Decision by Referendum = worst deal for everyone

Q. How can you tell a politician is lying?

A. His lips are moving!

Never a truer word spoken in jest. Both campaigns accused each other of lying with remain being called Project Fear and Leave called Project Hope by its supporters can be seen to be Project Hopeless Optimism at best and more truthfully Project Lies.

The extent of how much Project Fear over-egged the pudding is still to be determined as the markets are falling even now and companies are making real plans to relocate staff. Third party commentators in other countries are still projecting recession and massive job losses as a result of dislocation of capital. Hope currently seems the only defence against the recklessness of Project Lies and no-one wants the worst case scenarios to come true.

However Leave has already show itself to be a pack of whoppers with all the major planks of Leave now exposed to be not even believed by the Leave team themselves.

Money for the NHS- both IDS and Farage have recanted that they ever said that. They only said we could. However that clearly was the message on the bus and the woeful Leave NHS TV advert. Lie number 1.

Immigration - Dan Hannam, IDS and Fox have stated that their preference would be for UK to join EEA which was widely acknowledged to be the worst option for the UK, i.e. the so called Norway option.

 It would mean 

1. Access to the single market for goods but not services and services at 80% of UK economy

2. Accepting free movement of labour (however not citizens) - A bit of a moot point as most people coming to this country from the EU and EEA have jobs and/or contracts then we could still not turn them away. So not appreciable control or cut in numbers. See Dan Hannam on Newsnight with Evan Davies unbelievable reaction if you do not believe me. So no Australian style points system and only hair splitting on any real control. So all those who voted thinking they were reducing immigration this is not going to happen if they stay in the EEA.

3. Continued contributions to the EU so Brexit dividend will be much lower than even the accepted figure of 160 million a week.

4. No say in EU rules so not even sovereignty is reclaimed as EEA members accept EU directives but only have observer status in forming them.

Economy - While they would not be drawn on guaranteeing no loss of jobs its clear that many manufacturers and service providers are making plans for their own Brexit. The longer the uncertainty goes on harder this will be to reverse. Additionally we are already seeing slow downs in inward investment and construction.

Break up of UK - dismissed as unlikely by Project Lie has a real chance of not only including Scotland but also Northern Ireland. While not the biggest fan of Nicola Krankie it is true that she seems to be the only politician with a plan at present.

The unintended consequences have been the effective short term (hopefully) disintegration of both main parties at a time when leadership is required.  

Additionally the rise of racism and the far right has been fanned by the result. The only people really clapping here are the right wing nutters and ideologues.

Personally I think do not think the result of the referendum is legitimate as Project Lies stole votes through their deception. While they are calling Remain supporters bad losers they themselves were preparing to carry on the fight in the event of a Remain vote including potential legal challenges to extending the registration process and the petition to parliament that has ironically been hijacked by the Remain supporters, so it is just hypocrisy to try and claim the high ground here.

This is the UK democracy's hanging chad moment  and it is hard to know how to fix it.

Proceeding on the current course with a deeply divided country and with the likelihood we get the worst of all worlds will just leave everyone dissatisfied. A policy which damages our economy, relinquishes our EU citizenship, but leaves us having to follow their rules, accept unlimited free movement and deny access for our financial services industry would be an unmitigated disaster for both sides.

A second referendum may reverse the result but only by a similar margin I feel and though I initially supported it would probably only result in a call by the Project Lies supporters for another one.

A higher threshold and some requirement to publish a coherent plan for Leave would  however tend to legitimise the result if they won it again.

The other alternative which is being seriously considered by Boris is not to trigger article 50, renegotiate the treaty again and see if you can get a better deal and then rerun the referendum. Again without consequences how do you stop the lies.

I honestly feel the only way for the country to heal is to put aside the referendum result and call a general election. Let each party decide where they stand and have them put together a full manifesto with  regard to their position on Remain or Leave and allow the public to vote on accountable plans not pie-in-the-sky theories.  I would also lower the voting age to 17 to allow the most affected by Leave to have their say. There is a fair chance we would end up with a coalition government of sorts which would be the closest thing to a national unity government. Which ever side one they would then have a clear mandate on concrete plans and not distortions and lies.

We have already lost significant influence in the world with the exit of our EU commissioner on financial services who was leading the UK charge on financial market regulation in the EU.

