Britain's membership of the European Union

A) Britain's lack and loss of influence in the EU Pro claims that MEPs not being able to initiate legislation is not necessarily a bad thing, however he doesn't give us any reason to think that this isn't just another reason why Britain is better off out of the EU, as British democracy > EU kleptocracy, as MPs can initiate legislation. The fact that 93% of EU laws pass shows/is a good example of; Britain's lack of power to block unwanted EU legislation (moreover, 84% of legislation in the EU that British MEPs vote against passes anyway [Business for Britain, 2014 report] [43]) The EU's ability to keep putting forward legislation until a "Yes" Pro claims that Britain's falling influence in the EU's Council of Ministers, parliament, and the commission is due to "something I like to call democracy". I'd like to ask pro whether he'd want to ask his local town or city what TV programs he should watch, for sake of democracy, of course. The point is that the British people would have more influence over their own laws outside of the EU. Pro then claims that the Council of Ministers makes up "a very, very small part of the entire EU", and that therefore the fact that all 55 times Britain has challenged EU proposals there have failed does not necessarily mean that we cannot change the EU. This is just one example, there are others: 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] Pro then tries to equate the situation with electing MPs with more local/national elections, saying "I live in South East England, 99% of regulations affecting me come from Parliament - that's just how it works. I have a representative in that parliament who votes on my and others' behalf.", but these sorts of statements ignore the fact that there will very seldom be pro-FPTP eurosceptics, and most favour some kind of alternative vote system. However, with the EU, you will never have this sort of freedom as you cannot have any kind of impact on the parties elected in the 27 other countries of the EU. This is why influence would be more direct outside of the European Union.B) Membership feesHere, pro confuses net membership fees with the amount of money by which we'd be better off if we left the EU - the latter also includes things like the cost of EU regulations, treaties, financial rules, etc.A recent report has concluded that: "The UK is roughly 11½% of GDP – about £185 billion a year – worse-offbecause it is a member of the EU instead of being a fully-independentsovereign nation." [46] Pro then cites a report by UCL, hosted by Sky News, claiming that "EU migrants contribute £4.4bn to the UK's finances whereas non-EU migrants cost us £118bn". Even if this report were reliable, it does nothing to further the case for EU membership, as there is no reason why, if we left the EU, we could not have the same immigration policy that we had while a member of it. So the EU certainly does not "pay for itself".But this UCL report is not reliable. It's been discredited by a fellow professor (of statistics) at University College London as containing "schoolboy errors" [47], spelled out in two complementary papers, including that: Their claim is based on large assumptions about contributions and receipts, particularly in respect of transport and housing; The actual difference in net contributions is a relatively small sum, which would vanish under a different treatment of a few assumptions, such as capital investment in social housing; They have used methods that the suppliers of the data specifically warned against; Their modelling of the receipt of benefits is based on an inadequate understanding of the structure of the original survey. I'd like to refer pro to a more accurate report by MigrationWatchUK that I linked to earlier, stating "the fiscal cost of immigration in this period [1995-2011] might well be over £140bn" [37].C) TradePro appears to have misunderstood me here. The 2 reports I've linked to are concluding that while trade with Europe is beneficial to Britain, EU membership does nothing to enhance or enable it, hence "Britain receives no trade benefit from the EU". I have read the report that pro links, and as it seldom links to sources and talks mainly about trade w/ Europe as opposed to how the EU supposedly provides Britain with trade benefit, I think it's reasonable to dismiss it.Britain, as confirmed by a report I linked earlier (pro links no sources on this subject), Britain would be able to reactivate its independent seat on the WTO outside of the EU.D) Red TapeIf pro wants to try and judge/justify any scale of red tape in any economy with the state of that economy, I'd like to refer him to the statistics I have provided earlier on the Dying European Dream (J), and also statistics on EUropean GDP + Growth rate compared to the commonwealth, painting a clear picture that economies fare better outside of the EU and better inside the commonwealth [48].E+F) Energy + JobsTo the contrary, I did provide sources for my claims [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Despite the massive losses of jobs I have described caused by Britain's EU membership, pro tries to justify this by implying some kind of necessity in a CAP, CFP, or Common energy policy, however we see quite the opposite from the CFP's track record, receiving criticism related to fighting for Hugh's Fish Fight, in an article by TaxPayers' Alliance [49].Pro's faith in the EU I find is baseless. It would seem foolish to place that much hope in Westminster, let alone the EU that, as I've pointed out before, spends millions of Tax payers' money on propaganda.H) MigrationPro ignores my points, backed up by sources, on crime, benefit exploitation (Pro's source does not cover the in-work benefits I described), wage compression, population growth, and house price increases caused by excess immigration, and instead asserts that we do actually benefit from it, citing the report I have already debunked earlier in this round. My report I've cited refutes his argument that the current quality & quantity of EU migrants, factors that we can't hope to reasonably control whilst a part of the EU (as Mr Cameron's attempts have made clear), is beneficial for Britain's economy, especially long-term.I maintain all contentions: Britain is losing influence within the European Union Britain is inherently at a disadvatage in terms of influence by being a member of the European Union Britain receives no trade benefit from the European Union The European Union hinders Britain's trade The European Union passes an excess amount of red tape for British businesses to obide by The European Union's energy policy is a drain on Britain's economy The European Union destroys British jobs The European Union maliciously introduces massive waste into Britain's aid budget, currently dominated by non-humanitarian aid Britain's EU membership opens its borders and so causes excess increases in house prices, crime, population growth, water shortages, and failing hospitals The European Union spends millions on propaganda every year The European Dream is dying, and with good reason Sources [43] http://forbritain.org...[44] http://www.jonathanarnott.co.uk...[45] http://www.theguardian.com...[46] http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com...[47] http://www.civitas.org.uk...[48] http://www.worldeconomics.com...[49] http://old.taxpayersalliance.com...