"Outside the EU we would still be subject to 700 international treaties" by George Magnus / February 22, 2016 / Leave a comment Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, speaks in the House of Commons in London, following Prime Minister David Cameron’s address in which he laid out his case for Britain remaining a member of the European Union. ©PA/PA Wire/Press Association Images Read more: Cameron’s compromise Read more: Twelve things you need to know about Brexit YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below. When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time Email Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications. DEBUG messsage: regular Related articles Brexit seen from the continent Franklin Dehousse / August 9, 2018 A former ECJ judge says Britain's departure is a boost for Europe The battle over Europe’s budget Beth Oppenheim / May 10, 2018 Negotiations on the “Multiannual Financial Framework” are getting underway, but how... Share with friends Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email CommentsHelen Jackson Helen J.May 15, 2016 at 09:28There is actually no reason why you can't seek an optimal mix of sovereignty, democracy and economic integration, even if you can't have some kind of ideal of all three. It is normal for other advanced democracies to cooperate with each other without political integration in the form of further layers of administration and law. This article is applying a different yardstick of economic integration to the UK, one which is much, much more comprehensive than is normal (or would be conscionable) for advanced economies such as New Zealand, Japan and the US; or for China, which the article says is economically integrated. Why does 'economic integration' mean cooperating with the WTO, IMF etc. for some countries (China), but for others mean having common laws on a large range of issues, shared political institutions and free movement of people? That makes no sense. "If we vote to leave the European Union we may ... spend a long time abolishing and replacing all the EU laws and regulations on our statute books. The price, though, will probably be significant." I don't think it is on anyone's agenda to abolish and replace all the transposed EU laws. I expect that very many of them would be retained, with the highest priority ones replaced. Again, the article is dealing with binary extremes, and not with the practical, common sense middle ground.