Workingman wrote:He made a good case and it is a tactic both sides should be looking closely at.
It's hard to make a positive case for the EU when the downsides of being in are stacking up really badly. We pay a lot to be in, the people who pay nothing but get a lot of what we pay want to tell us what to do and, in general, the entire deal stinks pretty badly.
Add to that the fact that the EU don't want our goods but want to sell us their shoddy overpriced stuff, forcing us to sell to the rest of the world and even the whole trade thing is not really benefitting us. Now we do more than 50% of our exporting to the rest of the world, especially the US and Asia, we could benefit more by leaving and having our own deals with those we trade more with. We could have been a part of the TPP just organised with the US, of whom many of the players are where we do our 50%+ trade with.
As these things go on, the "positive" case will get harder and harder to make. What do they have left? Rubbishing the leave case and making people scared. Pretty much what they did with the Scots.
Note that the Oil revenues that Scotland would have gained, by leaving, still tip the balance to positive compared to what they get "given" by Westminster today. Something the press never, ever, talk about. They just spend their time crowing about how much money Scotland would have "lost" if they had left. Completely forgetting that 90% of a 25% is still better than 10% of 100%.
Expect the IN campaign to do exactly the same with the EU. Hopefully the UK will be much more wary of that approach after the Scottish independence referendum.
Who knows.