I find most of the arguments for leaving to be very simplistic, which is not hard given the unknown factor if we do leave. But for me one of the key potential indicator is how other countries have done when they took a similar decision years ago, take Norway for example. A recent documentary showed that the apocalypse never occurred for them when they left, in fact they appear to have done rather well. This i thought for the first time could be reason to justify leaving.
But then you see the opinion from Norway https://www.washingt...28d2_story.html and you realise that leaving would not give the control back that the leave party states, you still have to abide by the rules that are in place.
When you have an opportunity to be involved in the decisions and influence them why would you walk away from the table when you are still bound by those rules in some way, shape or form.
For me the risk is too great and the benefits unknown. We have most if not all trade unions, industry leaders, most of the financial sector, virtually all economic studies from academic and expert opinion stating leaving is going to have a negative financial impact. The main response from the leave campaign is to reply with "we get control back" but i don't believe that, we are still constrained by the relationships and interactions we have with other countries. You would go against all those expert opinions to get something that is not tangible....... I'm with the experts, yes they are not always right but it is rare that you ever get all the experts stating the same thing.
And to be frank i am getting fed up to the teeth with leave campaigns constant references to immigrants ruining the NHS, housing opportunities and jobs. They are in the state they are in because of economic budget cuts, poor management and a lack of investment.