Unless we address this now then England(as I do not believe their will be a UK) will face a likely call by the next generation who feel cheated by referendum, in say 10 years once the older generation has died out to rejoin the EU but on most likely much worst terms than now. I.e. Join both political and monetary union. 

Mr Gove on Question Time - my worries

I watched Michael Gove on question time last night and it really bothered me. I could not sleep for hours afterwards, as I tossed and turned.

What worries me most is that he seems to be an anti-EU zealot  and is prepared to do or say anything to make his point, whether he seems to really believe it or not.

The whole presentation was largely based on rhetoric and dogma rather than fact and he seemed to believe that repeating the same phrase of "Take back control", over and over again made it true.

It reminds me of the worst aspects of the Thatcher era, where large parts of British industry, public services, education and communities were sacrificed on the altar of monetarism, free markets, anti-labour and a post-industrialist view of Britain. Just think of  the car, steel and mining industries, the sale of the rail network and the destruction of vocational training in our secondary schools.

Many of those industries and more importantly the communities that depended on them never recovered or have only just recently recovered (in the case of the car industry).

It struck me during the presentation that while I thought the main advantage of leaving the EU would be control of immigration numbers, that actually they are unlikely to change in any meaningful or positive way, i.e. reducing the pressures on infrastructure, housing and wages.

It was also apparent to me, that we are too dependent on immigration and that our dependence can largely  be attributed to the lack of investment in training British technicians and trades people. That is why we seem to depend so heavily on say the Polish plumbers and other Eastern European builders, electricians and machinists etc.

Combine that with the current policy of auctioning off places at our best universities all over the world to the highest bidder, means that we are also not training and more importantly retaining the best people in science, design, and engineering.

Mr. Gove mentioned that James Dyson was a big supporter of Brexit. I have listened to James Dyson over the years as he is one of the few really home grown successes who fought hard to get the necessary funding and investment and was not generally supported by government or the banks while he was starting up.

While he has been quite vocal about the recent change in standards with regard to the maximum power for vacuum cleaners, he has been more vocal, both stronger and longer, about the fact that he cannot hire sufficiently qualified technical staff in this country. He wants to have restrictions lifted on visas so that he can hire qualified people from places like China and India.  He bemoans the fact that we do not retain qualified engineering and science graduates as they tend to either return to the region of origin or go to the States to work in startups. Who can blame them? If you are paying £100,000 plus for a degree why would you go to work at Dyson for say a salary of £35-40,000. The return on investment is just not sufficient.  He has often publicly contemplated moving aspects of his business overseas to address these human resource issues.

It also appears to me that there are similar issues around staffing of doctors, nurses and medical technicians in the NHS. Rather than patting ourselves on the back about how noble we are to offering opportunities to immigrants and foreign trained medical staff, we should be ashamed that we are not training sufficient staff in a sustainable way in Britain, and that we are effectively shifting the burden of training to countries that often can least afford it, and then poaching valuable resources like doctors and nurses, often from where they are needed most. Don't get me wrong, I am not against foreign doctors and nurses working here, the truth of the matter its a necessity and the NHS would fail if not for them.

However if we are truly, as Mr Gove reiterated repeatedly, are the 5th richest economy in the world why can't we invest in our own people as well.   Successive governments seem to treat skilled and highly trained staff as  commodity, that because of global trade and free movement, can be bought in the open market rather than invested in and developed locally.  Estimates are that successive governments have saved over £100 Billion since 2005 by importing skilled workers rather than developing local workers. For example, the government recently cut training bursaries and places for local trained nurses and therefore must intend to import them to meet demand.

The rise of the Internet of Things and disruptive technologies such as 3D printing means that we are on the threshold of a new industrial age. Given our current curriculum and lack of support for vocational and technical training, I believe means that we will be poorly placed to participate in it in a meaningful way.

No wonder wages are low and social mobility is at is lowest ebb in a generation.

Combine that with unlimited non skilled immigration, tax credits and minimum wage then again it is no surprise that wage growth is depressed. Market distortions such as tax credits and minimum wages should be temporary and in times of economic hardship; rather than creating a floor under workers to lift them out of poverty they have tended to cap wages at the minimum wage plus tax credits.

This arrangement has often worked to directly subsidise the profits of large companies such as coffee chains and sportswear retailers.  Companies that rely heavily on zero hours contracts at minimum wage and tax credits to employ workers and generate outsized returns should be surcharged to discourage the practise and pay a living wage. One ubiquitous coffee chain regularly returns over 35% on equity to the parent business but relies heavily on artificially low wages to do so.

