An apolitical case for and against Brexit

An apolitical case for and against Brexit

The case for Brexit…

Retain full control over immigration. This enables the UK to determine its own appetite for migrants as well as its entry criteria and allows the UK to assess the impact of immigration on UK jobs, public spending, infrastructure and UK culture. Some level of immigration can be positive and ideally this would be selective rather than unrestricted.
Retain full control over national policies and laws. While there is much debate about the extent to which EU laws negatively impact the UK (and also whether exiting will prevent the UK from being able to influence policy decisions), it is worth noting that an ever closer political union is realistically the only way the EU can operate cohesively, which is exactly what most people are against.
The UK will continue to trade with the EU but the extent to which trading activity will be impacted will depend on our ability to strike strong trading deals with our European partners.
The UK would make an immediate up front saving as it would no longer have to pay its EU membership fee (c. £13bn). Although the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, the sums are sizeable but not substantial— last year Britain’s net contribution was £8.5bn (c. 7% of what the Government spends on the NHS each year). What’s harder to determine is whether the financial advantages of EU membership, such as free trade and inward investment outweigh the upfront costs.
To protect London’s position as a strong finance centre

The case against Brexit…

The fear of the Unknown e.g.,

(a) certain member states have suggested they might not cooperate following Brexit which is unlikely as they will still wish to trade with us

(b) the Scots could push for #indyref2

(d) jobs might be lost but we don’t know for sure (or in which sectors) – this depends on the complex interplay between trade, investment and immigration.