I have been following the arguments from a football forum in the UK so my impression will be skewed. I see three main arguments and the Leave campaign are losing two:

1. The economy. The very best the Leavers can come up with is that the economy will only be screwed in the short term as they will miraculously negotiate a new trade deal that will give the UK all the benefits of the single market but without any of the downsides of being in the EU. (Yeah, right.) In any case it is worth it to regain our sovereignty.

2. Sovereignty. Does any one know of any sovereign act the UK will be able to do after Brexit that it cannot do now? Nobody on the Leave side seems to be able to think of any either.

3. Immigration. The Leavers have some traction with this one. Apparently, if the UK does not vote to leave now it will be overrun by 70m Turks who are <shudder> brown and <shudder><shudder> Muslim. (<shudder>).

Presumably a quota of British players at football clubs would not fall foul of European employment laws. Not that the clubs would necessarily go for it of course.

Seriously? It will be able to do anything it wants (I won't argue that this is a good thing).

Control immigration from EU nationals is the one obvious one.

At the moment, it has to implement all directives that the EU issues. I happen to think that the vast majority of the directives that the EU issues are better than those made by the UK parliament and that this has been the case for some time but one cannot credibly argue that the UK has not deferred a huge amount of its sovereignty to the EU.

I'll leave it for others to determine whether this is a good, or bad, thing.

Not sure I follow what you are trying to say.

I was only commenting on the fact that you don't seem to understand why expats would want to vote.

But in all practical way it cannot. Post Brexit the UK will still need to trade with the EU. To get access to the free market the UK will have to do it on the EU's terms and concede on the free movement of people. I grant you that the UK can decide not to trade with the EU anymore but that is like asserting your freedom from traffic laws by driving down the opposite lanes on the freeway. A brief moment of exhilaration followed by a very large crash.

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

The US trades with the EU and does not allow free movement of people to the US. Australia trades with the EU and does not allow free movement of people to Australia. Canada trades with the EU and...

Well I voted by proxy today and it has already gone off in the post

We could quibble on % but the point is that a large mass of voters are economically illiterate and fairly ill equipped to weigh the pros and cons of social policy. It's plain whenever there is a public debate. Politicians are generally more informed and capable than the average punter, so would prefer it to be left in their hands, if it needs to be addressed at all.

The US trades with the EU, yes. But it doesn't access the EU as part of a tariff-free economic entity (obviously). Obama made it crystal clear that pushing through a trade deal (TTIP) with the EU takes absolute precedence over any bilateral trade deal with the UK after a brexit.

If the UK wants to access the EU market on reasonable terms it will have to remain in the EEA. In fact, whatever the outcome of the June 23rd silliness, the UK government will have no mandate to leave the EEA. Membership of the EEA involves compulsory freedom of movement among the member states.

Actually, it occurs to me that as an ex-sharp-end military person, you might be interested in a speech I heard this afternoon by the Mayor of a tiny village in Auge, which happens to be the site of the grave of the very first Canadian to be killed on D-day, one George Richard LaCroix. The Mayor of this tiny village went out of his way to stress that the recent rise in populist nationalism epitomised by the brexit referendum is complete anathema to the spirit shown by european democracies and their north american allies to defend the principles of such places against the last great rising of national populism.

Heil Boris.

Its interesting that the devolution of power in Scotland, Wales and N.I. is mostly portrayed as a good thing, where public policy is created by those who are directly affected by such decisions and as such economic and cultural autonomy is seen as positive. Yet, applying that same logic to England and its relationship to EU is seen as somehow as a wrong decision? I’m skeptical that concentrated power is positive in any circumstances.

False analogy. Devolution of certain powers to the regions and nations within the UK is nothing to do with those regions and nations membership in the UK.

The regions and nations within the UK have over historical time accepted that the greater good is resultant from their membership of a united entity, the UK.

The UK has not sacrificed sovereignty or control over its affairs but has simply agreed (like the other 27 EU members) to pool some policy matters to joint decision making bodies over which it has substantial influence.

The UK has more clout in the EU than, shall we say, Florida has in DC.

Firstly the UK doesn't need 'more clout', we've seen what happens when it does. Concentrations of political and econoic power never end well. They are fundamentally problematic for human beings. One only has to look at history to see that supra-political entites wreak misery on those who are under control.

Sorry but I've not a clue what you're on about.

The Uk has a degree of clout within the EU, but wouldn't have if it left. It has the degree of clout within the EU as befits its economic clout.

If by "supra-national entities" you mean Empires, then yes. If you mean international cooperative alliances then you have your head up your arse.

It is not as if the UK does not see the value in pooling sovereignty in other matters. NATO for example. A Brexit actually diminishes sovereignty as it will still be subject to EU rules but will have no power to influence or veto them.

The free market in the EU relates to trade in goods. The EU is currently determining the rules for free trade in services. Given the importance of services to the UK economy does anyone think that the country's interests are best served by excluding itself from this?

Interesting debating style. I've realized that its evening time in Europe.

'International cooperative alliance'? You obviously have higher degree of trust in the benignity of such an enterprise than me. I hope you're right.