If Mr Gove really believes in the British people as he says, he should put our money where his mouth is and invest in training and developing highly skilled and qualified workers. Only by providing credible alternatives can the country really control how many people they want in this country and without it, while the economy is performing,  we will need the same and possibly more people to come to this country, and will continue to condemn the local workforce to dead-end jobs and zero hour contracts.

The other real area of concern is the almost flippant approach to trading with the single market post Brexit. Mr Gove seems to believe that because of German car exports and French agriculture trading surpluses,  our fellow unionists will be tripping over themselves to give us a good deal. As far as I know there is no prescribed compensation either way in Article 50 and the it is all up for negotiation. What if the EU demanded a transition payment from the UK of say 3 years contribution, i.e. similar to a clean break divorce settlement? It could use that money to compensate EU firms that are impacted by Brexit, and more worryingly offer UK domiciled companies, that originally chose to locate here for access to the single market, bribes, in the form of grants and loans, to relocate within the single market, resulting in a  real loss of jobs.

Additionally, does Mr. Gove really expect me to trust him and the government on free trade when they have appeared to sacrifice the British steel industry again to free trade dogma and as an apparent  lure to try and entice Chinese investment into the UK? Where does he stand on TTIP? That was not clear but if toeing the government line, he would apparently be advocating the transfer of sovereignty from an open court at the ECJ to multi-national corporates in secret ISDS courts.

The irony is that if British manufacturing and industry is once again sacrificed by zealots on the altar of free markets and dogma, that many of our economic migrants will leave, but at what cost? Britain would risk a return to 1980s style mass unemployment, low direct inward investment; with any potential Brexit dividends quickly swallowed up in benefits and increased government borrowing costs.

So while I was open to Brexit because of the potential of border controls without the investment in our workforce then it would seem the numbers are unlikely to change materially at all. The concessions obtained by Mr Cameron may mitigate the excesses of the triple threat of migration, tax credits and minimum wage to wage growth, but without local investment in training and education are only alternative is to continue to import the skilled and qualified workers we need or relocate businesses to the areas where they are in abundance.

Part 2  The Case for Remain

Pros

• The Devil we know
• Loath it or really loath it then we know what we have. We can also try and reform it. Brexit is a real leap in the dark which the only reassurance from the Brexit side seem to be hopeless optimism and jingoism.  
• Yes we can trade with tariffs through WTO or directly with countries but never knowing exactly what you are buying either. Recall massive problems with Chinese baby food and dry walling in the US. 
• Quantifiable trade benefits for larger manufacturers
• Having a single market with one set of standards has helped electrical appliance, car and pharma companies and sped up access to the market for things like drugs as only one set of tests are necessary. 
• Quantifiable benefits for consumers
• Consumers can buy knowing that they are getting the same product Europe wide. 
• Both official and grey markets dramatically lowered prices on electrical goods and cars in particular. 
• That combined with cases in the ECJ and stronger anti-competion laws and enforcement has generally meant a good deal for consumers
• Real improvements in workers rights in all countries
• Part of the regulation in the single market is to harmonise workers entitlements. It stops larger manufacturers shopping between countries to get the lowest wage costs. 
• In the US new manufacturers either US or foreign are lobbied to set up in states that are "Right to Work" states which outlaw compulsory unionism and maximise employer's rights. 
• While a bit of a double edged sword as jobs have been lost to BRIC economies it has maintained and improved working standards here with regard paid leave particularly paid paternal and maternal leave. 
• A Britain desperate to conclude trade deals maybe tempted use flexibility on workers rights to attract investment.
• Real improvements in competition for consumers
• Having a large market has meant things such as grey markets to keep prices down
• Prior to single market car makers would tend not to offer a standard specification and charge a premium to UK car buyers
• Reduction in roaming charges, the halt to differential selling on things from cars to satellite TV. 
• Investigations in to multinationals from Microsoft, Intel, Google and Apple on market monopolies. 
• Real improvements in environmental laws and protections
• Do you recall UK beaches before the EU. Dirty and unfit for human use. 
• Removal of unhealthy food additives and colourants
• Ban on GMO foods and excessive use of antibiotics
• I do not recall huge BSE issues or foot and mouth issues in Europe. They have protected our food
• Human rights clauses for access to the market
• Removal of death penalties acknowledgement of standards in treatment of the press and dissidents has distinguished the EU from its neighbours and peers
• Contributed to a massive improvement in human rights in Turkey prior to the rise of Erodgan. Since then Turkey has gone backwards and is unlikely to gain membership in my lifetime
• Peace and Stability for over 70 years in western Europe
• One of the founding aims of the original Coal and Steel board and an undoubted success. Wars between Western European powers had been raging for centuries prior.
• Less party political i.e. does not change every election cycle.
• Less party political. While Vote Leave wants more local control over spending and tempts us with the fact it could all go to the NHS, the fact is it would really depend on the party in power at the time. It could easily be used to fund tax cuts as fund social services. EU farm subsidies and grants are independent from our party political bun fights and tend to go where needed rather where the ruling party is likely to get more leverage.
• Stronger Collective bargaining
•  A real strong point and not to be underestimated. The EU is the largest single market and has over 500 million consumers and a lot of bargaining power. 
• For example open skies travel. Prior to the EU, American airlines were able to gain advantages in terms of access to EU airports by bargaining with each individual country in return for that countries limited access to the US market.  US airlines were able to fly all over Europe whereas European airlines typically had to fly to the nearest US airports and then passengers were required to transfer to US airlines to complete their journeys. The open-skies agreement redressed a lot of that imbalance but not all.
• Trade deals take a long time to negotiate largely because they do not want to concede too much
• Less impact if we hit recession? 
• Recession is due and may happen either way. However adding uncertainty particularly with regard to investment and potentially credit has to exacerbate the situation. Leavers like to point out that the EU held back the UK back from entering into trading arrangements like China, India and the rest of the BRICS. However as they like to point out the US does not need free trade to trade with China, and as far as I know there is no free trade agreement other the WTO protocols between the US and China so their argument is more than a bit specious.

