In reply to ebdon:
For the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe. Forget economics and imigration, theses are small matters that no one can forsee the outcome of with enough surety to base a decision on, despite the politicos telling us we'll be better off in or better off out - no one knows.
What we do know is that in this century we'll reach peak oil, the gas outside of Russia will dry up, climate change will bring food shortages, water shortages and natural disasters and our grain stock piles will continue to shrink, the balance of power may continue to shift from the west to the east, the developing nations will start competing more and more for a diminishing amount of resources and technology will bring the risk of new and unforseen types of warfare. Does the UK want to stand alone with Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage at it's head or do we want to stay within the bounds of a union whose fundemental aim is peace? It shouldn't be a question about immigration or economics it should be a question about governance and whether in a turbulant world a union of countries in the name of peace is better than a fragmented group of countries fighting for their own aims amid the growing right wing nationalist movement that we've witnessed spreading through the west. The EU may still destroy itself but I'd rather we weren't the catalyst.
The only thing that will stop WWIII whether tomorrow or in a 100 years time is us and our choices. I'd have liked to see the remain campaign take a broader argumentative stance and argue for the merits of the EU as an institution worth fighting for not spending their time bickering over immigration, jobs and pensions with Nigel Farage but perhaps this is what people care about.
Post edited at 10:17
