Mark, now we have one of the worst responses I’ve read to one of the worst analyses you’ve read — what a team we make.
Ordinarily I’d have just thanked you for taking all that time to leave such a very long and detailed response, but seeing as you went wrong before you’d even got to the end of your opening sentence, I’m going to have to set you straight.
What I wrote was not the kind of analysis you have responded to. Your response, in fact, bears little resemblance to the main points within my post or the reasons cited for the post’s existence; I don’t know what you’ve responded to but it doesn’t feel like it was anything I wrote.
I state that I’m writing about my views and opinions, and that I’m responding to some of the reasons people cite for voting Leave I encounter most frequently. It’s not really an analysis. More of an essay.
You write: “The simple matter is that the EU is primarily an import/export duty free zone for members…”
First, it’s not a simple matter and to describe it as such is unhelpful. Second, no the EU is not primarily what you describe. Go read the 2008 treaty (or a summary of it). You’ll find the creation of the internal market is described as a means to improving social progress and establishing full employment.
Beyond that you make some interesting points about GDP and so on. I haven’t yet encountered anyone making those points as forcefully as you, which is why none of that appears in my original post, which — as I’m sure you recall — is described, by me, thus: “I’m going to write about some of the main objections to being in the EU that I hear from people, in real life and via the media.”
I really don’t mind people disagreeing with me. But if you’re going to do so, please criticise what I’ve said, not what I haven’t.