Danny, i have seen this in the express or mail a couple of weeks ago and indeed i believe Ian Botham said the same regarding our ability to trade beyone the eu borders. The truth is we can and do trade with countries round the world and historically we have v.strong trading relationships with thd old commonwealth countries. But for example Germany now does 10% of its exports to China built up largely in the last 15 years. Its only when an industry imposes tariffs (and one side always blames the other) that the eu (within which we cant have tariffs) that the eu negotiates with a more powerful voice for its 500million consumers. Japan and the us (and increasingly china and india) could afford to impose damaging tariffs on an individual eu member state but if they took on the more economically powerful eu, they would face a much sterner test.
Regarding countries like turkey telling us what to do, again i think this is incorrect. Member states still decide their own laws (criminal, corporate etc) taxes, and its budget. As we are not in the euro we are not governed by monetary policy, nor are we required to join bailouts for countries like Greece. Only when a law is protectionist or in conflict domestically can it be challenged under eu treaties e.g with the northern ireland good fruday agreement where both nationalists and unionists rejected british or irish law resprctively because both felt that church and state laws would be a breach if their human rights i.e freedom of thought and religion. For 99% of legal cases in the uk, i.e magistrate court, crown court and law of contract there will be no affect from the EU. Nothing is ever perfect tho but by remaining in we can change things like in any political system. If we come out we would still have to adhere to european standards, rules and regulations if we want to trade with them but we would have no say in those standards, i.e. severely weakened

It's a proposal. Other countries will have to agree with it for it to be implemented. Unlikely that will happen.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Yeah, because the EU pushing through batsh1te-crazy laws and agreements has never happened, right?

It wasn't (for but one example) Juncker & co. that sat down with Turkey and agreed to give away €3bn (and then roll over for another €3bn) and visa-free access to the EU in exchange for (to date) returning an enormous 20 whole Syrians back to Turkey?

No, that must be another EU.

I'm sorry, but so much of this is just fundamentally wrong. I could pick holes in this all night, particularly the stuff about being "able to trade with the world" (disingenuously neglecting to mention it must be under EU-stipulated regulatory red-tape that reduces competitiveness), without mentioning that (eg) the Swiss get on perfectly well also trading with China, with full advantage of the Free Trade Agreement they signed with it.

Anyway, my main point of contention was "Member states still decide their own laws (criminal, corporate etc) taxes, and its budget"

This is just wrong. Legal supremacy lies outside of the member states. That is a fact. VAT is an EU tax, and the limits are set by the EU. You don't get to choose them outside of these limits. Eurozone member state budgets must be submitted for approval to the Commission. If this budget does not meet with their approval, then you are put on special measures, fined and sanctioned. This budget might well have passed through your own parliament, but it matters not one iota.

Oh, but this'll never happen to us, right? There's never any competence creep (or "EU boiling frog". Sorry, but I stopped reading after the above statement. I'm sure the rest was completely accurate.

Britain is exempt by the way. It'll never be passed, given at least three EU countries already have objected it, and its really about the Commissioner trying to force through Refugee quota issue.

Of course they're right. The only method to deal with the current refugee crisis now in the EU is to evenly distribute the diaspora across the EU, rather than just leave them in a limbo. They can't go back to Syria and Libya as both countries are in a state of civil war, where genocide is a common occurrence.

And the countries in which they are 'piling' up won't be able to cope on their own with the displaced millions.

The option of paying not to take refugees isn't a bad plan, provided the fine is paid to the country that does take them.

After all, I'd feel a lot happier about taking a refugee into the UK if they came with 250k to fund them. That would arguably cover 10 years on benefits and traditionally refugees have been very good at adopting to a life in the UK.

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

It is, as its not even applicable to all form of Islam (Ismāʿīlism for example, recognises the importance of Sharia to Muslims, but that a Muslim should also follow the laws of the country). Sharia is a rather vague subject, a bit like the laws of the Old Testament, in that different sects of Islam regard it very differently. Because like most Christians, they aren't stupid, and realise that something that might well have been relevant to society back in 600-1000AD might not be relevant to the 20th and 21st Century.

Of course some Muslims take it very literally, but then some Christians take Leviticus literally. The problem isn't with Islam or Christianity, its with people who typically like to find any justification for indulging their crueller nature.

But that's a problem with people really. Given half a chance some people will be straight onto the excuses for raping, murdering, enslaving and generally indulging their Ids darkest desires. But the truth is, even without religion, those paedophile rings, would still be f**king children. Islam has nothing to do with it, they just sexually deviant f**kstains.

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