Britain's membership of the European Union

A)MEPs cannot introduce legislation. That is an undisputed fact. What I don't personally understand is why this is such a bad thing? The purpose of the EU Parliament is to strutinise legislation produced by the European Commission. That's just what it does. It isn't something to complain about or leave the EU over! Con states that 84% of EU legislation opposed by British MEPs is passed. This doesn't show our lack of influence in the EU - it just reflects what democracy is all about. We make up a tiny proportion of the European Union and so we get a tiny share of the vote. That's how it works. It's the same in this country: people in Sheffield have a small voice in Westminster because they make up such a small part of the UK. We can't have it all our way, and we can't just shout down other countries because we disagree with a law. The benefits of working together as a continent far outweigh the disadvantages of having certain EU legislation passed when our MEPs (most of whom are made up of UKIP nutters) oppose it. Quite frankly, I don't understand Con's anecdote with the 'TV programs [sic]' seeing as if one follows it, one ends up advocating anarchy. And considering Con has such a soft spot for 'British democracy', we wouldn't want that now, would we? Con then goes on to say this: "as I referred to earlier, Britain's vastly declining vote share in the European Commission, Parliament, and Council of Ministers(October 22nd 2014) 46/46 proposed cuts to the EU budget by British and Italian MEPs rejected [44](January 5th 2015) European Commission rejects David Cameron's demands to scrap Freedom of Movement [45]"And as I've previously stated: as the EU grows, our voice gets smaller. That's just how it works. If the population of the entire UK suddenly booms but Sheffield's population gets smaller, then the lovely people of Sheffield have a smaller voice in Westminster: this is how democracy works! As for budget cuts, if two right-wing populist fringe parties start to initiate legislation calling for budget cuts, the response is obviously going to be a resounding 'no': again, this is democracy. Finally, of course the Commission rejected calls for the abolition of Freedom of Movement. Freedom of Movement is the *single* founding principle of the European Union. It's incredibly fundamental to the EU. Getting rid of Freedom of Movement would be like accepting Vietnam as a member state: it isn't possible in our European Union. B)I have made no confusion. Just because we don't get money directly back from our EU membership contribution doesn't mean that being a part of the EU doesn't pay for itself. The EU pays for itself in the migrants it gives us and the economic impact it has on our country. Con then tries to argue that 11.5% of our GDP is spent on our EU membership. If ever the phrase 'stooping low' were appropriate, it would be here. Let's take a look at Con's report. First words at the top of the page in yellow and purple? UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY. Followed up by a most beautiful picture of burning £50 notes. It frequently uses phrases such as 'roughly' and about half of its sources are from either the Daily Mail or the Telegraph. The report is a farce and to be quite honest one need look no further than the domain name of the website it's hosted on to see that. Con dismisses my UCL report as he managed to find a very small article which said that a profesor disagreed with it. .. That's not really enough to dismiss my evidence and so it still stands. Finally, the MigrationWatchUK report talks about *all* immigration to the UK, not just EU-immigration which is the subject we're dealing with here. Here's another source seeing as you're so keen on them: . http://www.euractiv.com...C)My opponent is saying that trade with Europe is beneficial to the UK, but not the EU - I'm not quite sure whether to take him seriously. A bloody starfish would know that free trade with the economies you trade with most is certainly beneficial to one's own economy! Con also seems very keen for the UK to have its own seat on the WTO but he fails to give a reason as to why this would benefit the UK more than having total free trade with the largest economy in the world. Con wants a source for the fact that the EU represents the UK in the WTO. Here you go: . http://www.wto.org...D)Con states that economies fare better outside the EU. Con is wrong. Romania, for example, saw a peak in its GDP the year after it joined the European Union (. http://data.worldbank.org...) and we've seen how the same was true for the UK in previous rounds. H)As I've previously mentioned: if we're so desperate to cut migration to the UK, we should cut non-EU migration first before we cause serious damage to Britain and its economy by leaving the European Union. Con has, however, completely ignored that point, blaming EU-migrants for everything bad that happens in the UK. Are we seriously contemplating leaving a political and economic union founded on the principles of peace over some Romanian pickpockets on the tube? Con can keep his contentions and remain blissful in ignorance of the fact that if we leave the EU, we are only hurting ourselves. May Europe remain forever United in Diversity.