I've yet to hear any argument by a ' young ' person other than they don't want to lose the ease of traveling within Europe

Those right-wing interests being what ?

I cannot see any case whatsoever for remaining in the EU:

1. Economically it will continue to decline until it or unless it completely changes its modus operandi. It will destroy Britain's economy long-term by squeezing all innovation out - this has already happened in certain fields, eg drugs development, tech development, etc via centralised regulation. If it does dramatically reform then those who support it now for immature reasons like "workers rights" will be the first to complain.
2. Safer and more secure? Not a chance. The only "fact" is that Britain got dragged into two world wars due to forming alliances with other European states. Also, look at the uprisings (which we are only seeing the start of) in the poorer peripheral regions (which we will be in time if we stay in). Think of the potential future strife on the mass immigration of people from the Muslim world encouraged by Merkel. History strongly suggests this will result in bloodshed at some point in the future.
3. Getting out could stimulate growth and relieve poverty in Africa and other poorer regions as we could buy their produce more easily and more fairly.
4. It is utterly untenable for Cameron to pretend we can somehow be at the centre of the EU steering its development when we are not in the Eurozone. So that means the reasoners will have to sign us up to the destructive Eurozone in future. Why won't they say that? Could it be dishonesty - like our politicians have given us from the start if thus project?

To me the risks of staying in are enormous for the UK.

The youngsters seem to like being able to travel to Europe without a visa. Nobody seems to have told them that we used to before we joined the EU (other behind the iron curtain) or that other EEA members don't have a problem.

Eggsactly

The whole thing is a charade. Our Establishment is trying to con us again. The reality is there will be a federal tax system and if we are not members f the Eurozone where does that leave us? One of the levers our government has for managing The economy gone. The logic would once again mean we would have to join the Eurozone to survive. The whole things stinks.

People who believe their "interests" should be considered purely because, at certain points in their life, they have scrawled an "X" on a sheet of paper and stuffed it into a ballot box really do get the government they so richly deserve.

I mean, sure - governments don't exactly go out of their way to encourage participation. Indeed, I'd argue they actively discourage such. But as with anything there's an equal element of [ipersonal responsibility[/i. If you aren't prepared to get off your backside and hold these people to account you can hardly blame them for pandering to big business and the rich who go to GREAT LENGTHS to see that their interests are represented.

Yet people will pay (granted a small fee) to vote for some no mark in a singing contest or some idiot in a house to be kicked out, yet not walk to the polling station and vote for free on something that actually matters, I despise and despair of this society, it's so easy to change the system and the world if people could just think and act, neither of which people seem to do anymore.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "easy". I mean, in Western democracies you can impose a [ilimited[/i degree of change on elected governments. But we're only talking within a relatively narrow spectrum (and getting narrower all the time) because more and more power has been devolved away from politicians and into the hands of big business, NGOs and such (mostly via trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO etc. etc.)

Moreover, you should always be wary about activist movements because stated motives and actual motives are not always the same. Take the "Tea Party" in the US. Few people know that around the time of its genesis it was actively pushing for an investigation into the events of 9/11. However, the moment the likes of the Koch brothers and such became involved all that went by the wayside.

History teaches us that whenever people have attempted to push beyond the "acceptable" boundaries of change they've encountered severe pushback. This ranges from penetration and subversion of activist groups, surveillance, warrantless searches etc. right up to long-term incarceration, torture and death squads.

Like Snowden?

I'm very sceptical of Snowden. He has all the makings of an intelligence operation. Ex-military. Applied for special forces but supposedly didn't make it (which means he likely did and he's been "sheep dipped"icon_wink.gif. I think he went to somewhere like the Monterray School of Languages - which is a big "no no". As is the fact that he was working as a fully-fledged CIA operative in Switzerland. The guy is a spook.

His behaviour after he "downloaded" anywhere up to a million classified-or-above files from the NSA's servers (without their knowledge) screams spook.

The Snowden operation is a complex, multi-layered one serving several purposes which would take me too long to speculate on. Suffice to say that people should take note of [iwhat was going on in the world[/i the day the Snowden story broke.

John Young at cryptome.org has been holding Snowden & Glenn Greenwald's feet to the fire over the non-appearance of the overwhelming majority of these stolen files. Greenwald himself seems to be doing very well out of the whole affair landing a lucrative media opportunity with that very shady character, Pierre Omidyar (and ... believe it or not ... Booz-Allen Hamilton!).

I mean, what really has Snowden (and Julian Assange) released? It's a similar story to another Guardian-led operation which has emerged recently, "The Panama Papers". I said BEFORE I'd even seen the story that the number one target would be Putin and very, very few US or UK-based businessmen would be touched. When you look closely at Snowden, Assange & the Panama Papers it soon becomes apparent that aside from one or two minor incidents which result in some mid-level intelligence dweeb or squaddie in the US being thrown to the wolves the great majority of content is aimed directly at Russia, the BRICS nations and certain unfriendly Gulf states.

None of these people would ever have received the press they've garnered if they were legitimate. BTW, I'm not suggesting that they are knowingly part of a deception. There are plenty of "useful fools" in the world...

One argument for mass immigration is that we have an aging population and a low birth rate. Why don't we encourage Brits to procreate? At the moment women are discouraged from having children. Middle class women are told that they should be focusing on their career rather than having kids. Poorer women are met with "Who's going to pay for those kids?" and "benefit scrounger".

Before I start I'll state I'm in favour of staying in the EU. That doesn't mean I agree with everything it does or that everything is fine with it just that I think the way to solving problems is to come together as nations rather than stay entirely apart.

On immigration you're right that argument is often used and it's one I disagree with. It's a short term argument because it's a cycle then that requires yet more immigration to support the next group of retirees etc etc.
I also think that large amounts of immigration, especially the kind of immigration we're experiencing from Eastern Europe, simply drives down wages and, crucially, workers rights and conditions.

Of course the real problem came from too rapid an expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe, into countries that weren't and still aren't suitable for it. All that I can see is that this expansion was a political move against Russia to "grab" as many of the Eastern Europe countries as possible away from Russian influence, hence Russia pushing back in Ukraine.
The countries in Eastern Europe are just at too different a level of development for them to be compatible with full EU membership and should never have been admitted.
Free movement of people works fine between nations of relatively similar economies and/or states of development and that's where it should've stayed.

However, IIRC (I'm going off memory here and it may be wrong so I'm more than happy to be corrected if I am) but net immigration accounts for approx half the population increase, the other reason being birth rate. And of the net immigration approx half is from outside the EU.

So leaving the EU, at best, only deals with a quarter of the issue.

Whist we're on the subject of immigration I'm getting sick of hearing politicians and those pillocks in the media constantly saying we want highly skilled immigrants to come in. I don't want that. I'd rather we adequately trained and paid our own people to be highly skilled and be doctors/nurses etc etc rather than immigrants.

But, leaving the EU really really won't solve the immigration/population growth issue.

Yes



There's still too many coming from outside the EU despute claims we can control this.