Few who know me will be surprised to learn that I am very much a ‘Remainer’. Most of the pro and anti arguments have already been done to death in recent weeks but I think there are a few pertinent conclusions to be drawn from what has been said by both campaigns.

Economic issues – the reality is that there will inevitably be a short-term negative economic impact as a result of leaving but no one knows how big it will be or how long it will last. It may be that the overall, long-term impact of leaving could even be positive – staying or leaving, it’s an economic gamble either way. And some would say that, whatever the impact, it would be a price worth paying.

On the simple budget issue, the argument that we can save money by not paying into the EU and spending it on the NHS though is entirely flawed in the context of the referendum. Of course we could, but we could equally spent it on lower taxes, paying off the deficit or filling the Channel Tunnel up with concrete – that is a matter for the Government of the day, not the referendum campaigners. Although it is pertinent to note that the majority of the high-profile Brexit campaigners are also supporters of lower public spending, privatization, deregulation and reduced workers’ rights.

Sovereignty – this has slipped down the order of importance in the debate. Why? Because it is and always was a red herring. The UK will be no less sovereign if we vote to remain and only marginally more sovereign if we vote to leave. Indeed we could even have less sovereignty if we leave, as we will no longer have a share of the EU’s sovereignty in decision-making which will still greatly affect us.

Immigration – A much bigger issue but there is still no clear message from either side on what they will do, except that the leave campaign assert they will ‘regain control’. But regain control in order to do what? Prevent EU citizens from coming to the UK? Prevent refugees from outside the EU coming to the UK? It is a very important issue but Brexit is no magic cure and no one has even properly diagnosed the problems, let alone identified the correct treatment. Again, if you look at those promoting Brexit (and the introduction of a ‘points-based’ system), there is a real concern that the immigration they will actually favour is low-skilled, low-wage immigrants to further boost the profits of big business. It risks a return to the days when we simply let people in to the country to do the work we were not prepared to do ourselves for the salary being offered.

Democratic deficit – there has been plenty of bluster about ‘unaccountable, faceless EU bureaucrats’. I actually want my technocrats and experts to be largely faceless and kept at arms-length from the politicians. A stable, politically neutral civil service (which is what the Commission is) is a good thing. The EU does have direct democracy through the European Parliament and indirect democracy through the European Council. The democracy is obviously more remote, and there is a strong argument for repatriation of powers to national Governments and to regional governments and local councils. But that is a matter that is already being addressed and can be resolved. To leave the EU would remove our democratic voice in the Council and in the Parliament, but we would still be affected by its decisions.

Security and stability – it is no coincidence that the last 50 years have brought peace in Western Europe and the last 25 years have brought peace in almost the whole of Europe. NATO may have kept the peace, but it is the EU which has built the bridges between its member countries and meant that NATO can focus its efforts on issues and areas outside of the EU. Free movement of people, as well as of goods and services, have brought the peoples and nations of Europe together like never before. It may not always be perfect, but the impact has been enormously positive for most, if not all of us, both directly and indirectly.

People have rightly said that this is not about what happens on Friday, next week or next year but in 25 years or 50 years. One of the few ‘certainties’ in the next 25 years or more is increased globalization and greater global challenges (environmental, social and economic). We may or may not like that, but it is happening and it will continue. We cannot act like King Canute and turn back the tide, even if we wanted to. But, whether we embrace globalism or whether we simply deal with it, we do it more effectively with allies and partners. Whether we can still do that outside of the EU is debatable but it would certainly be more difficult.

If I look back at what has been said during this campaign, and by whom, the conclusion for me is even clearer than it was when it began. Both sides have played fast and loose with the facts at times and both sides have played the ‘fear’ card. But the Brexit campaign has told a number of outright lies and parts of their campaign have stoked the embers of unhealthy nationalism and racism. The leading Brexiteers such as Johnson and Gove have demonstrated breathtaking hypocrisy and have used this campaign to further their own short-term political interests at the expense of the country. And, if we do vote to leave, then these are the very people to whom we will probably be repatriating our power. No thanks!

Edited by SloveniaDave (22 Jun 2016 10.20am)

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Effectively you seem to be saying only people who have made up their mind before the debate even started should be able to have a view.

If someone hasn't yet made up their mind and uses information from a message board to help inform them and therefore make an informed decision, that seems perfectly valid to me.

I do think that a thread like this for the most part has been decidely uninformed and uninformative for any of those though. It has just degenerated into two camps (largely appearing like Nick being psuedo-bullied) who already seem to be pretty entrenched in their views. Can't imagine it is going to change many people's minds.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

People can decide in any way they want. I am just expressing an opinion.

It just concerns me that people are deciding on small issues or maybe without much conviction either way.

I listened to a bit of the debate last night, until they got to one of the MASSIVE questions for me:
"40 years ago we joined the common market. The EU today has little in common with what we joined. How can we guarantee that the EU in 40 years will still be what we vote to stay in on Thursday?"

Very valid question, no mention of immigration to allow the racist card to be thrown out. It was then put to Sadique Khan, who presented an eloquent pro-EU speech for a couple of minutes, without even going anywhere near the question. He didn't even pay it lip service with the standard "to answer that I need to...", just totally ignored it in favour of his pre-written speech. I was disappointed with Dimbleby for letting him get away with it.

Politicians, eh? They assume we're too stupid to notice and/or understand.

Hate 'em all, on both sides of the debate.

Michael Gove actually said that only by leaving the EU could some of the significant sum sent to that dastardly organisation be diverted to the NHS.He also added that only by leaving the EU could we remove VAT from energy bills.

Anyway I think this is enough from me on this topic for the time being.I will only get on my "Soapbox" and get drawn into a protracted debate which will clearly WILLO this thread.

Edited by Willo (22 Jun 2016 10.56am)

Stop making this all about you

Edited by Part Time James (22 Jun 2016 11.05am)