Cons

• Immigration: Free movement combined with recession in peripheral Europe and accession countries and exacerbated by refugee/economic migrant crisis means unfettered immigration from the EU is possible. 
• Two speed Europe: core Euroland is marching ever quicker to complete integration and ignoring issues that effect the whole of the whole EU
• Ongoing crisis in peripheral states : Greece/Italy/Portugal/Spain contributing to migration
• Unaudited spending :  Budget not been audited for over 20 years. Most likely rife with corruption
• Sovereignty : as discussed before a bit of red herring see prior post. However increasingly EU is issuing regulations which the UK is forced to adopt without modification rather than directives which are implemented by local parliaments. This is because of either previous directives being ignored, not implemented or changed by governments to render a different intent. If you belong to a club, a club has rules and the rules should be the same for everyone so suck it up in my view. However that has meant that rules the UK would not have wanted to implement on bankers bonuses for example, they were forced to accept.

Red Herrings

• Turkey A complete red herring as currently Turkey are unlikely to be in a position to meet their obligations for the recent treaty on migrant exchange because of issues around treatment of their press and their anti-terror laws let alone complete the 20+ steps for consideration of EU membership
• Financial Armageddon : no likely to occur but if recession does occur it is likely to be worse
• Financial Transaction Tax: will not apply  in the UK but institutions using EU instruments will have to pay. This would occur whether in the EU or not so a red herring.
• Bailouts : most of the bailout money UK has provided is through the IMF and not the EU. As a member of the IMF, the UK has treaty obligations which it has not choice but to fulfil.
• TTIP: most of EU is pushing back on TTIP. Our own government is a large supporter and would probably accept a even more disadvantageous treaty with US if it went alone.

Questions

What protection do we get on further transfers of power to Europe?

How can we make it more accountable?

How can we reduce or control unwanted immigration?

Winners

• Manufacturers of cars, electrical, aerospace and pharma
• Financial service providers  particularly foreign banks (i.e. large employers)
• Agriculture

Losers

• Sky and some media outlets who do not like EU interference on competition
• Bankers bonuses (shame eh)
• Foreign agro/food business looking to introduce GMO and reduce foods standards
• Local communities who feel under siege from excess migration

Summary

The EU has definitely benefited the UK and helped revive its manufacturing industry from the dark days of Maggie's post industrial view of Britain. Britain has attracted and retained car makers with the benefit of the single market. However much of the growth in car exports has been to the BRIC economies, particularly at the luxury end e.g. Rolls Royce, Bentley, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Jaguar, McClaren.  Family car marker such as Nissan, Ford, Vauxhall rely on access to the single market.

