I see that the majority opinion here is to 'remain', but it is an opinion, that while I respect it, I cannot share. I also cannot say I dislike the EU and have a bundle of hatred towards it, because it is not fair. What I do feel, is that the EU has worked to an extent, but now it is questionable if it works for the UK now, in the transition to 'ever closer union' which the British people have opposed - it is why in the European Elections, the British people mostly elected Eurosceptics (UKIP) or Euro-reformers (Conservatives) to represent us in the European Parliament (and yes! by 'us', I am a British voter)
I don't only have being British to my name, but also the fact that I am a law student and have studied European law - because of this, I don't see the EU as evil and should be broken up, as some may argue. However, I do believe that there is way too much power in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that is being overlooked. It is argued that the UK has control over its borders, and to an extent it is right, but! the ECJ has overruled us, to say a member of a non-EU state can come into the country without obtaining a residence permit, because they are related to a member of a EU state - where 'related' is interpreted widely.
Now, if I address Cameron's deal. Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament has said that he does not agree that the deal should be put into a Treaty. Now! the role of the ECJ is to uphold European Treaty law, and without the deal in a Treaty to rule the UK out of 'ever closer union', the ECJ still has the mandate to continue as it is doing now. Martin Schulz also said, that he could not guarantee that the deal will be met in full - why? because EU law does not happen, unless the Council of Ministers (so for a welfare issue, all welfare ministers from every Member State) and the European Parliament are in agreement. The President of the Socialist and Democratic Party of the European Parliament, have already expressed that they will oppose the effects of child benefit - which makes the 'deal' no different than a normal policy introduced by the European Commission
How does this cause problems? Well, the ECJ can overrule a 'deal', which they have done in the Denmark-EU deal and there is a document that highlights every time the ECJ has done this, and I can share by request, but it is how it is - and it is because of this fact, that the 'deal' hasn't been heralded as an argument for 'remain' anymore, except figures - which! I might add, include for the 'leave' camp, that money saved from a 'Brexit' could pay off the UK's national debt by 2030, which! if 'could' is 'would' is pretty good
Now, from reading your replies, there is concerns towards Free Movement and this is where we get to the crux of the matter. While there are those that want to leave the EU, there are those among that number that want to abandon the Free Movements entirely, which would have a BIG impact - which is the point the 'remain' camp are using to scare-monger the loss of jobs, etc...
BUT! the UK was a founding member of the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) that the UK can rejoin in a 'Brexit' and be able to sign upto the EEA Agreement (that EU members automatically sign up to) to allow the UK access to the Single Market to hold onto the Free Movements (and all the jobs that were threatened by the 'remain' camp XD), and gives UK citizens rights as EU citizens under Article 28 EEA - but yes, the UK would be out of the customs union (although in the EU Treaty, the UK will be treated the same throughout all EU States under the Common Customs Tariff)
What else is there you may ask? Cameron argued for a 7yr emergency brake provision on migration and was given a 4yr emergency brake which is subject to the European Council accepting it post-referendum BUT as a EFTA/EEA member, the emergency brake provision is already there, to allow members to take 'appropriate measures' when necessary under Articles 112-113 EEA - so we'd already have it XD
Finally, there is the Q of what 'real say' will the UK have? Well, what 'real say' does the UK have now, with the rate of outvoting in the European Council, but more importantly, how our elected MEP's (who represent twice as many citizens than other EU MEP's) have opposed measures that happen anyway. During 2009-2014, British MEPs voted against 576/1936 but 485/576 happened anyway
What 'real say' did the UK have over TTIP? The European Commission has admitted that the effect of TTIP will be 'prolonged and substantial' with significant job losses until the benefits come, in addition to the separate courts that allow EU countries to be sued if they affect the profit of businesses - a UK study, requested under the Freedom of Information Act, has found that TTIP has 'lots of risks and no benefit' for the UK - with a ? over how TTIP will affect the NHS
If the UK is out-voted, if the law is a Directive, then EU law acts just like a normal UK law (except if you don't do 'right', you get sued, even if discretion was given to the country in the first place XD for extra cost), while a EU Regulation is a must-follow-completely - this is where the 'laws imposed on us' come in
Now! under the EEA Art 99(1), while not a member of the EU, the European Commission 'shall' (means must in legal jargon) seek external experts for law-shaping when it comes to laws that affect EFTA/EEA states - so it is a utter fallacy, that a Brexit would mean laws will be imposed and we can do nothing about it. Full-Fact (an independent fact-checking charity) has exposed this, by saying how non-EU members have the right to refuse laws
Our current position: Full-Fact has confirmed that the EU is our biggest trading partner (which can continue to be under EFTA/EEA, which is a starting point without even considering what a UK-EU deal could be) BUT the share of exports with the EU are declining, while exports outside are rising - one avenue is Commonwealth trade - another is the Asia-Pacific Trade which exports 5x quicker than the EU
Conclusion/TLR - Voting 'leave' is not the end, that the UK need not be threatened with jobs, as the greater risk is the 'substantial and prolonged' effect of TTIP on the UK (with Obama suggesting the end of this year for its conclusion) than the so-called 'shock' from leaving the EU (which will be a 2yr process under Article 50 EU Treaty) - that as a EFTA/EEA member, we can retain access to the Single Market to maintain what the UK has now, guaranteed there will be no 'ever closer union' at all, and a greater ability to trade outside, with the EU remaining a trading partner, so that both the EU and UK benefit
It appears after answering others' comments, I have delved into the issues a bit more in depth to reinforce my comments, which is particularly stressed over and over again in my studies XD but! instead of c&p and having it all here, I'll just assimilate that knowledge into a clickable link for your perusal, where I have expanded on what is written above: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post64481175
Why I am 4 Brexit
|TSR's new app is coming! Sign up here to try it first >>||17-10-2016|