Dally wrote:
It is a basic thing. Why should you trust more remote (genetically speaking) people to have a big say in your life?
You aren't. You are trusting a Federal Government to have a say in your life on Federal issues in the same way the various states in the USA do. So the Federal Government would not stop the UK banning handguns for instance. A fine example of Federalism and Subsidiary was enacted in New York this week when the State legislature approved tougher gun laws than the Federal Goverment seems willing or able to do. That is how Federalism and Subsidiarity works and how it works here as well.
It makes perfect sense to me for certain things to be run federally such as things like Interpol and the key is getting the balance correct.
I think the fact you ask the question at all puts you firmly in the "misunderstand the concept and think a Federated Europe means rule from Brussels on everything" bracket.
Especially when millions of your countrymen have died at their hand over centuries? Why trust people coming with a completely different way of thinking and legal system to interfere win the machinations of a country with superior principles? It would be mindless and dangerous to.
If you had stopped after "Why should you trust more remote (genetically speaking) people to have a big say in your life?" you might not have got so many brickbats. Honestly where do you draw the line historically? 1066?
If you really want to argue on the basis of past conflicts then you have to accept we have many allies in Europe in particular Holland, Belgium and Denmark who we liberated. We are doing a fine job of alienating them at the moment but even the idea the Germans and French are trying to rule over us by stealth via federalism is nuts.
Furthermore if we help shape Europe's Federal model we will hardly be being dictated to.