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.

You should be more worried about Sharia Law Johnny.....

Give it a few more years of rampant immigration from an increased EU membership including Turkey and then a birth rate for Muslims of 3 times that of the indigenous population.... Sharia Law will be imposed in the UK and EU by the majority.

But I guess you'll still be crowing about the booming economy but not enjoying that glass of wine you were speaking about eh?

Thank you STUK, i didnt know the up to date costs but my point is that the vast majority of these costs are in wages to British taxpayers which therefore means the treasury and our public services are the main beneficiaries

Excuse me if i am telling you how to suck eggs here STUK but its what is known economically as the multiplier effect. Put very simply it says that if the government pays say 10 peoples wages then this becomes the wages of others as the money is spent on rent, shopping, clothes, DIY etc etc. The level of the multiplier depends on a households propensity the consume (i.e spend) or save. If the household spends 80% of their income and saves 20% then the multiplier become 1÷0.2 =5. So in the example, still say 500k is spent on the school with immigrant kids and say 80% (reality its much higher) is paid out in wages then the effect from the government spending 400k to british taxpayers is 400×5= 2million quid of economic activity. School spending is thought to be a very efficient use of government spending (unlike say prisons or old age healthcare) because we have the added benefit of training the next generation of taxpayers and their parents typically have higher consumption spending because kids are expensive. In politics, parties differ as to the optimum level of government spending. Labour in the 70s spent too much and the tories in the 80s spent to little, thankfully both are now rejected by the mainstream of both parties although are worryingly still viewed by many as the great days of labour or the tories depending which ignorent tribal allegiance they have....there economics 101,

If it wasn't for TTIP I think my vote to remain would be certain. I'm still undecided however.