Already posted in another thread.

Leaked papers show that the EU negotiated TTIP deal includes a clause where US pharmaceutical multinationals can sue EU member states for lack of profit. Would quite like that not to happen to be honest, would imagine that would resonate with a lot of lefties.

Probably not though. They'll vote Remain and sing "imagine there's no countries" in starry eyed, fluffy clouded wonder.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Where's your bottle?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

1. Please cite your sources for "99%"

2. The UK Supreme court is subservient to a higher court.

3. UK law is subservient to EU law.

4. Nowhere did I say that we must be granted "EU permission" to trade with "us, asia and japan"

5. What I will reiterate is that we cannot negotiate our own trade deals with them directly. We have to sit patient while the lumbering EU does it's thing on our (and 27 others) behalf. And that's exactly the problem. We don't represent ourselves, we have to delegate to a bureaucratic nightmare that is sclerotic in growth and progress. So we wait for Canada and the EU to (eventually... how many years now?) converge on Romanian visa rights. We wait for the EU to take an interest in China. We wait for Italian tomato growers to get their special deal so the EU can finally continue negotiations with Australia. We shrug our shoulders waiting for a DECADE for an agreement with India. Yeah, yeah. We can trade with them. So can Switzerland. And it does, with $US40tn worth of trade agreements. What about the EU? A huge $US7tn. 18% that of Switzerland. How? Why? Because they are agile and not held back satisfying utterly divergent interests from Estonia, Italy and Romania.

6. You don't even address my comments about budgetary control. I'll assume I'm just "frankly wrong" and take your word for it

7. None of this is "scaremongering bolash" - these are facts. The status of the above trade deals are facts. The commission oversight of national budgets is facts. Supremacy of EU law and justice is fact.

8. Try again.

I doubt it would make much difference if the UK left the EU, those laws would still be applicable. They'd need an act of Parliament to reverse them anyhow.

Another thing about leaving the EU, it won't mean that any EU laws are suddenly 'overturned' or that the European Court won't still serve as the final court of arbitration (it did so even before the Common Market).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well yes, and no. Its not subservient, as the European Court serves to rule and provide advice only on conflicts in English law, not to pass UK law. Something is only referred to the European Court of Human Rights when a clear resolution cannot be found.

For example, in UK law there is a human right to vote and law regarding the revoking of voting status for prisoners (ok its more complicated). As such a case brought in such a matter cannot be resolved in law simply and essentially the ECHR provides an independent panel to rule based on the conflicting laws and provide an advisory solution (which is usually accepted by the UK Judiciary).

Yes and no, for similar reasons. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is not an EU Law per se. It a UK law, that originates with the EU, but has some differences to other countries in the EU's Human Rights Act. The UK also has a veto option in relation to EU legislation.

Since the 1950s, the European Court has served as the final court of arbitration for UK law (In fact Churchill was a founder of the idea of the European Court and it serves to 'mitigate the power of the state and state bodies over citizens'. UK law isn't subservient at all as European Court rulings don't have to be accepted into UK law (and even then the EC typically issues a compromise, often based on similar cases from other EU members).

What it does demand, really, is typically that the UK (or other member state) passes legislation that resolves this conflict. For example, the EU didn't rule that the UK should allow all prisoners to vote. It advised that the UK should pass legislation defining the situation clearly and advised that some kind of enfranchisement right be extended to some UK Prisoners (referring the UK to examples of resolutions that occurred in other European countries that had the same issue).

Also as a final note, the UK is as represented in the European court as every other member state and each country appoints its representative. The only stipulation is that a UK judge cannot rule on issues arising from the UK.

The ECHR acts in the same manner with all member states. The Press just makes out its anti-British, which is a total fabrication.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You said 'agreements'. 'Access' is obviously a different kettle of poisson. Like their cheese your point is full of holes.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Sigh. I will reiterate again, for the benefit of the hard-of-understanding.

Switzerland: free trade agreements (tariff-free access) to countries with a combined GDP of $US40tn

EU: free trade agreements (tariff-free access) to countries with a combined GDP of $US7

Your disingenuous attempts at picking holes and weaseling away from the facts expose the baselessness of your argument to clear sunlight.

If you would like to dispute these figures, please do provide alternatives. Else accept that the Swiss have a considerably better, more valuable set of trade agreements than we do, stuck as we are in the only trading region not to have experienced growth in a decade.

No. I get it. I just don't quite understanding why you are writing it? It's just silly. You are basically saying Switzerland can trade with the rest of world and tap into untold tens of trillions.

No they can't. They haven't got the population, industry, infrastructure, capacity to come anywhere near achieving what you are insinuating.

A very silly angle, indeed.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Ohhhhh! I see! "Based on your experience". And who are we, or indeed ex EU Vice President Commissioner Viviane Reding, to argue with "your experience"?

[Link]

After all, what does she know, right?

That's fair enough. I was just thinking that, even if the agreement specifically states that everything falls under the EHRA, I couldn't see why that would be an issue unless one or other party wanted to change that (and, as you say, I couldn't imagine a situation where either party would want to rock the boat too much for no discernible benefit)