Quite a few people attribute the EU to helping destabilise regions, such as Ukraine, or at least not being more active in stopping violence, so 'in spite of' is appropriate.
Oh, and guess what, there was peace without the EU naturally and the EU was a consequence of that peace, as SHG helpfully pointed out.
My comment was actually pointing out that it was the conflict that inspired the closer ties between the protagonists in the form of what has now become the EU. I'm not at all confident that we would have had the peace we've enjoyed in Europe if it had not been formed. I believe it has been a major factor in maintaining that peace.
In my view the present government have been the ones called out on Europe because of political and social and economic circumstances over the last few years, so they have been kind of dragged to the table regarding re-negotiating. I don't think what has brought the current governmental position about has been because of well considered and researched information. However. Whatever is motivating the present government, whether it is backbench pressure, the rise of UKIP, or some kind of honest conviction, I certainly agree with them (and that's a first) that a good productive re think of where we all stand is very necessary. Walking away would kind of be the easy part, but the heavy lifting of detailed yet swift re-negotiating needs to be done, and done in a positive frame of mind rather than in a belligerent one. Negotiating has to be done, and maybe there will simply be no understanding reached which would bring us to crunch time, and this is where I have a real problem, because it would have to be a potentially crushing situation for Britain to leave the EU, before I would agree it would be the right thing to do. If necessary Britain must get what ever realistic arrangements it can, agree by the wider community and practiced by all and stay in. Beyond that, any unilateral variations Britain makes can be contested through the courts, parked there for the longer term if you like, but ultimately it would be foolhardy in the extreme to leave the EU in my view. So yes to re-negotiation, and carry on, even if it means the marriage continues, but we sleep in different bedrooms in the same house. Push comes to shove we have to stay together for the sake of the kids, and be civilised about it.
I am from England and whilist I call myself English and British, I also call myself European. I have visited many European Countries and enjoyed the culture, the language, the food and beer, music and many European cities and I came to a conclusion that Europe is a wonderful continent.
Despite myself falling in love with Europe, I feel that the EU is slowly turning Europe into a disaster. We are all under the same European Law and policies by an un-elected EU and whilist we are European, each European country has different approaches. The UK has suffered from EU for many reasons and I also believe that all the European Countries have suffered as well, after speaking to many European people about the state of the EU.
Despite all the arguments with reasons why staying in the EU is vital, I doubt most of you realise what the EU ambition is?
Quite a few people attribute the EU to helping destabilise regions, such as Ukraine, or at least not being more active in stopping violence, so 'in spite of' is appropriate.
Oh, and guess what, there was peace without the EU naturally and the EU was a consequence of that peace, as SHG helpfully pointed out.
My comment was actually pointing out that it was the conflict that inspired the closer ties between the protagonists in the form of what has now become the EU. I'm not at all confident that we would have had the peace we've enjoyed in Europe if it had not been formed. I believe it has been a major factor in maintaining that peace.
I would have thought that Britain and France's independent nuclear deterrent has had more to do with peace in Europe over the past 70 years than the EU.
Hardly likely to see the German hordes pouring into Alsace/Lorraine with a few dozen war heads pointed at Berlin.
Can we also have a vote to get out of NATO, as apparently the EEC trade organization obviously secured peace?. All those missiles, spies, negotiations and troops on the East German border and to the north and south were completely redundant. Beyond parody.
Can we also have a vote to get out of NATO, as apparently the EEC trade organization obviously secured peace?. All those missiles, spies, negotiations and troops on the East German border and to the north and south were completely redundant. Beyond parody.
East Germany was not part of the European Union. Nor any of the other USSR satellites.
But you knew that but posted anyway because it suits your argument.
Can we also have a vote to get out of NATO, as apparently the EEC trade organization obviously secured peace?. All those missiles, spies, negotiations and troops on the East German border and to the north and south were completely redundant. Beyond parody.
East Germany was not part of the European Union. Nor any of the other USSR satellites.
But you knew that but posted anyway because it suits your argument.
That really wasn't what A-R-T-H-U-R was suggesting.
The fact is the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the related and following events had more hand in European peace than the EU has brought about. The EU is a continuation of cross-European cooperation, not the reason it exists in the first place. I know the EU puts this propaganda out there that it is the only thing standing between peace and war in Europe but I don't really expect grown men to actually believe this nonsense.
