I've been noticing some asymmetry in the EU debate. To summarise, the leave campaign have been attacking and invalidating the remain camp's arguments, but the reverse, as far as I can see, has not been happening.

For example, the leave campaign has been attacking the remain camp as follows:

• David Cameron and other high-ranking politicians stand to gain jobs in Brussels, and thus have a personal interest in staying.

• The jobs apparently linked to the EU are mostly not in danger. Trade deals are not necessary for trade.

• etc.

Meanwhile, here are some leave arguments that the remain campaign has not, as far as I can find, made any rebuttal of:

• It's stated that the general public cannot vote the current EU government out of office periodically if said government has upset them (whereas we can do that with our UK government). Can the remain campaign comment on this?

• EU supporters tend to be big, established businesses who can deal with excessive regulation but know that such regulation cripples startups that could one day pose a competitive threat. Can the remain campaign comment on the concern that entrepreneurship might be being stifled by the EU, or the accusation that they will benefit more than the population as a whole if we stay?

• etc.

<TL;DR paragraph>

So, my question is, has anyone else noticed this? What's the general feeling at the moment as to whether we stay or leave, and has it changed since my mention of it in the never-ending thread? Can anyone provide convincing counterarguments to the leave campaign's arguments, since the remain campaign don't seem to be doing it? Or have I just missed it and does anyone know where to find those arguments?

I think it'd be cool to see the world power dynamics change a little bit. It could be a step toward tighter relations with the USA.

But I don't know what's best for Brits. I don't care what it'll do to the EU (in this context)--that's their problem since Brits need to do what's best for themselves.

I also think citizens in general would be better off if international trade was reduced / more difficult. This whole NAFTA, TTIP B.S. has done nothing to help the average citizens and the more independent nations, the harder it will be to implement more "screw the lower/middle class" trade deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#United_States

http://ttip2016.eu/blog/ttip%20jobs.html

Anyone can say what they want about NAFTA, but post NAFTA it's almost impossible get a "US made" car that isn't produced in Mexico. Heck, even my two Volkswagen P.O.S.'s were assembled in Mexico, and they fell apart at the seams before they hit 100,000 miles.

Meanwhile, my Toyota was 100% built and assembled in the USA and has zero problems whatsoever. No stuttering, no signs of aging, no broken parts. And I'm passing 120,000 miles. (My Jetta didn't even hit 80K before the timing guides, timing chain, and camshaft gears exploded due to faulty-designed chain guides. Oh, and the transmission explodes because the differentials have rivets and they shear off at 100K, as well as a $1.00 retaining clip that snaps and allows the idler gear to rub against first gear slowly tearing the transmission to pieces.)

[edit] A quick glance at the wiki shows a large variety of options for how Britain can do business with the EU. That sounds like a great deal and a great opportunity to negotiate terms that are better for Britain.

Yeah I noticed that too. It's pretty much a pattern that keeps turning up all over the place.

Obviously Britain should leave, and the notion that that might be bad for the economy and therefore they should remain is false on multiple levels. To start with it is principles and morals, so denigrating the issue to one of financials is a weasel tactic. Additionally, the EU is going down the tubes, remain and go down with them.

I'm not sure, but is it even correct to talk about an EU government? IIRC, the powers of the EU commission are rather limited and most of the more important decisions require the consent of national governments or parliaments. I don't know exactly, but it might well be that Britain could veto most things it doesn't like anyway.

Well, the EU has never been more than a "single market" most of the time. So my view would be that leaving would certainly not facilitate access to that market, which is, by the way, the biggest in the Western world. In fact, by unifying regulations and abolishing trade barriers within the EU, it has done a lot for all kinds of enterprises who conduct business in several EU countries. I wouldn't think it'd get any easier when Britain left, when you might have to deal with member states individually. I can't see this would be easier for small enterprises. As I understood it, the EU is about reducing bureaucracy by harmonising regulations.
Of course, big enterprises can entertain more lobbying staff at Brussels, but I doubt that is different in London or elsewhere.

There is another pro-EU argument contrary to your first one: It might be nice to have another institution watching over national states in case something goes wrong in an individual state...

I'm certainly not pro-EU (light bulbs, anyone? process of (s)election of commission personell is dubious at best), but just because it is flawed like so many things I don't think it is a good idea to abandon the project altogether.

Generally, I feel all this anti-EU sentiment is part of a bigger anti-establishment movement which, currently, seems to take the form of a renewed nationalism around the globe. I sincerely doubt any of this will solve any of the real problems. It'll only make things worse.

Well, like I said, the EU has so far been mostly about creating the single market. Its primary purpose is economical, it has only limited actual power in "non-economical" fields of policy, so it's kind of natural to have economic arguments.

