This.

On balance I will vote to leave for the following reasons:
1. Immigration isn't an issue for me - if we leave the EU we will still allow EU citizens to reside and work in the UK.

2. The notion that the 5th largest economy in the world would be incapable of functioning successfully outside of the EU isn't logical to me. Plenty of smaller economies prosper without the need for membership of a bigger club.

3. The amount of money wasted in Brussels is by common concent massive. Perhaps if we didn't have so much of our money wasted by non-elected beaurocrats in Brussels maybe we would the necessary funds to spend on social housing, hospitals, schools etc.

4. The idea that we set our own laws independent of the EU is a fallacy. Any new laws we draft will have to be drafted in line with EU guidelines.

5. Freedom to do what we think is best for this country. It may have been good for the government to help in the steel industry but it cannot because of EU legislation preventing this kind of thing etc.

6. I know those on the left on here like the idea that the likes of Corbyn know best how to run your life for you - I am against government intervention wherever possible - the EU is just another layer of government intervention.

It's a question of degrees isn't it. All nations look for a trade deal which is 'preferential' but preferential to them. I have no doubt we can sign trade deals outside the EU with every country in the world. I can't for the life of me think why we would have more leverage independently than as part of the largest reading bloc the world has ever seen.



Conversely you could argue that the EU and European institutions are the ones making the government obey their own laws and regulations and respect people's rights and as such act as a necessary check and balance on government power limiting government interference.

Fair point, but who are making the checks & balances on the power brokers in Brussels/Strasbourg?

(Clue: it certainly isn't their auditors, as they have ignored them for the past 18 years)

We have judges in the UK, do we not? Why do we need the EU for our checks & balances then?

But we don't have a split between the legislative and judicial branches of government in this country. The EU and European branches actually provide a necessary part of our government to cover for a democratic deficit within our system.

We have no separation of church and state, no separation of powers, laws still require royally ascent, the second chamber of our bicameral legislature has gone from undemocratic, unelected hereditary arm of government to unelected undemocratic no longer hereditary entirely neutered expensive talking shop. Our voting system is undemocratic and our laws are subservient to parliament and not the other way around.

There are issues and democratic deficits in the European machine no doubt, but they don't even come close to the huge democratic deficits inherent to our system

Flaws in both systems, no doubt. I know which undemocratic institution I'd prefer to be beholden to.

This still does not answer the question of financial control re the EU audit for the past 18 years.

It's not an either or question is it. As proven by the last 4 decades.

The financial auditing does need to be tightened up but if the last few years have shown us anything it's that far from being the last bastions of fair play our MPs are first with their noses in the trough or grubbing for a back hander

'Tis for me.

OK. But the vote on Thursday won't give you that question.

We can have both and that will be the remain option.

I guess the Leeds CEO will be amongst them then.

Whichever side win we'll all still wake up Friday morning with the same bunch of devious, self serving c###s in charge who will effectively ignore any result that they believe would do damage to the country (and rightly so, IMO) - which is why opening the door to a possible exit, placing the decision in the hands of the British public never made any sense to me in the first place. Some things are too important to play politics with.

I for one will be otherwise engaged on Thursday and take no part in this non decision - and as for the result it'll make no difference.

Trade deals between the EU and other economies have to generally fulfill the requirement of all 28 member states - the paperwork and timescales are immense compared to bilateral agreements.
Then you get TTIP. Taken years to get off the ground and years to put together, and with the promise of a substantial boost to the EU overall economy our political leaders are prepared to give away fundamental controls. The Investor-State dispute settlement system the Americans want will allow corporations to sue governments - for instance over any that want to impose higher food quality standards (and the UK has some of the highest food quality standards in the world). There is huge opposition all across the EU to the undemocratic contents of this agreement, and in this country the potential threat to the NHS, but our political leaders can only see dollar signs. Being part of the EU in the case of TTIP gives us less protection than a bilateral agreement - which we could at any time re-negotiate if say we elected another government opposed to it's conditions. Can't do that in the EU once we've signed up.

Not saying it's all bad in the EU for trade agreements, but there are other ways to get good trade deals and it's easier to change conditions if you don't like the consequences down the line.

You're not wrong there.