chrissssmith

I typed 'independence' because the idea that leaving the EU gives us back our independence is false. We would remain not only beholden to EU laws and regulation in order to access EU free trade (and we would want that, because the alternatives are very economically damaging), but we also remain beholden to a huge host of other external checks on our sovereign power, due to the globalised nature of the world - the UN, IMF, World Bank, NATO, whilst we would still be subject to the European Court of Human Rights because (contrary to popular belief), it is not an EU organisation. Then, there are other organisations it would be in our interest to remain involved in, such as Europol and other supra-national organisations, including those based around security and intelligence, all of which have rules, regulations and checks in place.

The point is, 'independence' is really a misnomer in the 21st century, unless you are advocating complete isolationism.

Pros and cons is tough because there are a lot of issues that have different degrees of importance to people, so it would be better to get an idea of what you care about. Plus, everything is very interconnected... however, the below is perhaps a useful start, I hope.

Pros:

We save some money... but not that much money. Our 'cost' last year was just £13billion, and only £8.5billion when you taken into account what comes back in investment (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/), which sounds a lot, but that is actually just 1/3rd of the amount we spend on defence. The claims this could be spent on hospitals and nurses is a bit disingenuous in my opinion; it's not enough money to really improve service levels in an organisation as big as the NHS or the education system. Additionally, many of the leading voices of Leave are pretty anti-government spending, so you'd probably find they would be loathe to invest any savings there...

You do get control of the borders back in terms of being able to refuse EU nationals entry into the country. However, you do not actually get much more control back over law making. To trade with the EU (which we must continue to do), we simply accept the rules of the club, without having an opportunity to influence them. However, on some areas, we would have more control. (This is a good summary: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a-norway-style-relationship-with-the-eu-entail/). Some claims that we would have 'sovereignty' back though are clearly not quite right; we would still, outside the EU, be beholden to all sorts of other agreements and protocols relating to trade, defence, business etc, whilst we already have total control over things like fiscal and monetary policy because we aren't in the Euro.

Cons:

For me, the biggest con can be summed up in one word. Uncertainty. It's undeniable that leaving would bring a lot of uncertainty, and no-one is entirely sure what would happen with lots of things. The big issue here is that the global capitalist system hates uncertainty (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/capitalists-cap.html).

It's therefore, very likely that the UK will suffer economic 'damage' at least in the short-term until that uncertainty is cleared up. Further economic damage will then arise if the things that do happen aren't great. For example, we lose competitiveness in trading with the EU and the US because we lose collective bargaining power, or our financial services expertise starts to be drawn away to Frankfurt or other EU countries, which would have a pretty big hit on GDP . Leave campaigners say this won't happen, but the truth is we don't actually 'know'. The reality is the economic impact will be negative for probably a 5-10 year period, but after that it might level out and it won't have changed the long term prospects of the UK, or, it might continue to damage them. I think it's quite unlikely we will make any sort of significant economic gains overall, although certain areas may prosper.

In terms of immigration, leaving the EU will enable us to reduce immigration. However, the biggest con here is that leaving the EU to reduce immigration is a little bit like using a chainsaw to carve a loaf of bread; it's a very big political change to address an issue which has negatives and positives. Immigration can cost some people their jobs and can impact 'culture' in a way some people don't like, and that shouldn't be dismissed. However, we also have an ageing population and a need for working people, both skilled and unskilled. This means if we leave the EU, we will still have relatively high levels of immigration. More people immigrated to the UK from outside the EU than within it last year - we 'could' have blocked all of these non EU people but we didn't, because they were coming to do jobs we wanted them to do. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199)

I think much of the rest of the cons are based in how you see the world; wanting to be part of something bigger, being part of a peace promoting organisation that wants to try and make things better, even if sometimes it gets things wrong. That sort of thing. Some people will naturally hate the EU because they believe in small government, whilst others will naturally be drawn towards it, because it does do progressive things for people by getting involved in things. This is more of a personal political preference however.

My personal vote will be for Remain; I cannot see a clear and compelling reason for Leave that is based in hard cold reality and fact; too much is based upon feelings of distrust, desire for 'independence' and issues with things like immigration, which could be tackled through domestic policy and change within the EU, rather than a forced, formal exit, which will have many impacts well beyond these policy areas of concern.

And that's a perfectly valid view based on the information available. It is a roll of the dice, and if you're willing to take a great leap into the unknown with a optimistic attitude, then voting leave makes sense. However, I would argue for change and reform within ahead of exit, to avoid short-term (and I mean 5-10 years not months) impact, which will undoubtedly, have a negative impact on people, particularly the younger generation.

[deleted]