For me the issue goes right to the heart of what is wrong with us as a country. We have too many little Britishers who have this longing to go back to a past that no longer exists in today's global system. I have a longing to return to this too if I am honest, but am realistic to know it is impossible.
To compete in the global economy, we need the strength that Europe gives us. It allows us access to European markets which attracts business. The people who want to leave say, well we will lose markets, but will just find new ones. I say, find them now and leave Europe when you have found them!
The other problem doesn't reflect well on Europe but has to be considered. UKIP kept going on about remaining friendly trading partners with Europe in the last election. This was an admission how important trade with Europe is to this country, but do they honestly believe that Europe would allow that? To ensure that no other member states leave, they would do their best to bugger us up. With Greece, Europe would like to bail them out for the stability it would bring, but if they bail them out, they would have to bail other countries out in future. Europe would make an example of us make no mistake.
It would be an error of epic proportions if we left, but we won't. Most of the British people are not the brightest and are too easily influenced by the press, but the press, and a large part of the conservative and labour parties will be fully behind staying in Europe which will win the day convincingly. It is really a stupid vote to have. It only destabilises and was done to appease the right in the Tory party. All this linking it with getting an improved deal was stupid too. We should be trying to do this in the background, but not announce it as any deal Cameron gets will not be enough for the anti EU ers.
I also keep hearing about the disastrous consequences but little content of what they actually are, so I'd be keen to learn.
Same question for me, but flipped.
What would be the negative consequences of staying in the EU, and what are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK in the last two or three years?
There are hundreds of those! Literally hundreds... The worst most recent one in my head is the European commission has recently proposed (for a second time, it was thrown out a couple years ago) That they should have the power to set a country's budget! This is a farce! That an unelected body who's own accounts haven't been signed off in 18 years want to control a sovereign states budget!
The line about the European Commission accounts is often trotted out. But the Commission itself says it is false and explains why: "The European Court of Auditors gave a clean bill of health on our 2013 accounting books, for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for."
So what's wrong with the accounts then? Well, there's an error rate. Again the Commission helps us understand this. "When it comes to payments, the Court can confirm that the EU spending was in line with the rules only when the error rate is less than 2%. The Commission is working to move closer to this 2% threshold. In the past years the Commission managed to keep the error rate under 5%. In other words, out of every 100 euro spent by the EU, at least 95 euro was free from error. While this is not enough to get the Court of Auditors' positive opinion, it does indicate the very high standard of management and control applied to taxpayers' money at EU level. It is worth noting that the errors in EU spending are usually administrative mistakes, which are not fraud. According to Commission´s estimations only 0.2% of annual spending may be affected by fraud."
But errors in 5% of spending is still very bad right? The thing is that the vast majority of the Commission's budget is spent under joint or shared management with individual countries. Most of the accounting errors happen with those countries not in the Commission. And, eventually, they get the money back.
In fact, if the same accountancy standards that the Commission has in place were applied to the UK budget, we would perhaps see that it might be prudent to let them look after our money rather than Whitehall. But don't take my word for it, Sir John Bourn, who was head of the UK’s National Audit Office, has told the UK Govt. that if the UK operated the same tough system as the Court of Auditors, the overall UK accounts would also need to be qualified.
To compete in the global economy, we need the strength that Europe gives us.
Do we? What 'strength' is that?
Who will stop selling us goods or buying our goods because we are no longer in Europe?
One thing I can guarantee, the rest of the World wouldn't think twice about stopping purchasing from the EU and purchase from the UK instead if we could offer quality and value over and above that EU product.
Can we also have a vote to get out of NATO, as apparently the EEC trade organization obviously secured peace?. All those missiles, spies, negotiations and troops on the East German border and to the north and south were completely redundant. Beyond parody.
East Germany was not part of the European Union. Nor any of the other USSR satellites.
But you knew that but posted anyway because it suits your argument.
Eh? Suits what argument? Very strange post.
Just to make it clear, IMO peace in Europe was made possible not by a fledgling trade organisation but by a military Union. The EU has put flesh on the body of peace but it was NATO that formed the spine and the skeleton.
FWIW I think we should stay in the EU but with greater veto powers over pan European laws that don't suit our particular circumstances. It's good to raise standards especially for new entrants, but a one rule fits all system needs greater flexibility.
I don't think leaving would make much difference except we would need an army of civil servants negotiating individual deals with the EU.
