On a point of information, the ECHR has no connection, whatever, with the EU although I believe the Conservative Party wishes to end that treaty arrangement as well.

We voted in a referendum to keep our electoral system.
Its not proportional but it is democratic.
The real question was about overruling national government being ok if you disagree with that government but not if you don’t.
Ok of the 4 presidents how do I VOTE to remove? I can’t they are appointed or elected by appointees not democracy.
People normally resident in this country will not be repatriated. No party has proposed this. What will happen in the rest of the eu is their business but I can’t imagine their residence won’t be respected.

In 1979, Thatcher gained 43.9% of the popular vote and 53.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. In 1983, the numbers were 42.4% of the votes and 61.1% of the seats and, in 1987, 42.2% of the votes and 57.8% of the seats. The electoral system for UK general elections is, by definition, undemocratic, in that it is government of all the people by those elected by a minority of the people.

To the best of my knowledge, there are only four presidencies related the European Union, President of the European Council (currently Donald Tusk), President of the European Commission (currently Jean-Claude Juncker), President of the European Parliament (currently Martin Schulz) and the Presidency of the Council of the European Union which rotates every six months (currently The Netherlands, whose term ends on 30th June.)

The President of the European Council is elected by the European Council by a qualified majority for a term of two-and-a-half years, renewable once. The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission. In the UK’s case, that is the current Prime Minister. If you wish to lobby for, or against, the election of a person to the Presidency of the European Council, you can contact the heads of state or government of the 28 member states.

The President of the European Commission is elected by the heads of state or government of the 28 member states, with the approval of the European Parliament. Again, if you wish to lobby for, or against, the election of a person to the Presidency of the European Commission, you can contact the heads of state or government of the 28 member states and, of course, vote for a Member of the European Parliament who you trust to properly represent you and lobby them.

The President of the European Parliament is elected by the Members of the European Parliament. All the voters in Europe are eligible to elect Members of the European Parliament and, so, it is those directly representing the people of the EU who elect the President of the European Parliament.

I am uncertain of your rationale for your belief that “nobody currently legally resident anywhere would become an illegal immigrant as a result of our exit”. Right of residence in the EU is based on citizenship of the EU. If the UK were to leave the EU, all British citizens would cease to be citizens of the EU. Therefore, automatic right of residence in an EU (or EEA/Single Market) state would cease. It seems to me that one of the reasons that people are giving for voting to leave the EU is to end immigration and, presumably, expel citizens of EU/EEA/Single Market countries currently resident in the UK. Unless the exit negotiations include retention of free movement of people (which Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have agreed to in order to enjoy the other advantages of agreements with the EU), then UK citizens in EU/EEA/Single Market countries will become de facto illegal immigrants in those countries. Given that many are going to vote to leave in the hope of ending immigration, it would seem that freedom of movement would not be included in any possible negotiations with the EU. It should be noted that, to get the agreements with the EU that Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have, freedom of movement was a deal-breaking requirement for the associated trade agreements and, of course, like Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, the UK would have to continue to make contributions to the EU budget – and comply with EU regulations – but without a seat at the table to vote on those regulations.

Sorry to go on a bit but European Law was a major component of my law degree.

Your comments on EU mitigating Thatcher’s excesses seem a little anti democratic. She did lead a party elected to power. Would you feel the same way if a government with whose politics you agreed were prevented from implementing their policies?
If you say those who I disagree with should be frustrated and those I agree with should be left to govern you are implying a dictatorship.
How should I vote to remove one of the 5 EU presidents?
Nobody currently legally resident anywhere would become an illegal immigrant as a result of our exit.

Of course, Thatcher’s worse excesses were somewhat ameliorated by European legislation which, over time, created at least some level of rights for working people – the landed gentry didn’t (and still don’t) need rights and have plenty of money, most of it untaxed and off-shore, to manage whatever comes their way – and the arguments to leave today’s European Union appear, to me, to be mostly spearheaded by those self-same obscenely wealthy individuals with precisely nothing to lose by the UK leaving the EU but much to gain in further protection of their wealth and the removal of protection of ordinary citizen’s – sorry, “subject’s” – rights.

