The New York Times: From Great Britain to Little England. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwx8aiyyU

This piece sums it up nicely.

Oh, I agree. But in your position why don't you focus on pretending to persuade your US students to vote for The Donald?

It's more your field.

Maybe assumed by you, but that does not make it true.

I will pass on the few, if any. The UK is a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us.

The rest is not correct. The EU cannot determine economic and other policies in the UK. Under the EU treaties the UK parliament is sovereign in the UK. This has been affirmed by the Law Lords. To change this will require a change in the treaties, which the UK can either veto or opt out of (and which would trigger another referendum). No EU derived law is enforceable in the UK until it has been passed by the UK parliament.

And to add: economic policy is the responsibility of the UK government. We are required to report to the EU but the EU has no power to stop the UK doing whatever it wants to do.

I respectfully suggest you review the effect of direct effect. While it is preferable that members states enact legislation that gives effect to EU regulations and directives, it is not necessary for the law to apply. It's use has been increasingly widened by the ECJ.

For what you say to be correct, we have to assume that the EU is a "completed project", that there will be no further integration and centralization of legislative, economic, and revenue raising authority in Brussels, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that over the past 43+ years there has been a steady and relentless increase in the centralized legislative and revenue raising authority both by the European Parliament and various ancillary bodies, not least of which is the European Central Bank and it's raison d'etre, the euro.

And what exactly do you think they meant by the phrase “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" which appeared in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome in 1957? However you choose to explain or excuse the phrase, there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it accurately predicted the trajectory of the Common Market/EEC/EU over the following 59 years.

Although I make no claims to be a constitutional expert (far from it), people who know a lot more than me referred me to this analysis: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-be-sovereign/

EU regulations and directives are effective in the UK because parliament has passed legislation that allows this. Parliament can change or revoke that legislation whenever it wants to.

And if Parliament doesn't then the UK is taken to the ECJ and heavily fined.

I started this to counter Pulaski's statement that a "European government ... will be able to determine economic and other policies in the UK." This is not correct.

If the EU tried to foster unconscionable legislation on the UK that would be the time for Parliament to invoke Article 50. Parliament can do this as Parliament is sovereign. A European government can only determine economic and other policies in the UK to the extent that Parliament allows it to.

What is the point of it? As stated before, I'd of thought a loose cooperative economic agreement like NAFTA would suffice. Why add layers of legislative and bureaucratic control?

This will happen if the result of the referendum is Brexit

Technically, Canada is only a self governing jurisdiction because of an Act of the UK Parliament which could be revoked.

De jure perhaps but not de facto if the UK wishes to comply with EU law and remain a member of the EU.

You tell us continually that we are all on the wrong track, and are our ever one trick meta-narrative pony.
_
You are the epitome of the belief that 'we' can't be trusted to make our own decisions

Nobody here will ever feel European, they are far too apologetic and nervous!

Well, as you know, I don't really believe half the things I post. I do however enjoy the hypocrisy of the straw person I've constructed in my head. They are very happy to be protect workers wages as long as it's from dirty foreigners and not unions. Not that I'd stoop so low of accusing anyone here of holding such contradictory views.

Absolutely, very well put.

It's clear that Brexit has become a real possibility and I suspect very strongly that it may come to pass.
When the history of this particular event is written, whatever the outcome, it will highlight the arrogance and indifference with which the ruling political elite of all classes have treated those they claimed to represent.
Democracy is a great system provided the voters play by the rules, but once they see that the emporor has no clothes then all bets are off.
There used to be a saying that went something like.. 'you can stand on Hyde Park Corner and say anything you like.. provided no-one took you seriously'.
Well, I'm afraid the speakers have been listened to and a complacently sleeping big brother has taken his eye off the ball, only to awaken a little too late.
But then, I may be wrong.