"Very interesting and an informative article. Ibrahim highlights the importance of a referendum in Britain regarding this issue. The public needs to assert more pressure on the government. "

"Mammoth bureaucracy? There are roughly 25,000 bureaucrats, roughly, working in the EU and all of its institutions. That's only about HALF the number of bureaucrats working in ONE British ministry (the Department of Trade and Industry). I agree with one premise here--that a 'healthy flow of facts and evidence, [and] debate' on Europe is welcome indeed. But who's at blame here? The media. Sky News today did not have any mention of the elections on this, ELECTION DAY, as one of its top headlines. And the BBC pushed it below other would-be 'important' top stories, concerning Obama's trip to the Middle East (which is of little relevance to the day to day lives of Britons--but no matter, the British press follows American politics like a shadow to its owner) and the conviction of two madmen who murdered a pair of French students. And the BBC is supposed to be highlighting the important issues of the day, charged as it is by its public remit. 'Europhiles' have often complained about the monthly trek between Strasbourg and Brussels--but that's an issue for the heads of government to decide. Britain's constant obsession with reassessing membership of the EU is itself quite telling. Whereas we could be talking about what structure and issues Europe should be debating Britons are still mulling over questions of basic membership first asked 30 years ago. It is inconceivably daft. 'Europhile opponents of a referendum often argue that a eurosceptic press would misrepresent the europhile case.' And they're right. Only two papers in Britain present an even mildly pro-EU stance--the Indy, the Financial Times and the Guardian, and their combined sales stand at around 1 million persons daily. Compare that to the more than 6 million who read The Sun, the Mail and The Telegraph. (Which is to say nothing of the Daily Star, the Daily Express and The Times, and even sometimes The Mirror--all of which to a varying degree aren't just eurosceptic, but anti-Euro, period, and represent another 3.5 million readers.) The former two papers in particular are the two widest-read papers, and they are by far the biggest perpetuators of Euro-myths...most of them created ex-nihilo by them, and laughed at elsewhere in Europe."

"15% of laws, academic studies!! Which studies were those? It is agreed by most parties that the figure of 75% is approximately correct for the number of British laws that are made in Europe."

"Who exactly is the 'we' in 'We need a debate on Europe'? The author is apparently US-based from all the institutions he seems to be a member, fellow and scholar of. Maybe those of us on this side of the Atlantic want a debate on the USA - it's not working, it's a woolly buffalo and all the individual states would be better off out of the Republic...they'd tell us to shove it."

"Yes we do need a debate on Europe but it must be a fair debate and honest. I'm no expert but as a political activist for common sense politics and real democracy I have had to read up on European membership. It is a fact that for a large majority of businesses joining Europe and the Euro would generate better trade for them. Yet one down side is the general consensus that unemployment will have to rise in the UK as many workers would be forced out on lower wages. This is not my personal opinion but one I agree with when it comes to a number of respected economic experts who are independent of any political party in the UK. I agree that most people just do not understand the difference between European Federation and EU membership. One very simple point that most of us can understand is that many Health & Safety legislation for industry comes from EU directives and are strictly adhered to here in the UK but seem to lack the same rules on the continent. Strange but true! As you can probably guess I am against membership of the European Union. Many will argue that by not joining will mean that we will be left out in the wilderness of global trade and unable to compete on a fair playing field. This kind of talk is just scare mongering and has no validity to the real fact that a number of other countries in Europe have rejected membership and are doing just fine. So yes let us have a debate based on real facts and I am sure the British public will reject the unification wanted so desperately by an elite minority. "

"yes I agree with AZEEM IBRAHIM I THINK HIS CODES ARE RIGHT FOR BRITAIN "

"Sir, I agree on your call for a proper debate within the UK on the EU membership. You are certaily right in pointing out that "The current lacklustre debate does the national interest a disservice by allowing myths and credulousness to dominate the argument". I fear, however, that you run the risk of contributing to the myths by reporting academic studies showing that the percentage of national legislation coming from the EU would be below 50 (about 15 per cent in the early nineties and has been closer to 9 per cent since). Regardless of the methods used to quantify these data, the share of sovereign powers which have gradually been transferred to the EU (trade policy, social policy, environmental & public health issues, indirect taxation, etc) speaks for itself ... regulatory options are no longer examined and decided in the national capitals, but in Brussels. Neither the politicians nor the media, being rooted in their national dimensions, like this, but that's the European future. Any call for the creation of a EU effective political debate, which would circumvent the existing national electoral campaigns, is welcome!"

"First, the author is not clear about the subject of the referendum he proposes. Is it about transferring further powers to the EU or membership of the EU? Second, of course we should have debate and the electorate should be educated about the EU - that is a responsibility that our politicians and the press have scandalously neglected - but is it appropriate to have one under the aegis of a referendum? I would rather the process of education and debate were calm and serious, away from frantic political campaigning to gain votes. Third, I would like to mention a couple of misconceptions about the EU which sceptics, especially UKIP, disingenuously exploit: 1) Our laws (or whatever percentage of them) are made in Brussels not the UK. The UK, like all other Member States, influences the drafting and ultimately votes on EU laws, through its representatives in the Council of Ministers and, in most cases, the European Parliament. It is therefore the case that the EU laws are made in the UK and in all the other countries of the EU. I wonder whether those who complain about Brussels law-making vote for their MEP or national government thinking that those who get elected will form part of the EU legislature. 2) The Commission is often criticised as unelected and unaccountable, but how many realise that, apart from in a few well-defined cases, the Commission merely proposes laws but does not enact them? In that respect the Commission is analogous to the UK government, but there is a separation of powers which is wholly lacking in the UK. The lack of such a separation in the UK means that MPs do not necessarily best represent the interests of those who elect them."

"At a soon to be annual cost of 6 billion + pounds per year, dont British taxpayers have a right to an opinion on this matter? In 1975 we were mislead by Ted Health as to the implications of remaining in the 'Common Market' and now that we have realised fully those implications, an EU President, EU Court, EU Flag, EU Army, EU Anthem etc we are constantly denied an opportunity to corrct our initial mistake, caused by the disinformation given to British people at that time by Ted Heath and his government. TonY Blair assured us that the EU Constitution would be dead and buried if rejected by just one member state. In fact it was rejected by both France and Holland and then almost overnight mutated into the Lisbon Treaty. As a treaty governments were not obliged to allow their constituents to have a referendum on the matter. What a reflief ! What a con ! However Tony Blair, one of the main authors of the newly mutated Lison Treaty (EX EU Constitution) again assured us that if a single member state rejected it then that too would become null and void. Ireland promptly did just that and now its being rewritten for the third time in an attempt to get the Irish on board and proceed with what in effect is an EU Constitution against the wishes of the majority in France, Holland, Ireland and no doubt many other EU members including the UK. Time to come clean on the EU and allow each country a referendum on whether or not they wish to become a mere state within an EU superstate or get out."