of money given to the EU is allocated to bureaucracy and wasteful spending such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In 2006, a whopping 45% EU spending went towards the CAP,^[1]. To put this in perspective, that's almost half EU spending allocated towards an industry that employs only 5% EU citizens and generates 1.6% GDP^[2].

This is truly unneccessary and is unequally distributed, France reportedly benefitting immensely, while countries with very little agricultural sectors seeing few benefits, and yet expected to foot the bill for this wasteful policy.

1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm#howmuch
2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm#howmuch

More than 80% of the EU budget is spent by the member states.^[1]. In effect, the EU acts like a central government does, redistributing from the richer areas to the poorer areas within the EU. We don't have a problem with rich London bankers paying a bit more to help the Welsh Valleys so why is helping poorer areas within EU member states any different?

Although the EU does cost Britain money, it is simply because it is a richer country. The amounts of money that are put in by member states is proportional to their wealth.

1. ^ http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/publications/financial_pub/pub_eu_spending_en.pdf

The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes.

"The common denominator between national and multi-level governing procedures is that each is tasked with coordinating opinion, and ultimately policy and resources, into a common pool. Power and influence within the European Union structures are divided, although somewhat disparately, between the European Parliament (EP), the Council of Ministers and the Commission. These bodies are designed to check and balance one another. In member states, citizens have the opportunity to influence national policy making through their elected officials. In the EU’s multi-tiered system, the closest a citizen comes to impacting a policy decision is through their elected representative to the European Parliament."^[1]

1. ^ http://www.eumap.org/journal/features/2005/demodef/mitchell

The EU is continually strengthening its structure to be democratic and accountable. MEPs are elected regionally within member states which is very much a democratic process. Further to this, MEPs vote on new legislation and represent their constituency and national party in their voting patterns. Deciding on important legislation through a qualified voting system also helps to illustrate the highly democratic nature of the European Council .

Although there is a perceived or actual 'democratic deficit' within the EU, EU structures are continually being reformed in order to better reflect the wishes of their stakeholders - the EU citizens themselves.

The main advantage of Europol is that it enables criminals that cross borders to be tracked and arrested easily by a multinational force. However, if is considered that Britain is an island, the likelihood of criminals crossing our borders is quite low, thus rendering the major advantage of Europol somewhat irrelevant.

If the aims of the UK are to fight global terror then surely it would be of greater benefit to strengthen relations with the United States where there is a far stronger focus on tackling this issue.

We need to co-operate to fight the increasingly global threat of crime and violence. Europol is an effective multinational police and security force and leaving Europe would deprive us of its benefits.

Britain must remain its own country. Being a part of the EU threatens national identity and the UK economy amongst other things. Britain does not need to rely on its European neighbours in order to succeed.

Britian joined the European Economic Community in 1973, after learning that trade with the Commonwealth was not as lucrative as originally thought. The application was made in 1961 by the Conservative Prime Minister Harold MacMillan. The main reason for Britain joining the EU was for the economic benefits, so obviously it shows that in the age of globalisation and increased competitiveness, Britain cannot act alone.

In the Labour Party manifesto I was promised a referendum by Tony Blair, this was reneged upon and I have been forced into this position by lies and subterfuge by the present Labour party and many other lying cheating politicians over the years, I do not believe that Gordon Brown had the legal right to sign us all up to being members of the EU by voting for the Lisbon treaty in our names when we had not been given the promised Referendum, I see the whole exercise as one giant confidence trick and I will never accept it.

NO DON'T EVEN LIE I believe that as we are currently a part of the EU that makes you not only an Englishman, but also a European.

since being part of the eu our immigration system is absolutety crazy no other ue country puts up with this stupidity the french and germans dont wanr these poles and aestern block nationals to be in their country and we muggins of the ue puts up with it and its all down to cheap labour because our own people wont work for six pounds an hour then the money they save goes straight back home anyway and by the time they have used all our benefits which our open to them its been proved that there is no benefit to them being here in the first place

Although it is true that the initial aims of the community were to aid regional security, now that the bonds of trade and co-operation have been established we no longer need to be an official part of that union to retain the peace and goodwill.

Additionally the 'special relationship' between Britain and the U.S means that we are not as dependent upon EU security as we could be an thus we are no longer tied to the union for reasons of protection.

The original aims of the EU's predecessor, The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), formally established in 1951, were outlined by French French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.' Thus far, no member states have gone to war with one another, making the original aims of lasting peace truly successful.

Many argue that now EU member states are economically and politically mutually cooperative to such a high degree that it renders war between member states unfeasible.

The EU also acts as a major actor and negotiator for important international treaties and conventions, giving it more weight than 27 individual states would. The EU is involved in negotiations to ensure better international governance and norms exist in the international community and is able to act strongly in support of mutual interests.

The EU tackles such important security issues internationally, and has strategies for tackling weapons of mass destruction (WMD), combatting illegal accumulation and trafficking of light weapons, and many other defence- and security-related issues.

Genial trade relations should continue even if we left the EU, however, "if there were genuine concern about the EU pursuing discriminatory trade policies against the UK, then the UK could also join NAFTA to create countervailing power in the event of traded disputes. NAFTA allows each member to pursue its own trade agenda, provided it allows other NAFTA members free access in agreed trade areas. It would therefore be entirely consistent with the UK’s free trade policy."^[1]

1. ^ Minford, Mahambare and Nowell 2006

EU gives businesses access to 480 Million consumers, which is fantastic for our business sector and makes us more prosperous.

The free market has incresed consumer choice and goods are no longer delayed in customs by heavy paper work, making delivery times shorter, and allowing manufacturers to save money, thus bringing down the price for consumers.

The free market has been especially beneficial to the service industry, who find have found it relatively easy to access a huge portion of new customers with relative ease.

Trans-national corporations can still be have a presence in the UK as in Switzerland and Norway with the UK being an EU member. Indeed were the UK to leave then the British government would be in a position to attract inward investment and create jobs which it can not do inside the ever restrictive EU legislative framework.

Trans-national coorporations (TNCs) are comapnies that are based in at least two or more countries. A number of these TNCs are based in Britain such as the Nissan factory found in Sunderland. The reason these TNCs are here in the UK is because they are allowed free export throughout the EU due to the free market. This means that if we were to pull out of the EU, these companies would leave and it is estimated that 3 million people would become unemployed

Trade is not a function of EU membership. Indeed Switzerland and Norway have no problem trading with the EU. membership of the The European Economic Area is what is required. Britain could leave teh EU, saved billions, and still trade equally as well. The EU is not about trade, it is about a centralised federal government.

So many of our imports and exports come from the EU our economy if anything is improved by being apart of the EU. The EU is a source of man power. Polish builders come from the EU, our french Chefs come from the EU. We need the EU to fill so many of our jobs in this country without being apart of the EU it will make it harder to trade with the EU and to import people if you like.

this is a total muck up we our brain washed by politians telling us this and that the world is a global trading point not just in the e u we pour billions of our tax paying money into this for what? but nobody ever wants to ever talk about this issue the norwegians and swiss have got very strong economies without being in this this mess look how well tony blair and neil kinnock our doing aswell out of this to?