Just checked some random statistics about the UK's "most important trade partners". According to these, the UK has 44+% of its exports going to EU countries (the US being the single most important trade partner with 14%) and 42+% of its imports from EU countries, with only US (8.7%) and China (7.5%) as major non-EU-trade partners (both behind Germany, though).

Most non-British Europeans I know say: "Well, they've already got special rebates, what else do they want now?"
Now I will stop the propaganda.
No, really, the EU is far from perfect. For example, the commission is the only institution with the right to initiate EU legislation. IMHO, this should be given to the EU parliament, too.
It's always a good idea to challenge the Eurocrats. ^^ But as Mr. Cameron seemed to be quite stressed, I have the impression his gamble got out of hand.

edit: Now I've done the absurd and spent about half an hour of the evening reading through some of the UK websites from both camps. The pro-leave people in the comments sections seem to have found a purpose for their anger and excess free time... This seems to be about emotion, not about rational arguments.

Actually you'll need to cite some examples. Every example bigger is worse.
Cities vs towns:
City is bigger, city is worse. Instead of a superior house and land package, you have an inferior apartment, and you have to pay more for the privilege.

Population of country:
China and India have low standards of living, New Zealand and some other small pop countries have the highest standards of living. In India, many places do not even have plumbing because they cannot afford to there are too many people. Whereas they had indoor plumbing in fucking ancient greece. How many thousands of years ago was that? They had a few people that worked together locally and made a nice little city with good amenities, and they could afford to do that. Bigger is worse.

Like I know what you're thinking: Economy of scale. Create a good, powerful system (the EU) and it will be able to make everything even better than if everyone duplicate the effort and work on their own. But by now, after all these years it is time to face the music. The reality 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, this year, how it likely will be next year. It is atrocious. Stop reinforcing defeat and just axe it. The sooner you do the sooner you can start rebuilding after the EU disaster. Or don't, and wait another decade. Britain has bad leadership, otherwise this would be a non-issue.

Unfortunately not true. approved: yes, nominated: no. This is done by the European council "taking the results of the European elections into account". The council consists of the heads of national governments.

In my experience, it seems that the further away a representative is, the less likely they are to represent the will and best interests of their constituents. It's hard to demand work from someone you can't see.

... and especially those will, of course, always "represent the will and best interests of their constituents."

That's an interesting point. Britain contains the City of London (which is separate from "London"). The City of London has its own government, laws, and exemptions from British law, is run solely by trade groups, and is probably responsible for the majority of corruption in that country.

11,000 people. "arguably the financial capital of the world."

[edit] Wrong video.

I resent being presented with binary options, especially when put as a false dilemma from both sides.
I am sticking to my "vote strike" and refusing to endorse an inherently corrupt system with my participation.
Though I am still amazed that people seem to not grok the golden rule...

Unfortunately those are unsubstantiated assertions. There are people claiming that the EU is run dictatorship-style, with no democratic process in place to replace the people in charge if they don't put the people first, making it possible for them to not put the people first. Those claims are equally unsubstantiated of course.

While citations would help, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to do their own research, and that's why I want to see a healthy debate where mistaken assertions are challenged. My original complaint was that I couldn't find any challenges to the 'leave' campaign's assertions.

How so? All I said was that the EU is a club trying to cooperate, trade and prevent war. I thought that would be pretty uncontroversial. But lets try to substantiate that somewhat

Trade
Surely I don't have to prove that the EU is promoting trade? The EU is a free trade zone. Even the most ardent Brexiteer would admit that, and Brexit arguments are usually about how the shortfall in trade with the EU would be compensated.

Cooperation
Some of the many ways the EU promotes cooperation: by giving exchange grants to students through the Erasmus program, by scientific funding to cross-border research, by removing visa requirements and removing border checks through the Schengen treaty (which Brits unfortunately opted out of). Member states cooperate on environmental policy, policing (Europol), security.

Peace
I know that I can't prove that the EU has ensured peace. Nobody can, for that we'd need a portal to an alternative universe where the EU doesn't exist, and see what is going on there. All I can tell you that throughout History, Europe has been plagued by war culminating in two devastating world wards right until 1945. Then in 1950 the first foundations were made for what is now the EU with the schuman declaration. Quoting wikipedia:

This was really a breakthrough: right after the devastation of two World Wars, an effort was made to do something different, to give up some sovereignty (over Coal and Steel production in this case) with the specific aim to establish peace. One thing led to another, the history of the EU can be traced directly to this first step.

There is a lot more on wikipedia. I think that should make a good read.