How many UK citizens working in EU / EU citizens working in UK? How many EU lorries on UK roads / How many UK lorries on EU roads? Emergency treatment for EU citizens in UK / Emergency treatment for UK citizens in EU? Extradition treaties... Reclaiming VAT... .... ....
Lots and lots of nice work lawyers and we'll end up with more or less what we have now!
I realise that the effect of the EU expansion on new members only matters to a minority of British people, sadly, nevertheless i'd like to try and paint a picture of what it has done in the Czech case, and how.
Not many people (including me until I got here) realise that alone of the ex communist EU members, Czechoslovakia before WW2 was an advanced industrial democracy. Chamberlain and Stalin did for that of course. In 1990 the Czechs simply yearned to return to their rightful place in Europe, yet who on earth among them could lead them on that path? It was relatively easy for companies like Unilever to come in and teach the brightest how to market Sunsilk, but building a modern democracy, that's a tad more difficult.
The EU accession process provided the templates, the financial and professional resources, and the entrance exam. It allowed the progressive elements to push through the establishment of the necessary structures, and have both a reference point and a pressure point - "if we don't do this, we won't complete the accession". Had that not existed, the smart Communists in their shiny new clothes would have been able to turn it into a pretend democracy, just as Putin has done now in Russia. Furthermore, these structures enable the citizens to more effectively resist the insidious influence that Putin's Russia is now exerting on countries like this that he thinks should never have been lost to Russia.
The process was not perfect, nor do I pretend that every Czech sees it this way (but most of those around me do), but that is how it has worked. It has worked well in Poland and the Baltics too, less well in the south. But in all cases we should be glad that EU accession makes it more difficult for Putin to infiltrate these countries, because make no mistake, he is active. It's a pity in my opinion that we didn't offer Russia a European future in the early 90s, then we might all have avoided Putin. The vision of the 1950's politicians was generally lacking in the 1990s.
And at a more prosaic level, the likes of Tesco, Marks&Spencer, Next, Unilever, Costa Coffee, and more controversially BaE, are able to do business here safely and effectively and repatriate profits to the UK.
I don't think leaving would make much difference except we would need an army of civil servants negotiating individual deals with the EU.
How many UK citizens working in EU / EU citizens working in UK? How many EU lorries on UK roads / How many UK lorries on EU roads? Emergency treatment for EU citizens in UK / Emergency treatment for UK citizens in EU? Extradition treaties... Reclaiming VAT... .... ....
Lots and lots of nice work lawyers and we'll end up with more or less what we have now!
Re question two - I don't know the answer! But I do know that Eddie Stobart makes a delivery somewhere in Europe every 20 seconds of every day.
To compete in the global economy, we need the strength that Europe gives us.
Do we? What 'strength' is that?
Who will stop selling us goods or buying our goods because we are no longer in Europe?
One thing I can guarantee, the rest of the World wouldn't think twice about stopping purchasing from the EU and purchase from the UK instead if we could offer quality and value over and above that EU product.
Exactly. This is a quote we get all the time without any attempt to back it up. There must be many reasons for the UK being unable to compete without "the strength that Europe gives us", I honestly can't recount any.
I would seriously like to hear reasoned arguments for this view.
I think it is a throw back to the arguments for joining the EEC when protectionism and import tariffs was the way of the World.
Post war, the UK had little investment capacity, few resources to develop production so little prospect for growth at the rate being enjoyed by the US and the 6 countries in the EEC. These two trading blocks accounted for 90% of industrial trade. We had no prospects of keeping up with the World unless we became part of a major trading block and the EEC was the only option.
Our tariffs came down by a fifth on entry to the EEC, so boosting trade. Our Commonwealth partners enjoyed some relief from the new tariffs that now applied under the EEC rules, but they were still worse off, but they simply found new markets, just like we would if our European trade suffered on withdrawing from the EU.
If anyone is suggesting that the arguments still apply that made our membership of the EU so critical nearly sixty years ago, I would beg to differ. The EU is a diminishing trading block relative to China, Asia, South America and the US. We no longer need protectionist muscle to impose and negotiate reciprocal trade barriers, trade is now done on the basis of commercial and mutual interests, not the capacity it has to harm a counties economy through trade tariffs. The EU always was, and is, a political ideal, it is inward not outward looking and the trading union is merely a prelude to the political union.