Undoubtably the EU has had a positive effect on most peoples lives (except perhaps fishermen), but you do get a sense that most people feel this is largely in the past and there is a bit of "what have you done for me lately?" mentality.  There is a sense for non-Euroland EU countries that important issues are being pushed to the back of the queue because of the rush to complete Euro integration.

The single market undoubtable is an attractive proposition for most foreign investors looking to invest in jobs and business in the UK: a stable and secure environment with access to over 500 million consumers.  Further development of the single market could further improve that by completing a market in services with standardisation of contract rights for example. However the concerns over the priorities of the Euro region mean that they may take a lower priority.

Its is also clear that the EU is out of touch with the general populace, not only in the UK but EU wide, particularly on the issue of migrants from outside the EU. 

It also seems that unless there is a change of heart in the EU, unbalanced migration of people  will continue to occur much to the distress of local communities, as they feel alienated  and overwhelmed by foreign culture and that housing  and access to services becomes more difficult. 

Again in summary it seems to me that we are better by economically and with a higher standards of for health, food and living by being in the EU, but we cannot control the numbers of internal EU migration.

So immigration vs economics and standards is remains the  crucial question.

I don't know about you but I am quite confused on the EU-referendum as both sides seem to be stretching the truth and not being straight about the life post referendum. There is a lot of conflation around different parts of our life whether they can be attributed to the EU or not. To be clear I am currently an in but only just. Probably to about the same amount as the current polls, say 55-45 in versus out but part of that is a big don't know. It also clear that our lives and the economy are too complicated for it to be clear that one change like this would make them better or worse. Some may do better, so may do worse.

Thought I would try and do as unbiased as possible pros and cons to help me decide. These are my current thoughts as dispassionately as I can be. I am open to constructive criticism and reasoned argument and persuasion. Trolls,  and mindless acolytes toeing a particular line and internet thugs need not bother to comment as it will be deleted.


Part 1 Leaving
Pros
(as represented by Leavers and augmented where possible)

• Border controls could stem immigration of largely unskilled Europeans on minimum wage and currently entitled to tax credits and child benefits - definitely a plus for those areas inundated by immigration
• Reduction in unwanted regulation particularly in banking where bonuses are capped currently at 1x salary unless voted on by shareholders and then max 2x salary. No comment on whether this is a good or bad thing but it is definetly on the minds of UK banking executives.
• Sovereignty issues on accepting directives and regulations and EHCJ & R rulings - could be a plus or a minus see Red Herrings below
• Trade agreements -with rest of world, could be a plus or a minus depending on the quality of such agreements (i.e. what we have to concede versus what we gain). Also Farage argument was confusing. EU outgrown its usefulness as tariff savings outweigh contributions but need to do deals with China/India/Russia/Brazil etc. It is clear that tariffs have come down since the EEC was created but that also protectionism is on the rise.
• Control of VAT issues - i.e. not be forced to be compliant with single market rules on VAT on certain products such as fuel.
• Recession - a severe recession combined with loss of benefits would see many immigrants leave the UK for pastures new. A pain for the locals who could not follow them but would also reduce pressure on services and get net migration down. So a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for most of the population. However would also give welfare and NHS reformers (i.e. IDS, Osbourne etc) more room to cut social programs.
• Wages - I do believe generally wages are suppressed by both Tax credits, minimum wage and immigration. These facilities all distort the market and have allowed large companies to profit from tax payers by importing workers and subsiding wages with tax credits. Do not get me wrong I believe that workers should be encouraged and supported where wages are low but conversely businesses that are making excess profits from low wages should be taxed higher. For example coffee shops: Costa returns around 35% to its owners Whitbread. While it is a good product a lot of the excess return can be attributed to minimum wage earners and some if not all maybe receiving working tax credits. Rather than punish the workforce, the companies exploiting these market distortions should be surcharged to discourage it.
• Saving Contributions - supposedly £350 million a week would not be available to be sent to EU. Other than that number is (a) gross  (distortion), see Red Herrings below.
• Democracy - See Red herrings below.

