If you are still wavering, consider these reasons:
Democracy: European ministers have less of a democratic mandate, and the UKs influence is small. There are many unelected bodies that have influence, and cost us a lot of money.
Laws: We surrender final arbitration to the European court, we always obey their decision, but we don't actually have to in the present structure. Most 'human rights nonsense' usually has a sound basis when you drill down through the Daily Heil bullshit, and a lot of it is interpretation of International conventions that would still be in place if we left.
Refugees: No change in or out; there would still be Syrians dying in the Med, and we would still take some.
Illegal immigrants on lorries, boats, smuggled etc. No change in or out.
European migrants: come to work here (very little evidence they come to scrounge benefits). Put up with multi-room occupancy and minimum wage. Usually send a lot home to Eastern Europe. This is the main 'problem'. Although they contribute to society, because a shit life here is a relatively good life for many of them, they drive down wages and drive up accommodation costs. The earnings do not therefore trickle down, but get exported to 'home'. Secondary effect of making multinationals and petit bourgeois rich off cheap labour.
UK migrant workers: Many UK passport holders live in Spain and claim UK pensions, benefits, travel back to use NHS etc. Because they don't contribute to tax here, they are a net burden that some studies put as high as double that of migrant workers (who, don't forget, are legal and pay tax; no change on illegals in or out)
The economy: we do a lot of trade with Europe. If we left, it is very likely the pound would fall. So what? our imports would get more expensive, but our exports would make more money for the UK economy. Unfortunately a lot of the UK economy is the financial services sector, which would have difficulties.
UK labour force. We are very well protected by European laws. The 'out' camp suggests the workforce would be more 'flexible' if we left, but all this means is diluting labour laws in the UK, increased use of zero hours contracts and the UK being able to do away with many of the European standards that have helped workers for years.
The rich: They have managed to divert the view from their tax affairs to petty minded xenophobia. We are all worried how to vote now rather than realising that the super rich will continue to avoid tax. They are based in predominantly BRITISH tax havens, and the tories are up to their necks in supporting them. If we leave, they will have even less regulation, and make it easier to throw up shell companies in European countries using them to trade back to us to pay even less tax.
All these arguments though are effectively selfish. What is best for mankind/ humanity may not be best for my wallet on a personal level. Overall, I think on this island we overlook just how integrated the mainland has become, for the betterment of many. I think the things we need to focus on for the future (climate change, fusion power, the rights of man) are easier to achieve as a united states of Europe, rather than standing on the sidelines wishing it was 1952 and we were all playing cricket on the village green.
Sorry for length, I wrote this as much to make my views clear in my own mind than any other reason!
TL;DR I'm in.
(
da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Wed 15 Jun 2016, 13:52,
Share,
Reply)
Some interesting points... but one you mention there about labour laws really irks me with the remain campaign
They always claim without the EU we wouldn't have holiday pay, workers rights... blah blah. Now I can see the point with some of it, so that there isn't a race to the bottom with countries trying to make their labour the cheapest... but there is absolutely nothing that stops any party putting this stuff on a manifesto and then enacting it if elected.
If the concern is that we wouldn't get these protections without the EU, are they implying the public is too thick to vote for what's good for it, or the EU are enforcing policies that the UK electorate would never vote for and is therefore undemocractic?
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Wed 15 Jun 2016, 14:07,
Share,
Reply)
"are they implying the public is too thick to vote for what's good for it"
Don't have to imply it, the evidence sits in Parliament right now.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 15 Jun 2016, 18:29,
Share,
Reply)