The EU debate in my mind has little to do with trade issues, we will survive economically in or out of the EU, it will just be different, that is a side issue that unfortunately will occupy 90% of the debate. The real issue is about politics and who is accountable for actions affecting the day to day lives of citizens of the UK.
The EU debate in my mind has little to do with trade issues, we will survive economically in or out of the EU, it will just be different, that is a side issue that unfortunately will occupy 90% of the debate. The real issue is about politics and who is accountable for actions affecting the day to day lives of citizens of the UK.
For you maybe, not so sure that will be that case when the campaign debates gets going.
Just as the vote in Scotland moved from independence/loyalty to economics/north sea oil/jobs and pensions pretty quick. And we know that in that case people voted for the status quo.
The EU debate in my mind has little to do with trade issues, we will survive economically in or out of the EU, it will just be different, that is a side issue that unfortunately will occupy 90% of the debate. The real issue is about politics and who is accountable for actions affecting the day to day lives of citizens of the UK.
For you maybe, not so sure that will be that case when the campaign debates gets going.
Just as the vote in Scotland moved from independence/loyalty to economics/north sea oil/jobs and pensions pretty quick. And we know that in that case people voted for the status quo.
A case of, Whatever you want, for the people then?
EU / EC - Whichever one you chose, a bit of a contradiction in terms really. There's no community-wide military or fiscal (VAT/income tax/corporate tax) protocol. It's each to their own. Instead we are bound by trade, farming and fishing agreements that aren't particularly favourable.
The EU debate in my mind has little to do with trade issues, we will survive economically in or out of the EU, it will just be different, that is a side issue that unfortunately will occupy 90% of the debate. The real issue is about politics and who is accountable for actions affecting the day to day lives of citizens of the UK.
For you maybe, not so sure that will be that case when the campaign debates gets going.
Just as the vote in Scotland moved from independence/loyalty to economics/north sea oil/jobs and pensions pretty quick. And we know that in that case people voted for the status quo.
I think there were far more tangible figures to quantify potential losses for the Scots if they went it alone compared to the SNP pie in the sky profits based on speculative oil revenues.
I agree though, like in Scotland the debate will be on hypothetical figures, unprovable predictions and negative campaigning. I don't think that there will be as much weight able to be put on the potential dangers of the UK exiting the EU as Scotland exiting the UK, to create a similar fear factor.
So it is possible that the hypothetical losses claimed by one side for exiting the EU are neutralised by the equally hypothetical potential savings claimed by the other side, leaving the public confused and leaving UKIP's "sovereignty" card as the status quo to be protected. Not saying anyone necessarily understands what "sovereignty" means, but it will have an emotional pull, particularly on the older generation, if the economic arguments on either side have insufficient gravitas.
Not related to anything specific you've said, but as somebody whom I perceive to be pro-business in political orientation:
A clear majority of business leaders (but not all, I concede) want to stay in the EU. Many of them are rarely otherwise heard on political issues. Even if you would characterise their position as 'self-interest" why would their self interest not coincide on this occasion with the economic interests of the country? Why would you ignore them on this, when, as far as i understood your comments on the GE thread, you very much took them into account when casting your vote this last month?
Comments
I don't think what has brought the current governmental position about has been because of well considered and researched information.
However.
Whatever is motivating the present government, whether it is backbench pressure, the rise of UKIP, or some kind of honest conviction, I certainly agree with them (and that's a first) that a good productive re think of where we all stand is very necessary. Walking away would kind of be the easy part, but the heavy lifting of detailed yet swift re-negotiating needs to be done, and done in a positive frame of mind rather than in a belligerent one.
Negotiating has to be done, and maybe there will simply be no understanding reached which would bring us to crunch time, and this is where I have a real problem, because it would have to be a potentially crushing situation for Britain to leave the EU, before I would agree it would be the right thing to do.
If necessary Britain must get what ever realistic arrangements it can, agree by the wider community and practiced by all and stay in.
Beyond that, any unilateral variations Britain makes can be contested through the courts, parked there for the longer term if you like, but ultimately it would be foolhardy in the extreme to leave the EU in my view.
So yes to re-negotiation, and carry on, even if it means the marriage continues, but we sleep in different bedrooms in the same house. Push comes to shove we have to stay together for the sake of the kids, and be civilised about it.