I now have a law degree, which included extensive study of EU legislation; legislation passed not by faceless EU bureaucrats but by representatives of the governments of all EU States including, of course, the UK. All EU citizens have the opportunity to elect representatives in the EU Parliament. In the last EU Parliament election, the turnout in the UK was 35.6%, better than 1999’s 24% turnout but still not an indication that the UK electorate is really bothered about what the EU does. It is strange, then, that when people in the UK complain about how the EU operates and the effect it has on their lives, the probability is that 64% of them couldn’t even be bothered to elect people who could influence change and now many think the very best thing is to commit the economic, political and personal rights suicide that will result from a decision to leave.

Unlike many of the around 1.5 million elderly UK ex-pats – who will become illegal immigrants in EU countries if the UK votes to leave – I have Irish citizenship and so I will not be repatriated to be a burden on UK housing, the NHS and the UK benefits system. Indeed, having a bit of an evil streak in me, I almost want to see a leave vote, the succeeding maelstrom will be interesting to watch from afar as the final nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom as an entity, the final chapter in the rise and fall of the British Empire.

By the way, readers should note that it is the European Union that the UK is voting to either remain in or leave, not the Council of Europe. This means that the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right of citizens to have their human rights recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, will not be affected, although I understand that the UK Conservative Party wants to leave the Council of Europe as well. What will end is the right of appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union so bye bye workers’ rights, consumer rights, environmental rights, etc., etc., etc.

May you live in interesting times.

(1) Deportations. The Abu Hamza case was decided by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR). This is not an EU court (see e.g. the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights )
and is not to be confused with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is the EU’s highest court.

(2) The ECJ does rule on some cases involving rights and deportations, however, and the principle is that EU nationals can be deported if they pose a serious threat to public security. The case of the “50 undeportable criminals” is dealt with by

http://infacts.org/leave-camp-makes-criminal-error-deportations/

(nb: this website exists to make the case for the UK staying in the EU). Note that Cameron’s renegotiation did modify the test for deportation to make it easier to deport in these cases.

(3) As several others have pointed out, we do extremely well from the EU scientific research programme. Personally, my confidence that the net inflow we get from this programme would be replaced after Brexit is zero. There might be a ramp-down, or a couple of years of replacement to generate some headlines.

(4) It’s true that many of the forecasts of future economic performance are – unavoidably – forecasts, and that expert forecasters can still get things wrong. But since we are being forced to make the decision, and don’t have five years to study economics, I’m not sure what better way exists to work out the most likely best outcome. Or to put it another way: suppose the IFS or the IMF said Brexit was a really great idea, would Vote Leave then complain that they were just experts, or that they got something wrong 10 years ago?

(5) I don’t buy the argument about sovereignty and control. First, there are massive areas in which the EU does not have competence – we can put up income tax, renationalise the railways or go to war with other countries if we decide to. Second, if it does turn out that leaving the EU ends up having the effect of decreasing national income, the resulting decrease in money available for public spending automatically restricts the control the government has on what it can do. Third, every time we sign up to any international organisation we give up one sort of control, in return for getting another. As members of NATO, for example, we’re obliged to regard a conflict involving Russia and the Baltic states as an attack on ourselves and respond accordingly. Imagine if the EU were to demand that of us…

However, in the last few days, all the disorienting fear-mongering noise has faded away (in my own head, not on TV!) as – for me – it ALL comes down to just one statement:

The EU is an unelected government.

If we leave the economic situation is uncertain, but immigration can be controlled
If we stay the economic situation is more clear, but anything could happen with immigration.
So, there is uncertainty either way, but not the same kind.

The UK break-up argument is disgraceful (and the tide is turning against the SNP anyway).

Sad to say that I’m going a bit ad hominem. With the exception of the outstanding Hannan, and maybe Grayling, the leavers are a collection of the bat-shittiest MPs from across the spectrum.

Having said that, all MPs are treating this like a party political issue, none seem willing to give a truly balanced argument.

I’ll probably default to remain on the day, unless I can establish its broken beyond repair.

Maybe. I don’t know enough about how its paid for now to comment but I can’t see a reason why fair arrangements can’t be made.