>> Two way street there, Manatee.
Unintended, I thought I had been abrupt or unappreciative earlier. Misunderstanding is easy of course.
>>
>> Notwithstanding, I'd be interested to hear your response to the point I was trying to
>> make in relation to the thread title. Are you still holding out for some facts,
>> or will you decide to abstain, or make your mind up based on your feelings
>> about which is the best answer to the referendum question?
My default position is no change to our direction of travel, i.e. in. In the same way as 'not in' was the perceived default in 1975. I voted for a change then.
I think that the opportunity to change now merits proper consideration. I am using the time between now and 23rd June to decide whether to vote for change again.
I don't think, as I might have caused you to infer, that anybody can spreadsheet his or her way to the right answer. It is very much about feelings, trust, and the fundamental question of whether we want to continue with (increasingly) shared sovereignty and customs-free trade arrangements with 27 (and in due course more) countries with differing priorities, or whether we should take back what we have ceded, lose some of the undoubted benefits, and try - hope - to balance that with the potentially more tailored relationships that Britain could develop with the rest of the world.
Cameron has supposedly got an agreement that Britain will not be forced into "ever closer union". I don't think enough attention has been paid to what this means. Once you go beyond the customs-free movements of goods and cross border services, it becomes difficult - starting of course with completely free movement of people and its consequences - not to become 'more closely united'.
The idea that Britain can be a half member doesn't work for me (and apparently not for e.g. Norway, either), so the choice is between leaving, and, ultimately, full political union at the highest level. Anybody who really hates the idea of that should probably vote leave.
Cameron (and others) know very well that a choice presented in those terms would have only one result. So we have the fudge.
It is true that Britain will always have the nuclear option of leaving even if we stay in now, and the almost complete removal of lesser opt-outs is designed to strengthen the glue of political union. This is sensible, from the point of view of making the relationship work - a bit like marriage vows, sensible people will work quite hard to avoid the pain and cost of divorce. What we are being sold is a half-marriage, when no such thing exists.
For what it's worth, I think either direction could succeed - as with many decisions, including I suppose divorce which I have never tried, happiness depends on what you do afterwards.
As to facts - well, no, I am not holding out or seriously expecting any now. My frustration in that area is that the ragbag of opinions, half-truths, and lies from both sides is presented as such, when it clearly isn't.
|
