I have some sympathy with this, CGN, but take exception to the reasoning.
Put these two statements together: "A vote either way could be either disastrous to the country, beneficial or, perhaps most likely, likely to have very little effect to our future prosperity and security one way or another."
And "... it seems to me that the pragmatic decision is to stay as we are. A leap in the unknown with only a small chance that the decision will pay off seems a risky thing to do. A bit like putting your life savings on a horse in the Grand National."
The first statement says staying in the EU or getting out are both likely to have little effect on important matters; the second, however, paints the "out" scenario as being highly risky.
You can't have it both ways.
Maybe staying as we are makes sense if you believe in the "devil you know" argument; but really we do not know that much about our future in the EU and some think that carries its own risks.
I agree that there is no "truth out there" about leaving versus staying. I'm not convinced about the risk of a fragmented Europe; I'm inclined to believe the opposite - that there is a risk associated with the "ever-closer" philosophy that is built in to the EU as a concept.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 13:21
|
