Making a case for Brexit

Even if the health of the economy were more important than national sovereignty, I would still struggle to see a case for Britain remaining in the EU.

You don't have to be in the EU to have a trade agreement with it.

When the UK went into the EU it had the third largest economy in the world.

After 40 years, even with larger countries having been split into smaller ones, with 120,000 choking EU regulations and its trading restricted, the UK has shrunk to the ninth largest economy.

Before it went into the EU the UK had an even balance of payments with them. Now it loses £55bn a year trading with the EU (Government Pink Book)

The EU is 7% of the world. There is 93% of the world, 180 nations, outside the EU.

The EU arrest warrant allows you to be arrested and detained indefinitely, no court is involved.

Bankers benefit from debt, because it puts them in control. They say they issue credit, but debt is the real word for it. So when we see central bankers, whose ownership nobody knows, backing the Remain campaign, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that their motive is to keep the nation in their control via debt.

As for Cameron's recent hysteria about leaving the EU leading to global genocide: has he forgotten that the referendum is actually his suggestion?

Should Channel Islanders have a vote in the referendum? Morally, 'yes', for all the reasons given by other correspondents who have made representations in these pages; there is no doubt that what happens in the UK has a huge influence here. Unfortunately the real world is different from the ideological one. It would be futile for us to vote. Even if 70,000 of 100,000 islanders voted the same way, the chances of that 40,000 majority making a difference to the overall outcome of the national referendum are impossibly small. But if it did, can you imagine the outcry? We're tax pariahs as it is according to the majority of the UK. A bunch of people who don't pay tax to the UK exchequer – in fact quite the reverse is perceived – decides the fate of the UK? What a scenario that would be.

Something important which many people miss when they wade into the referendum debate is the structure of the EU. It's the EU Commission, not its Parliament, which makes the decisions and sets the legislation.

Each member country has one representative on the Commission. That representative isn't a member of the national government but is appointed by it. Often these are former politicians, people who have been deselected by electorates, people who have never been elected in their lives, or people with less than transparent histories, to put it politely. Britain's have included Neil Kinnock, and Peter Mandelson, who was forced to resign twice from national government.

Not all members of the Commission carry the same weight, but even the weakest carries considerably more than the 750 or so MEPs.

UK MEP John Arnott wrote recently – and this supposedly is a best case scenario: 'After the Commission, Council and other interested parties have spoken, backbench MEPs are given their chance. Timings are allocated proportionally on a group basis.

'Individual speakers are usually granted between 60 and 120 seconds to speak. They're always in a rush and there's never enough speaking time to go around, so it tends to revert back to the committees: if the EU budget is under discussion then I'm likely to get some speaking time as a member of the Budget Committee.

'In these kinds of debates, there's the tiniest sliver of Parliamentary scrutiny. An MEP may hold up a blue card, indicating a desire to question a speaker. If the blue card is accepted, then they can ask a 30-second question and get a 30-second response.

'The problem is, that this ''blue card'' system is incredibly limited. It's the unelected Commission that drafts the laws, but the rules are quite clear: ''you can't blue-card the Commission''.

'Thirty seconds isn't enough to develop a point in itself. But that's not the worst of it. Often the blue card system itself is suspended, especially when important issues are being debated. When Commission President Juncker addressed the Parliament last Wednesday, we had a ''debate'' on his ''State of the Union'' speech and the current refugee crisis.

'Juncker's speech was scheduled for 30 minutes; I believe it lasted 90. Then we had the ''round of political group speakers'' above, and the pro-EU groups were allowed to massively overrun their speaking time. Eventually, the ''debate'' started. They did not allow even one question before suspending blue cards.'

Arnott's article in full is online and entitled 'There's no such thing as debate in the European Parliament'.

Here is probably the most infamous quote from EU founder Jean Monnet: 'Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.'

Why must this happen without the understanding of the people? The only reason I can think of is because Monnet knew it wouldn't find favour with the majority if they understood what was happening.

Democratic is something the EU most definitely isn't. Generally so far where individual nations have had dictators, outside forces have removed them. But when the dictatorship is global or international, it starts to take on a worrying air of permanence.

To remain in the EU is not only to ignore the past, but the future too.

MATT WATERMAN,

Flat 2, 3, Burnt Lane,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1HL.