The end of the world is nigh.

 

It might be that Brexit is the right thing but I'm just waiting to hear something that is even semi-coherent. Nothing yet but I am willing to listen to the arguments, if they ever arrive.

I'm in the same boat, It might be that staying in is the right thing but I'm just waiting to hear something that is even semi-coherent about how it will improve over the next few years. Just about everyone even its supporters say it has fundamental problems but no one can say how it will change, labours position is that it needs fundamental change and I agree, but they can't say how, if, or when it will change, its clear that a vote to stay is a vote for the status quo.

Nothing yet but I am willing to listen to the arguments, if they ever arrive.

Greenlands successful negotiation left it significantly better off after leaving the EU.

I'm in the same boat, It might be that staying in is the right thing but I'm just waiting to hear something that is even semi-coherent about how it will improve over the next few years. Just about everyone even its supporters say it as problems but no can say how it will change, labours position is that it needs fundamental change and I agree, but they can't say how, if, or when it will change, its clear that a vote to stay is a vote for the status quo.

 

Nothing yet but I am willing to listen to the arguments, if they ever arrive.

As am I. I just want both sides to put together a compare and contrast 'likely' outcomes and how that will manifest. Neither side seem willing to even try except spout hyperbole which is frustrating for people like many on this forum who genuinely want to understand the main points and then make a rational decision based on evidence and not fear-mongering. The thing is that this type of campaigning plays into the hands of the Remain camp, as I'd imagine most people are similar to me in that unless something can be demonstrated to be bad will stick with the status quo.

As am I. I just want both sides to put together a compare and contrast 'likely' outcomes and how that will manifest. Neither side seem willing to even try except spout hyperbole which is frustrating for people like many on this forum who genuinely want to understand the main points and then make a rational decision based on evidence and not fear-mongering. The thing is that this type of campaigning plays into the hands of the Remain camp, as I'd imagine most people are similar to me in that unless something can be demonstrated to be bad will stick with the status quo.

I think some unbiased contrast between in and out is probably too much to hope for.

My view is, are you happy with the EU as it stands, if the answer is yes vote stay, if the answer in no take the plunge and vote leave, its down to how risk averse you are, if you had £100 but needed £200, would you risk loosing the £100 to get the £200.

As am I. I just want both sides to put together a compare and contrast 'likely' outcomes and how that will manifest. Neither side seem willing to even try except spout hyperbole which is frustrating for people like many on this forum who genuinely want to understand the main points and then make a rational decision based on evidence and not fear-mongering.

Only the circumstancial evidence provided by (i) the non-EU EFTA states like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein and (ii) frequently overlooked in the debate, the most recent EU member states (in terms of the strings and hoops they've had to jump through, relative to older members, to accede).

Whilst the debate could still remain objective and reasonable, a further fundamental problem is that the main horses of the Brexit side, immigration and security, are essentially redundant to start with:

• 'negatively contributing' immigration in the UK is statistically and demonstrably shown to be down to numbers of non-EU immigrants, and the EU membership of the UK is immaterial to non-EU immigration (the EU has no say about the UK's points-based system applied to non-EU immigrants since 2008, and the ECHR which hears immigration-human rights cases of 'hate imams' and other serial extradition appellants, has nothing to do with the EU).
  
• GCHQ and MI5 have long done a better job than most other EU states' security services in the face of decades' worth of both EU-borne free movement of people (limited as it is by the UK standing comfortably out of Schengen at all times) and terrorism (of all sorts) across the EU.

The current immigration and security levels will not change much, if any at all, in case of a Brexit.

It may result in fewer 'mostly contributing' EU migrants (which should also be achieved on the back of a stay vote, after the negotiated terms are legislated in to limit availability of benefits to EU migrants), but it will not result in fewer 'less contributing' non-EU migrants.

MI5 and GCHQ's burden will not be alleviated, and they'll still get and share the best intel from/with the US regardless.

Broadly speaking, that leaves the social and economical issues in the debating balance. You can extrapolate as objectively as possible, but no sooner does the argument start to skew for 'remain', that the Brexiters jump down your throat with "we'll be alright" one liners rather than construct an objective counter-point.

The thing is that this type of campaigning plays into the hands of the Remain camp, as I'd imagine most people are similar to me in that unless something can be demonstrated to be bad will stick with the status quo.

Here is a very good piece about the issue, from a Brexiter (see, I'm not as biased as many on here seem to think ).

I've been guilty of it myself at times, but usually only as a counter-argument to fearmongering Brexiters for balancing the noise level

The inherent problem, is that this creates too much 'noise' around genuine arguments (from both sides), which end up being wavy-handed away as 'fearmongering'.

"We'll be alright" is not fearmongering of course. But it's just as damaging an approach to debating the issue as fearmongering. It's an elementary failing in conducting proper due diligence on the matter.

Had I a vote, then under that hypothesis, I would vote to leave.

