Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

This isn't even close to true. It doesn't cover:

- National security

- Healthcare policy and resourcing

- Welfare and pensions policy

- Education policy

...which, not coincidentally, are the highest budgeted functions of the UK government[1].

I should also include criminal justice and fiscal policy (seeing as the UK is non-Eurozone), and that the UK has competence over non-eu migration and asylum; this is politically important but not a large budget item on its own.

There are cooperation and collaboration elements of the above (particularly in the area of common defence), but that's not to say that the policies are EU competencies. For example, freedom-of-movement rules require that pensions must be paid by the country in which they were insured, even if the individual is paid that pension in a different country. However, one country might have a pensionable age of 60 where another is 67.

[1] http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.htm...

The EU does not maintain operational competence over these areas, just as the Canadian federal government and the US federal government do not maintain competence over most areas either.

But just as in USA/Canada - the EU laws reign supreme, they create regulations, they coordinate policy.

So - not only are EU laws and court rulings override national laws and rulings - the EU does in fact regulate and manage those 'very large budgetary' elements, just as in other federal states, like the US and Canada.

The EU interdicts on Healthcare:

https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/health_en

The EU interdicts on Social Welfare:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=750

The EU interdicts on education:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school_en

The EU has made several rulings with respect to services and access that have overridden national policy.

The EU will determine who can, and who cannot receive services, if services don't meet a minimum 'humanitarian' requirement, etc. etc.

If the UK for exampled tried to privatize it's healthcare system (not suggesting they should) - and make a US-style 'pay for it' type model - the EU would step in a major way.

Same thing for schooling and other services.

I'm sorry but I don't think you can say that since the 'EU does not maintain competence' in these areas, that they don't act like a federal state.

They still 'own' the show at the end of the day.

And to boot: the level of interdiction is only increasing. Within 30 years, many of those systems will be federalized at the EU level - or at least - have enough regulatory elements such that they de-facto run the show.

Markel and others have already called for an EU Army.

It can, and it already does.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/opting_out.html

>>If the UK does not wish to follow EU laws, ultimately, it has only one choice - Article 50.

No, UK can literally just reappeal the act of parliment from 1972, without any referendum, and UK is fully out of EU immediately. Even the creator of the Article 50 said that he never thought anyone would use it.

"“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country’s membership,” he explained. “I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He never envisioned that a British government might resort to it."

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/article-50-meant-dictato...

>>the UK's leading objection to EU participation was the lack of ability to control the migration of EU citizens across it's borders

I'd love to see the source on that, unless we consider Daily Mail to be giving out "leading objections". Most of the "leading objections" I hear about is the mythical "let's take back our laws" but when asked "which laws?" no one can name anything. Well, they can, but it's usually something like "EU doesn't allow us to fish in the north sea!" - well, yeah, and after brexit it still won't, because environmental protections are done through international agreements that will remain in force even without EU. Or the fact that UK has to listen to European Court of Human Rights - it still will, because it remains a member of Council of Europe, which again, has nothing to do with EU. Unless,of course, it decides to leave that, but not having to listen to ECHR is something that I would expect of Belarus, not a modern 1st world country.

>>By your interpretation - the UK could have simply ignored the law - and put in controls for EU citizens?

UK already brakes the EU law by requiring students/self-employed EU citizens to have private insurance during their stay in the UK in order to obtain permanent residence rights, despite the fact that it directly contradicts relevant EU regulations on that(namely - no country can require that EU citizen has private health insurance in order to stay in another EU country), it's just that no one has actually taken the Home Office to court over this. I would, but I don't have time or money to do this.

>>It takes an exceeding amount of 'mental gymnastics' to not see the EU as a Federal Superstate - one that is gaining power every year as they legally move towards an 'ever closer union'.

1) I never said that it wasn't.

2) You are saying it as if it's a bad thing. I'd love to have "United States of Europe", with no borders and one federal government. But that is currently not the case, and each country can still rule as they want - obviously that can mean they will be kicked out of the club, but it's the same as marriage - if you cheat on your wife, she will probably want divorce.