[QUOTE=BristolUK;11979707]However, since UK Pensioners in the EU get uprated pensions, if there was no EU for the UK to be part of, then maybe those pensioners would no longer get uprating, perhaps enabling others who don't get it now to get it. UNQUOTE]

If the UK pensioners in EU (estimated over 1 Million) were deprived of index-linked pensions, and payment in sterling lost considerabe value, and recipricol health service was unavailable.... then it's possible that UK would be 'immigrated' by its own senior citizens demanding equitable welfare....

I was thinking the same today. Both camps have been spewing out the same soundbites for the past six weeks, rather than building more in depth cases supporting their positions. For example, the 500 million Europeans at the door is constantly trumpeted, without delving into expected numbers, and in particular reasons why their is a natural limit to inward migration. Print media (qualities) has been slightly better in this respect, the TV debates, interviews and features have been somewhat inadequate.

I do not understand your reasoning here. If the UK wants out then it should be out. If you look at a Norway type solution the UK will only be able to access the single market if it accepts the 4 principles of the single market: the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The UK will also be required to contribute to the cost of operating the single market.

It will also mean that the UK will be required to implement all the EU directives that affect the operation of the single market, but without any power or influence to negotiate on directives that are not in the UK's best interests. This is particular important with services for which the single market is not yet complete.

The end result is the UK will end up with a similar trade deal as it has now without the ability to influence the future direction of policy. This seems to be a diminution of sovereignty to me.

I completely agree with this.

I have lifted this shamelessly from another website but it is written by someone who knows about this stuff. His position is out, eventually, but not until the UK has properly planned for it. It is long, but worth a read.

* I'll assume most people accept that trade with the EU would be a UK priority in case of Brexit (because it forms our major trading partner & in large part that's because the closer countries are then the higher the value of the trade).

* but I'll assume that a key fact is not yet accepted - the UK needs trade with the EU more than the rest of the EU needs trade with us & that's because EU trade is worth 13% of the UK's GDP while trade with the UK is worth 3% of the GDP of the rest of the EU. Or to put it differently, the EU buys half of our exports while we buy just 10% of exports traded by the rest of the EU. While the UK's trade deficit with the EU is often mentioned, this is measured in monetary value alone, not worth to the whole country, & it is down to trade with just 2 other EU countries, who can't outvote others in the Council so won't hold sway on a deal for the UK if we leave.
<snip>

And none of this touches upon what is involved in trade negotiations and how long they take.

If you think the UK should leave the single market altogether in the event of a Leave vote then that's fine but that's your opinion not mine. This referendum is only about our membership of the European Union, not our relationship with the European Union going forward.

To respond to your points I'm actually very comfortable with the four freedoms.

A lot of the debate has focused on uncontrolled immigration from within the EU and the need to 'regain control of our borders' but since controlled immigration from outside the EU is consistently higher than from within the reality is that the government doesn't actually want to take the steps necessary to reduce net immigration as the political and economic cost would be too high. Talk of an 'Australian-style points system' is a red herring as the real reason why Australia can control the numbers coming into Australia is that it has quotas for each visa category allocated on an annual basis, the UK does not. If we did want to control immigration from within the EU then we could follow Liechtenstein's example and invoke Article 112 of the EEA Agreement as the 'emergency brake' option Cameron pursued during his renegotiation but failed to get.

We would still have to contribute financially but the cost as a member of the EEA would be less than as a member of the EU.

It's true of any country that wishes to provide goods or services to the EU, or rather businesses as countries don't actually trade with each other, that they need to meet the EU's regulations. Although Norway's relationship is commonly characterised as a 'fax democracy' that is rather misleading. It is true that it cannot vote on whether legislation should be passed or not it is heavily consulted during the negotiation stage and the EEA Agreement does permit it to refuse to implement any legislation it does not wish to comply with.

