If Western Europe fragments and we lose our common economic interest - the stuff that stop countries entering into violent conflict - then, as history has already shouted loudly many, many times over the last 1,000 years or so we will soon be having a barney.

And this relatively short era of peace will go down in future history books as an aberration.

Give it 30 or 40 years and there will be shots fired again over fishing rights, incursions, politician being cvnts, power-plays, etc.

It's what Western Europe does best and always has done: War.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

And how aren't they being met.

UK interests overseas are probably better managed by remaining in the EU given its the second biggest trading block internationally. I don't think the UK leaving the EU will have much effect in terms of UK Interests, but I don't see how it would increase them either (it'd make its capacity to influence world politics less I suspect, not more due to its inability to influence the EU).

Defence of the realm - No real existential threats exist to the UK, and haven't since 1945, except maybe the cold war. Similarly, membership of the EU has significant interest in terms of UK Foreign Intelligence operations, as well as in terms of shared intelligence (which needs to improve).

Manage the budget, governments have set successive budgets, and both New Labour and the Conservatives have managed to oversee economic growth. However the markets are independent of the state, and the influence of government over them, is minimal.

Also, in terms of Ecconomics and Balancing the Books, one of the few good arguments for EU migration, is that it raises taxation revenue from people who won't be drawing on the state. EU migration is largely temporary young workers, driven by their home exchange rate. As such they're likely to pay more into the system of taxation and NI than they take out, given that they won't be here in the older age (pension costs, health costs associated with aging etc).

I don't think leaving the EU is really easily established as being in the National Interest as you define it. Not significantly, when you start to think in terms of the impact of an out, compared to the stability of remaining in.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think the point is that with an exit gives a far greater opportunity to repatriate power to the electorate. The constant obfuscation between helping refugees fleeing war and the EU free movement principle is a good example.

I think the point is that with an exit gives a far greater opportunity to repatriate power to the electorate. The constant obfuscation between helping refugees fleeing war and the EU free movement principle is a good example

This sentence is unclear. There is no confusion in the head of anyone with a brain between the two. EU nationals are free to live and work anywhere in the EU. As such, there is no distinction between a German from Deutchebank coming to work in the City, Romanians picking spuds in Lincolnshire or the Great British Blue Rinse Army that occupies large chunks of France, Spain and Portugal. Refugees fleeing war are accommodated under and entirely separate treaty. They are wholly separate. And how does confusion in some people's head lead to a reduction in a UK individual's power?

Are you saying that, if we leave, the British people can elect to block all movement in to the UK of EU nationals save under some Australian type points system with only genuine refugees granted rights to remain?

Could you please expand.

Well yes, and no. Removal from the EU could in theory be the basis on which the Rights of UK Citizens are revoked, and replaced by a more politically convenient definition.

Also, the idea that the EU aren't elected is a bit of misnomer, as MEP's are democratically elected via proportional representation from each nation - And its the MEP's who select and determine European Council representatives (one from each nation).

Arguably the members of the European Court aren't subordinate to the electorate, but then nor are the Judiciary in the UK, and the selection of Judges to the European court is one per member nation.

As such, the European Court, serves to limit the authority of state power over its citizens, far more than it dictates laws to them, and it does so at the invitation of that nations judiciary.

So in terms of repatriating power to the electorate, that's not true, it would repatriate greater power to the state over it population, by restricting access to an completely neutral court.

Also, as far as European laws go, they have to be voted for by MEP's, which are democratically more representative of the UK, than governments actually are. These tend to be trade based, and a proposed by member states and can be objected to, amended or rejected by MEPs etc.

Its important as well to remember that Government has to interpret it and implement it. For example, the ruling on prisoners and voting, the European Court didn't say the UK had to enfranchise voters, it stated that the UK Law contradicts itself by disenfranchising prisoners and protecting the right of all citizens to vote.

The actual outcome, was a recommendation to the UK Judicary and government, that further legislation on the issue is required in UK law, and it suggested that some enfranchisement of prisoners should occur - But ultimately it is up to the UK Government to implement how they interpret that.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yes I mean Syria needs a global solution, and is quite separate from free movement within the EU. Angela Merkel's invitation has caused mayhem across the region by making an offer that has had huge unintended consequences. The UK position on Syria should be one made by our Parliament and no one else. That is why I want to repatriate power.