Cons

• Tariffs hard to get away from this. British manufacturing still only about 20% of economy and  largest sectors are cars, aerospace and pharma, all of which depend heavily on EU cooperation and single market rules currently and would most likely be hit by tarriffs and/or reduction in trade and/or relocation  of jobs. Leavers arguments about importing more than selling etc seemed based upon hope and jingoism rather than anything substantive
• Lack of access to single market this is particularly important for financial services for which there is an incomplete single market, but one of the biggest contributors to UK economy. UK is home to many foreign multinationals in banking, law and manufacturing who are here because they get access to the single market. Leaving that will reduce access and potential mean jobs are exported to single market countries. Its seems to me to be intractable that we would retain access to the single market and not have to accept free movement and contribute to the budget, a "Goldilocks" fairytale in my mind presented by the Leavers.
• Recession - not a certainty but risks would tend to increase because of  likely contraction in  trade, investment (at least in the short term) and migration of jobs
• Potentially higher government borrowing costs - Current analysis by rating agencies and investors would assume some level of EU support for UK debt. If there is a recession and borrowing increases then cost of borrowing is also likely to increase dramatically, either resulting in more cuts to services or higher taxes or both.
• Introduction of consumer tariffs - currently goods and services cannot be sold at different prices and governments cannot add more than VAT for European goods and services except for say "sin" goods bought remotely or in excess of reasonable personal consumption, i.e. cigarettes and alcohol. Upon leaving the EU the government could impose additional tariffs or sales taxes on imported goods particularly grey market goods from other countries, such as electronics, white goods and cars. Also services like mobile phones and satellite TV would not be subject to EU wide competition rules on roaming and differential charging so we would be at risk of seeing them reimposed.

Red Herrings - stuff i think is clouding the issue

• EU contribution - 
• Even without considering the supposed benefit of 10 pounds to 1 for contribution I think this is largely a wash to a loss rather than a benefit. 
• Loss of GDP through a likely recession at least for the first 2-5 years and the loss in tax revenue from migrants who leave would more than offset this, at least initially.
• Sovereignty Issues - 
• A lot of sovereignty issues are around Human Rights Act which is a UK bill and  could be reformed and not a EU requirement and arises from our membership of the Council of Europe. Ironically when it was introduced the Tories tabled an amendment to force UK courts to observe ECHR rulings rather than to just consider them as currently. 
• Many of the issues around the ECHR&J are that there are gaps in UK legislation which neither political party seems committed to fixing which means the judges have no existing legal framework to consider the judgement and often complain to parliament that they are not responsible for making laws. 
• Consequently because of the stalemate between parliament and the British judiciary, the EHR & J courts are making law in the UK by default as it is adopted case law. This could be fixed without considering membership to either CoE or EU. 
• The claim of large amounts of British law being made in the EU is made on the bogus basis of pages of law rather than bills considered or impact.
•  EU regulations which are directly implemented into law typically have long preambles and give the history of the regulation as opposed to local laws. 
• On the other hand, there has been an increase in regulations rather than directives, regulations are directly adopted as law without capacity for change by local parliament,where as directives are required to be drafted into law by the local parliament before becoming law.  This is largely because either governments had been too slow in adopting directives into law (particularly in southern Europe),  or had changed or diluted the effect locally deliberately creating loop holes etc. On of the biggest recent directives hated by many of the leavers is CRR 4, which is about banking regulation, as it imposes caps on bonuses and other behaviour issues and is not open to local interpretation. Consequently it is also quite large as it includes all local issues for each country specifically, so certain parts do not apply in the UK but are still present as it is adopted as a whole.
• Most of the other EU laws are regulations on the single market to do with competition or quality, safety etc which I believe we need to avoid a race to the bottom. 
• All treaties cede an amount of sovereignty, this includes NATO (2% military spending), WTO (arbitration courts), and one of the biggest is the WB/IMF which imposes unilateral contribution levels and if required to bailout a country can impose undemocratic constraints on social spending, taxes and debt (e.g. Greece).  T
• The proposed TTIP treaty supported by our government concedes a massive amount of sovereignty in secret through ISDS mechanisms, where secret courts can be forced to change laws, contract awards or pay compensation to foreign (read US) multinationals.
• Democracy issues - again a bit of conflation here. 
• We do not elect our civil servants. 
• Also hard  to claim the high ground here as we have a unelected head of state, and an unelected, unrepresentative upper house. 
• Additionally first past the post means that the government represents only about 32% of the electorate, and parties such as UKIP and Greens are massively under represented with respect to the popular vote.
• So having appointed presidents is not that much different to me than the Queen or the house of lords. 
• If democracy was such a worry then we should get our own house in order first. I think the best option would be to introduce PR for the House of Lords and give them real powers on bill introduction and review excluding those of the budget. 
• The infamous Parliament Act is now over 100 years old  in its various forms, and in its preamble promises that it is a temporary measure (like income tax) until democratic  reforms can be carried out. Its about time that that temporary measure was removed and the promised reforms carried out, rather than as the government recently tried to do and further reduce the House of Lords power.