As would the vast majority in this country, including the likes of Cameron and Corbyn. Most people recognise that the EU is undemocratic and we have ceded sovereignty to it that it does not need to operate as a functional trade body but does need to preside over us as a federal body. Given the choice, without threat/risk, most people would reject an EU on these terms as a matter of principle. Whilst both sides are guilty of playing the fear card, the Stay campaign is only in this because of it. Without the fear factor the UK would overwhelmingly vote to leave as a matter of principle.

The Stay campaign shameless try to play down this matter of principle (what most people actually want) by pretending we still have full sovereignty and aren't subordinate to the EU. It is nothing more than a lie to hide a betrayal of principle and make it appear as if we are not taking the silver when issued with a 'silver or lead' threat.

We've risked far more before to protect our sovereignty in the past... I think our ancestors will turn in their graves if we surrender it now so cheaply. We need to vote out and trigger a chain reaction across Europe that will put the EU back into it's trade body box.

What Norway negotiated is irrelevant. We are a much more valuable trade partner and the EU is in a massively weakened position compared to when the Norway negotiations took place. Most EU members have stuttering economies, the Euro crisis has hit it hard and now it faces a migrant crisis that it has no idea how to solve... it's like watching a drowning man trying to drink his way out of trouble. Britain is also not the only member state where the public are turning on the EU and if we vote to leave then there will be further pressure from within for changes that will make our negotiations easier. The EU is not in a position to play hardball and dictate all the terms.

it isn't irrelevant at all, the EU has repeatedly stated, in no uncertain terms, that part of being in the free market is the free movement of people. But that isn't the point, the point is that the out campaign KNOWS that it can't afford to not allow migration, the country needs it. This is what Voteleave (beginning to look like the leading campaign) has to say about migration, you tell me where it says migration is going to come down? It doesn't say so because they can't promise it. It would be tantamount to Cameron's moronic 100,000 pledge.

We can have a fairer, more humane migration policy. We stop the current immoral, expensive and out of control immigration system that means an open door to the EU while blocking people who could contribute to the UK coming from non-EU countries. We make it easier for some to come, such as scientists and job-creators, and impossible for others to come, such as convicted criminals.

Nice soundbite, but completely non-committal. The sort of thing that sounds well in soundbites but falls by the wayside in the long term. I can already see Boris explain that they never said they wouldn't agree to free movement of persons.

The fundamental problem is that when you take this evidence-based approach, the Brexit case necessarily starts the fight with both hands tied behind their back, because there has never been an EU exit before, so there is no 'evidence' as such.

 

Doesn't Greenland count as an exit?

Inside the EU we are subordinate to the EU and their courts... we must conform to their policies and laws. Outside of the EU we are free to set our own laws and policies.

There are no laws within the EU which have been passed without our full support.

There are no courts within the EU to which we are subordinate.

The EU policies are ones to which we have signed up and, in many instances, proposed.

We are free to set our own laws and policies within the EU.

There are no laws within the EU which have been passed without our full support.

 

There are no courts within the EU to which we are subordinate.

 

The EU policies are ones to which we have signed up and, in many instances, proposed.

 

We are free to set our own laws and policies within the EU.

Yep, those are the disingenuous lies I'm on about.

We have about 8% of the voting block in the EU which means it doesn't matter what the UK wants when it comes to making policy or law. We are not free to set our own immigration or asylum rules and must do as instructed by the EU. Our courts can be overruled by the European court. We have ceded power (not just on matters of trade as per the original terms sold to us) and it gets worse every day.

Time to find our backbone and get out.

Doesn't Greenland count as an exit?

I'm afraid it doesn't: Greenland exited the EC, 7 years before the Maastricht Treaty even existed and which is the (in legislative terms, ancient) precursor to the current EU governed by the TEU and TFEU.

I'm at pains to point out that this not mere semantics, more like day-and-night differences. If the UK had been looking to exit the EC (pre-1992), you'd have had a fair point. Since Brexit is concerned by exiting the EU, a completely different ruleset applies.

We are not free to set our own immigration or asylum rules and must do as instructed by the EU.

Now, about that...where's your usual line about contributing and non-contributing immigrants?

Its omission couldn't possibly be due to the fact that when you contrast the respective numbers and contribution of EU immigrants against those of non-EU immigrants in the UK, and consider that the UK is completely free to set its own immigration for non-EU immigrants, it moots the above point?

(Referring to the setting of asylum rules by the EU is also a bit disingenuous, don't you think? the UK is benefitting quite happily from the Dublin Regs, just like Hungary, compared to most continental EU member states who've been trampling them since last year).

Our courts can be overruled by the European court.

The European Court of Justice acts only as a supreme court for the interpretation of European Union law. Consequently, there is no right to appeal at any stage in UK court proceedings to the ECJ. However, any court in the UK may refer a particular point of law relating to European Union law to the ECJ for determination. However, once the ECJ has given its interpretation, the case is referred back to the court that referred it.

 

The decision to refer a question to the ECJ can be made by the court of its own initiative, or at the request of any of the parties before it. Where a question of European law is in doubt and there is no appeal from the decision of a court, it is required (except under the doctrine of acte clair) to refer the question to the ECJ; otherwise any referral is entirely at the discretion of the court.