It seems you've given up on debating the actual issues and are now just asserting that "consensus" is in your favour. Do you actually know anything about the issues, how the EU works in reality, what it stands for, what it wants to achieve, why nationalism is on the rise across the whole of Europe, why the OCUK poll has gone from pro-remain to pro-leave? I guess not.
That's one of the problems with the remain camp, when it comes down to it a lot of their argument is basically "but the IMF, global banks, global businesses etc are telling us we must remain". Do you think it's conceivable that the IMF isn't looking out for your best interests, but is more concerned that without Britain the EU may well collapse and its significant loans to Greece won't get paid back? Global leaders are doing what the UK Government asks them to, that's diplomacy, they don't care about what's in the best long term interests of the British people. Mark Carney as pointed out earlier worked for 13 years for Goldman Sachs etc. Then there's the CBI, whose leader was suspended and then resigned because he was pro Brexit.
To put your faith in the above groups without looking at their vested interest, their real agenda or the detail of the issues is just naive.
And you can keep saying the "consensus" is in favour of remaining, but even with big businesses only a third of the FTSE100 signed the pro remain letter, so two thirds chose not to sign it, hardly a consensus. Much like the swing in the OCUK survey, a British Chambers of Commerce recent survey said that the business majority for remain was being diminished. Maybe people are looking at the issues rather than blindly believing the scaremongering headlines.
The people who actually create value, entrepreneurs, from what I've seen are generally in favour of leaving e.g. Dyson, Wetherspoons, JCB, the founders of Reebok, Phones4U etc. Then there's the 100 leading city figures who want out, including the founders of various hedge funds, private equity groups and insurance companies.
The current figureheads of global businesses (e.g. HSBC) often have to be seen to toe the establishment line, whereas the ex CEO of HSBC, the ex Governor of the Bank of England etc are free to speak their minds and provide a more unbiased view. Putting less faith in someone's opinion the day after they leave a position of power is again just naive.
This Newsnight debate sums up the above pretty well - an entrepreneur running her own business who wants out, versus a manager of Siemens. I know who I thought had the more convincing argument, and the audience seemed to agree.
)
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Both sides are offering lots of fud but the in side is still worse lol.