Despite myself falling in love with Europe, I feel that the EU is slowly turning Europe into a disaster. We are all under the same European Law and policies by an un-elected EU and whilist we are European, each European country has different approaches. The UK has suffered from EU for many reasons and I also believe that all the European Countries have suffered as well, after speaking to many European people about the state of the EU.
Despite all the arguments with reasons why staying in the EU is vital, I doubt most of you realise what the EU ambition is?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html
Yeh why not, where else have we got to go?
Hardly likely to see the German hordes pouring into Alsace/Lorraine with a few dozen war heads pointed at Berlin.
Beyond parody.
Blimey they just be terrified about being outside the EU
But, obviously, the EU isn't the only factor in making decisions like these and the reality is much more nuanced.
But you knew that but posted anyway because it suits your argument.
The fact is the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the related and following events had more hand in European peace than the EU has brought about. The EU is a continuation of cross-European cooperation, not the reason it exists in the first place. I know the EU puts this propaganda out there that it is the only thing standing between peace and war in Europe but I don't really expect grown men to actually believe this nonsense.
To compete in the global economy, we need the strength that Europe gives us. It allows us access to European markets which attracts business. The people who want to leave say, well we will lose markets, but will just find new ones. I say, find them now and leave Europe when you have found them!
The other problem doesn't reflect well on Europe but has to be considered. UKIP kept going on about remaining friendly trading partners with Europe in the last election. This was an admission how important trade with Europe is to this country, but do they honestly believe that Europe would allow that? To ensure that no other member states leave, they would do their best to bugger us up. With Greece, Europe would like to bail them out for the stability it would bring, but if they bail them out, they would have to bail other countries out in future. Europe would make an example of us make no mistake.
It would be an error of epic proportions if we left, but we won't. Most of the British people are not the brightest and are too easily influenced by the press, but the press, and a large part of the conservative and labour parties will be fully behind staying in Europe which will win the day convincingly. It is really a stupid vote to have. It only destabilises and was done to appease the right in the Tory party. All this linking it with getting an improved deal was stupid too. We should be trying to do this in the background, but not announce it as any deal Cameron gets will not be enough for the anti EU ers.
"The European Court of Auditors gave a clean bill of health on our 2013 accounting books, for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for."
So what's wrong with the accounts then? Well, there's an error rate. Again the Commission helps us understand this.
"When it comes to payments, the Court can confirm that the EU spending was in line with the rules only when the error rate is less than 2%. The Commission is working to move closer to this 2% threshold. In the past years the Commission managed to keep the error rate under 5%. In other words, out of every 100 euro spent by the EU, at least 95 euro was free from error. While this is not enough to get the Court of Auditors' positive opinion, it does indicate the very high standard of management and control applied to taxpayers' money at EU level. It is worth noting that the errors in EU spending are usually administrative mistakes, which are not fraud. According to Commission´s estimations only 0.2% of annual spending may be affected by fraud."
But errors in 5% of spending is still very bad right? The thing is that the vast majority of the Commission's budget is spent under joint or shared management with individual countries. Most of the accounting errors happen with those countries not in the Commission. And, eventually, they get the money back.
In fact, if the same accountancy standards that the Commission has in place were applied to the UK budget, we would perhaps see that it might be prudent to let them look after our money rather than Whitehall. But don't take my word for it, Sir John Bourn, who was head of the UK’s National Audit Office, has told the UK Govt. that if the UK operated the same tough system as the Court of Auditors, the overall UK accounts would also need to be qualified.
Who will stop selling us goods or buying our goods because we are no longer in Europe?
One thing I can guarantee, the rest of the World wouldn't think twice about stopping purchasing from the EU and purchase from the UK instead if we could offer quality and value over and above that EU product.
Just to make it clear, IMO peace in Europe was made possible not by a fledgling trade organisation but by a military Union. The EU has put flesh on the body of peace but it was NATO that formed the spine and the skeleton.
FWIW I think we should stay in the EU but with greater veto powers over pan European laws that don't suit our particular circumstances. It's good to raise standards especially for new entrants, but a one rule fits all system needs greater flexibility.
How many UK citizens working in EU / EU citizens working in UK?
How many EU lorries on UK roads / How many UK lorries on EU roads?
Emergency treatment for EU citizens in UK / Emergency treatment for UK citizens in EU?
Extradition treaties...