The UK will still be able to influence policy which affects it via the EEA Agreement as outlined above. Crucially though it removes the obligation of the UK to commit itself to further EU integration without the need to negotiate further opt-outs, rather the UK would opt-in to the legislation it regards as mutually beneficial. It would also permit it to arrange its own trade agreements with other countries without having to go via the EU whilst maintaining its advantage of being in the single market.

What was all this about then? https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-do-they-mean

I imagine China would be less keen to invest in the UK if it was only gaining access to a tenth of the EU population.

That seems over-optimistic. If the UK finds it challenging to influence EU policy now, it will be near impossible when we are outside and the bloc is more tightly integrated. The premise of your argument seems to be that Britain can pick and choose economic and social policy that suits her, but not suffer any adversity in its economic position with the EU; the reality is that by being outside our paths will diverge and we will trade less with the EU.

Without a doubt, over the course of about a decade Asian investment in UK manufacturing will dry up, and existing infrastructure moved to the continent if Britain leaves.

I've read a few comments (not just on BE) about 'desperate' statements/fear-mongering from both sides.

In the last couple of days I have read the Brexit side claiming Victoria Beckham as a supporter based on something she said about 20 years ago when she was a Spice Girl, and they illustrated the poster of her comment with an up to date picture suggesting it was a recent comment and today I read claims that ex footballer, John Barnes, is a supporter because he suggested leaving might be of some benefit to football/footballers (I touched on this somewhere previously) even though he actually considers the other issues outweight those of football and is in favour of staying in.

So, just wondering...has Remain wrongly claimed any 'celebrity' supporters?

Foreign Direct Investment is not the same as a Free Trade Agreement. As explained above the UK can leave the EU whilst remaining in the single market.

That's only partially true. The problem is that the UK doesn't wish for any further integration whereas France, Germany and most of the other Eurozone countries do. When the UK fails to influence EU policy what that means in practical terms is that we want to leave things as they are and the rest of the EU is steaming ahead with 'ever closer union'.

If we remained within the single market then there's no barrier to the UK doing as much trade with the EU as prevailing market forces dictate.

The repeated call from both the Leave and Remain camps is that the UK essentially wants a Free Trade agreement and not a political union. The Remain side say you can't have one without the other so we should stay, the Leave side now say that we don't need it and we'd be better off out of it and I'm saying you can have your cake and eat it providing you play your cards right. Whether HMG is up to it is another matter but the legislative framework already exists for it to do so. It just needs the political will and skill to make it happen.

I would suggest what we have right now, with the UK pound, non-Shengen, and the opt-outs are already having our cake and eating it too. Britain's position within the EU is about as good as it gets. Leaving will mean an evaporation of goodwill as it's really only been the threat of leaving that has enabled us to force these concessions in the first place.

I would disagree that the threat of Brexit is what gained us those opt-outs as that wasn't on the table before this referendum, rather it was the threat of the UK using its veto to supper Treaty changes, but if the EU were to remain static then I would agree with you regarding the good deal the UK currently has.

However given that the EU is firmly intent on ever further integration, the Eurozone crisis has now made this aspiration an inevitability if the Euro wishes to survive, something which the UK has been resisting ever since Maastricht was signed then I can only see our position becoming ever more untenable. Better to leave now and leave the EU to its federalisation whilst keeping hold of the only thing that made us join in the first place.

I heard they're going to ban pork pies if we stay in the EU. David Cameron said they're symbol of racist Britain.

All of these reasoned arguments are all very well and fill those column inches, but I received an email from a good friend who lives in the UK this morning.
quote.. 'I'll vote brexit just to rattle their cage'.
Not what you might call a responsible attitude, but I think one that will describe a sizable minority of those voting tomorrow.

Hard to predict ever further integration, it's not a forgone conclusion. There is certainly doubts being cast around Europe about the speed and depth of integration, and the UK referendum has opened a Pandora's Box regardless of outcome. The migration crisis is also a pan-European issue which will stall integration. In the worst case scenario contagion could break Europe apart, and then where would we be?