I think the Remain parties have got it wrong

Nonnie, thanks for starting this thread.

It is beyond ridiculous that there has been no sensible discussion at a national level (I know, I ask too much!) either before the referendum, or in the ugly mess since, establishing what actual changes would be made to our lives in the short, medium and long term. People are braying for a concept that has not yet been defined. Lucky dip, anyone?

What if it were all positive stuff: Your young person will still be free to study in The EU, Erasmus..... The EU has given us such and such employment protection. You can no longer be required to work XXX no of hours because the EU has protected you. This building was built because of EU funding and so on.

I agree that those who are not prepared to listen won't listen to an expert which always puzzles me. They would want an expert to perform their operation, repair their car, fix their heating, teach their children.

I just think that arguing with NF and complaining about other parties won't work. Showing the positives about the EU might just do it.

Martin Lewis gave the best description on leaving/remaining a few weeks back. He runs rings round the politicians who are clueless either way.
Surely it's the financial implications we should be looking at/studying as regards leaving rather than listening to the constant waffling of politicians who are there just for themselves and their own interests.

Problem is, mycat that no-one is completely 'independent'. Everyone has their biases, though they might be unconscious. All good academics try to recognise their biases and work to overcome them, relying on intensive study of what is rather than what they would like 'it' to be. But, take someone like Prof. Duggan, Professor of EU law, who made several videos both before and after the referendum to explain the legal implications of leaving the EU. He was immediately decried by the Leavers because a) his area of expertise had 'EU' in the title and he had held the Jean Monet Chair for a time. Neither of which actually had any bearing on his knowledge of EU law but was enough for his expertise to be dismissed as 'biased'. The fact that he came down for remaining in the EU was dismissed for that reason. The fact that his judgement was based on his intimate knowledge of the EU law, acquired over many years of study counted for nothing.

The same will happen for any expert cited. If it's a business leader Leavers say that they just want to maintain the status quo because it benefits them personally. Years of experience and understanding of business issues count for nothing.

We've had expertise and experience from people from all walks of life telling us that leaving the EU is not a good idea but Leavers disregarded their message, just latched onto their judgement that it was better to remain and dismissed them.

Michael Gove's airy dismissal of 'experts' has much to answer for; it validated many people's vague feeling that 'experts' were invariably wrong about everything; that everything they said was mere 'opinion' and that their own (uninformed) opinion was just as good as the next man's.

I'm all for critical appraisal but outright dismissal is hard to overcome. There is no getting through to people who do this. No expert in the world has the slightest influence on them unless they agree with what the 'expert' is saying.

I'd recommend looking at the speeches of Ivan Rogers, former Permanent UK Representative to the EU. He does put both sides; as a civil servant it was his job to look at things from every angle. But he's just as disregarded as anyone else who has an intimate knowledge of the EU.

It would be ideal Nonnie but I think project fear OTT is still in people’s minds and so it’s hard to really see the wood from the chaff.

Defiantly not celebs getting involved or politicians but maybe business leaders people know like Allan sugar ?? independent economists etc. And I mean independent so putting both sides no lies or fear just plain facts.