Unanswered questions/worries

• What regulation would be rescinded: does this include workers rights and parental rights, quality, food safety and environmental regulation? I would be concerned if new trading agreements would be a race to the bottom and we would be forced to accept GMO foods for example, or meats heavily treated with antibiotics. Would there be any replacement?
• Time to negotiate and subsequent quality of free trade agreements: 
• Trade agreements are always a case of give and take. What would we have to take to obtain access or gain free trade to say the BRIC economies. 
• E.g. UK government could be considered guilty of sacrificing the steel industry to appease and try and win trade from China as it blocked tariffs on Chinese steel products since 2008. Is this the sort of behaviour we would see in trying to negotiate deals with the BRICs
• What safeguards do we have that there is not  a race to the bottom in terms of social costs to be competitive with those economies. 
• Growth in these regions is often stoked on the bonfire of low standards for worker safety, rights and welfare. 
• Additionally the current government is big supporter of TTIP and ISDS which enables large multinationals to get there way on things like contracts and regulation or be heavily compensated in secret for it. Australia recently accepted a similar treaty with the US and is regretting it. 
• Who has the experience to negotiate advantageous trade agreements for UK and how long is that going to take? 
• A huge task without any natural candidates as UK has not negotiated its own treaties for over 40 years. Not only will the UK need to normalise its trading with the 28 members of the single market, and the other 4 members of the EFTA, but the 85 other countries which it currently has trading relationships with through the EU and also consider new trading relationships with China, India, Brazil, Russia the Commonwealth etc.
• Further EU integration
• Held up as a fear by the leavers and not to be underestimated. A stronger commitment from the government would be enact in law that any further transfers of power to be subject to a plebiscite, preventing such work arounds as the Blair government did with the Lisbon Treaty. 
• Other cooperation issues 
• UK would need to gain separate access to WTO
• On Kyoto and other climate control agreements would UK accept previous positions or would it need to reaffirm?
• Other unity issues
• Would it trigger secession referenda from other regions? Maybe less of an issue now with oil at < $50 dollars a barrel but still a risk if and when oil recovers.
• Unintended consequences
• A migrant rush similar to when eastern states first acceded to EU in early 2000s is likely for the first two years unless some accommodation with EU can be reached on borders prior.

Gainers 

• UK banks not beholden to Brussels could return to sky high bonuses.
• Sky/Google/Microsoft would not have to worry so much about EU competition law
• Small businesses not trading with Europe could be free to ignore regulations and standards imposed by EU
• Business in general if workers rights are eroded
• Multinationals if we sign up to TTIP like trading arrangements

Losers

• Pharma, Car and Aerospace workers would likely lose out as manufacturing would either be reduced or jobs exported to single market countries
• Employees of large foreign banks who are passported into the EU from UK
• Likely reduction in supporting services also (i.e. accountants, lawyers) from big firms in particular

Summary

Currently when you remove the noise around the Red Herrings, Leave seems to be mainly about immigration, and leaving could certainly solve that issue in more than one way, by allowing stricter border controls/visas etc but also by potentially crashing the economy therefore reducing the appeal of the UK to immigrants. 

This is also where Remain are at their weakest as currently there is no easy answer to immigration with the freedom of movement enshrined in the EU treaties. Much of the attraction to low skilled workers could be removed with the Cameron reforms but there are risks around those being accepted.

The biggest worry is that Leave's economic plans seem hopelessly optimistic about the short to medium term economic consequences, the EU reaction and the scale of the task in negotiating trading relations, and when questioned on this seem to resort to old fashioned jingoism as their justification. Many of the Leave arguments are predicated by "I believe" or "I have faith", so could easily be nicknamed (B)leavers (all rights reserved for Justin Bieber and the Bliebers).

However I could get more comfortable with Leave if they could answer my worries and questions above.

Other issues around trade, democracy and sovereignty are less clear cut and successive UK governments are guilty of failing to protect our sovereignty by failing to implement laws and permitting the European courts to make case law by proxy,  failing to protect our trade and failing to improve our democracy. Don't get me wrong the EU in my mind needs serious reforms and redirections but our governments are far from perfect and only really accountable to their own electorate rather than the country as a whole.