Reclaiming VAT...
....
....
Lots and lots of nice work lawyers and we'll end up with more or less what we have now!
Not many people (including me until I got here) realise that alone of the ex communist EU members, Czechoslovakia before WW2 was an advanced industrial democracy. Chamberlain and Stalin did for that of course. In 1990 the Czechs simply yearned to return to their rightful place in Europe, yet who on earth among them could lead them on that path? It was relatively easy for companies like Unilever to come in and teach the brightest how to market Sunsilk, but building a modern democracy, that's a tad more difficult.
The EU accession process provided the templates, the financial and professional resources, and the entrance exam. It allowed the progressive elements to push through the establishment of the necessary structures, and have both a reference point and a pressure point - "if we don't do this, we won't complete the accession". Had that not existed, the smart Communists in their shiny new clothes would have been able to turn it into a pretend democracy, just as Putin has done now in Russia. Furthermore, these structures enable the citizens to more effectively resist the insidious influence that Putin's Russia is now exerting on countries like this that he thinks should never have been lost to Russia.
The process was not perfect, nor do I pretend that every Czech sees it this way (but most of those around me do), but that is how it has worked. It has worked well in Poland and the Baltics too, less well in the south. But in all cases we should be glad that EU accession makes it more difficult for Putin to infiltrate these countries, because make no mistake, he is active. It's a pity in my opinion that we didn't offer Russia a European future in the early 90s, then we might all have avoided Putin. The vision of the 1950's politicians was generally lacking in the 1990s.
And at a more prosaic level, the likes of Tesco, Marks&Spencer, Next, Unilever, Costa Coffee, and more controversially BaE, are able to do business here safely and effectively and repatriate profits to the UK.
I would seriously like to hear reasoned arguments for this view.
I think it is a throw back to the arguments for joining the EEC when protectionism and import tariffs was the way of the World.
Post war, the UK had little investment capacity, few resources to develop production so little prospect for growth at the rate being enjoyed by the US and the 6 countries in the EEC. These two trading blocks accounted for 90% of industrial trade. We had no prospects of keeping up with the World unless we became part of a major trading block and the EEC was the only option.
Our tariffs came down by a fifth on entry to the EEC, so boosting trade. Our Commonwealth partners enjoyed some relief from the new tariffs that now applied under the EEC rules, but they were still worse off, but they simply found new markets, just like we would if our European trade suffered on withdrawing from the EU.
If anyone is suggesting that the arguments still apply that made our membership of the EU so critical nearly sixty years ago, I would beg to differ. The EU is a diminishing trading block relative to China, Asia, South America and the US. We no longer need protectionist muscle to impose and negotiate reciprocal trade barriers, trade is now done on the basis of commercial and mutual interests, not the capacity it has to harm a counties economy through trade tariffs. The EU always was, and is, a political ideal, it is inward not outward looking and the trading union is merely a prelude to the political union.
The EU debate in my mind has little to do with trade issues, we will survive economically in or out of the EU, it will just be different, that is a side issue that unfortunately will occupy 90% of the debate. The real issue is about politics and who is accountable for actions affecting the day to day lives of citizens of the UK.
Just as the vote in Scotland moved from independence/loyalty to economics/north sea oil/jobs and pensions pretty quick. And we know that in that case people voted for the status quo.
I agree though, like in Scotland the debate will be on hypothetical figures, unprovable predictions and negative campaigning. I don't think that there will be as much weight able to be put on the potential dangers of the UK exiting the EU as Scotland exiting the UK, to create a similar fear factor.
So it is possible that the hypothetical losses claimed by one side for exiting the EU are neutralised by the equally hypothetical potential savings claimed by the other side, leaving the public confused and leaving UKIP's "sovereignty" card as the status quo to be protected. Not saying anyone necessarily understands what "sovereignty" means, but it will have an emotional pull, particularly on the older generation, if the economic arguments on either side have insufficient gravitas.
Not related to anything specific you've said, but as somebody whom I perceive to be pro-business in political orientation:
A clear majority of business leaders (but not all, I concede) want to stay in the EU. Many of them are rarely otherwise heard on political issues. Even if you would characterise their position as 'self-interest" why would their self interest not coincide on this occasion with the economic interests of the country? Why would you ignore them on this, when, as far as i understood your comments on the GE thread, you very much took them into account when casting your vote this last month?