Damaging maybe but for how long? You cannot categorically say that leaving isn't the best option for the country as you simply do not know. Everything from both sides is purely based on hypotheticals of what might happen in the future. Thus you do not actually know if there will have been things that could be considered as consequences if we stayed in.
I do not class myself as ignorant however I'm not an economic expert either. I simply do not like what I believe the EU is trying to form into. I am one that sees the EU as failing thus it seemed better to me to abandon the sinking ship now before further integration took place.
There has to be a vote purely because you do not know how many MP's have vested interests etc to stay in the EU. There'll still be some form of corruption and back handers in the politics system and basically everyone is selfish these days so due to that if kept 'sweat' that'd be a vote for in regardless of whether things really aren't so rosy in the EU.
I do not know but I hope my decision to leave for the long term benefits is the right decision. I am however not naïve enough to categorically state that it is the right decision like so many remain voters seem to spout off that being in is the only and right decision. That seems like a very narrow minded view to me.
You are right, in the "long term", no one can say for definite whether leaving or not would be for the best in the long term. However, in the short term, it seemed that the vast majority experts in fields related to the bureaucracy and operation of the EU - political, law, social, economic - were of the general consensus that leaving the EU would be a bad idea, and by short term, they were talking in terms of multiple years at the very least, and this is a prediction which is so far starting to ring true.
So given that both arguments could only hypothesise about what would happen long term, but that it was quite clear that leaving would be a universally bad idea for the
short term...why would you vote to leave? Why not vote to remain, where you still have no idea if things will be worse/better off long term, but you at least ensure a measure of stability and security to be maintained in the "short" term?
This is something I can't quite get my head around. I hope you're right, I really do, that that we end up better off in the long term. But given that we don't know how long that will be, and that it is not certain that we will be better off, it seems an incredibly foolish gamble to make on an irreversible decision.
The thing is, the Leave campaign can't really be proved wrong. If things start to improve in 20 years time, they will say "See, leaving was a good idea!!" even though it would probably be impossible to prove, that far down the line, if any improvements were as a direct result of leaving the EU, and also impossible to say whether we might have been in an even better position by remaining anyway.
