The EU referendum vote is fast approaching. As Politicians and businesses pick their side, AccountingWEB is keen to track how our members are feeling about the vote.
To let us know how you’re currently voting, we have set up a poll.
So, which way are you voting?
Related resources
Replies (186)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Out
that if we leave the EU NO EU citizens will be allowed to come here. Th difference will be that we can CHOOSE who we allow in and will be able to get rid of them if they misbehave or become a drain on the UK economy.
'We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are linked and associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.' WINSTON CHURCHILL
Love the quote Richard. I agree with Winston C.
Be careful what you wish for..
The other EU members will be deciding on the terms of our exit.
This is more akin to a divorce, rather than not renewing your golf club membership.
Such as?
The other EU members will be deciding on the terms of our exit.
This is more akin to a divorce, rather than not renewing your golf club membership.
Can you give an example?
Not seen any specific demands yet..
The other EU members will be deciding on the terms of our exit.
This is more akin to a divorce, rather than not renewing your golf club membership.
Can you give an example?
As Article 50 of the Lisbon agreement decrees, the other EU states set the terms of the exit. You can bet your boots that they will not make it easy for the UK to leave. They will obviously want to deter other potential exiters and no doubt at least a very large cash settlement will be required.
It would be ironic if one of the demands was that we also have to sign up to the Schengen agreement! (As they did as part of the strange deal with the Swiss!)
It will end up like a divorce from a particularly vindictive spouse!
Problem is the 'outs' may change their minds when they see the actual terms, this would make a second referendum necessary!
The EU won't be able to impose any new terms
As Article 50 of the Lisbon agreement decrees, the other EU states set the terms of the exit. You can bet your boots that they will not make it easy for the UK to leave. They will obviously want to deter other potential exiters and no doubt at least a very large cash settlement will be required.
It would be ironic if one of the demands was that we also have to sign up to the Schengen agreement! (As they did as part of the strange deal with the Swiss!)
It will end up like a divorce from a particularly vindictive spouse!
Problem is the 'outs' may change their minds when they see the actual terms, this would make a second referendum necessary!
It will be negotiated. The remaining EU members will not be able to dictate terms, and neither will we, however, the EU will not be able to impose any new legislation upon us. Our terms of membership will remain the same until we exit the EU, or negotiate new terms that are agreeable to both sides.
A good guide to a possible solution is here:
Article 50
As Article 50 of the Lisbon agreement decrees, the other EU states set the terms of the exit. You can bet your boots that they will not make it easy for the UK to leave. They will obviously want to deter other potential exiters and no doubt at least a very large cash settlement will be required.
Why do you think we would have to accept their terms, unilaterally imposed upon us? Article 50 does not require a large cash settlement or any other conditions other than the need to reach an agreement. If none is reached, membership ceases after 2 years without further ado. If we refuse to accept their terms, they'll get nothing, and neither will we. Thus, it is just as much in their interests as ours to cut a sensible deal if we vote to leave.
They may well indeed wish to dissuade other states from leaving by imposing tough conditions, but economic and political realities will put a block on how tough those conditions can be. The nose-cutters are unlikely to have their way.
If the worst comes to the worst ...
The other EU members will be deciding on the terms of our exit.
This is more akin to a divorce, rather than not renewing your golf club membership.
Can you give an example?
As Article 50 of the Lisbon agreement decrees, the other EU states set the terms of the exit. You can bet your boots that they will not make it easy for the UK to leave. They will obviously want to deter other potential exiters and no doubt at least a very large cash settlement will be required.
It would be ironic if one of the demands was that we also have to sign up to the Schengen agreement! (As they did as part of the strange deal with the Swiss!)
It will end up like a divorce from a particularly vindictive spouse!
Problem is the 'outs' may change their minds when they see the actual terms, this would make a second referendum necessary!
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets a time limit of 2 years for a negotiated settlement. If no agreement is reached in that time, the leaving country will simply be ejected from the EU without an agreement.
Both sides will certainly negotiate hard to advance their interests, but if the EU tries to impose Schengen on a country that clearly doesn't want it then the agreement simply won't be signed.
If the worst comes to the worst, I find nothing particularly scary in not having a free trade agreement with the EU. The majority of other countries in the world seem to get by fine without having such an agreement with the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
We can then unilaterally decide what to do with the EU citizens currently residing within the UK. I expect they will simply be invited to apply for temporary of permanent residency. Due to the historic links with the Republic of Ireland, I expect the UK and the Republic of Ireland will simply agree to free movement of people between them.
Schengen
Both sides will certainly negotiate hard to advance their interests, but if the EU tries to impose Schengen on a country that clearly doesn't want it then the agreement simply won't be signed.
Schengen is falling apart anyway. There's no way they would try to impose that.
Can ROI do that if it remains in EU?
We can then unilaterally decide what to do with the EU citizens currently residing within the UK. I expect they will simply be invited to apply for temporary of permanent residency. Due to the historic links with the Republic of Ireland, I expect the UK and the Republic of Ireland will simply agree to free movement of people between them.
Can ROI do that if it remains in EU?
What is position re all the UK citizens (Is it 1.8m) living in the rest of the EU post event?
Do any of the current EU countries have restrictions re non EU citizens owning property in their countries, I know Sweden does not (as I checked) but what about all the others?
I am still one of the undecided voters, hopefully over time more reliable data, on which to bases a decision, will become readily available.
I of course have the further dimension to factor in re the Scottish dimension, no idea how Scotland will vote compared with rUK, but any outcome that sees the vote in Scotland one way but rUK the other will likely tear the paper thin settlement post the last debacle.
__________________________________________________________________
As a separate slightly less serious point, the one question that never gets asked is, if remaining within the EU will mean a continual movement to a Federal Europe (will it/ won't it, who knows), and if there is therefore, in the event of a remain vote, an acceptance of such a closer union, then why are we only discussing such options with the EU, what about the rest of the world?
There are other countries/ regions out there that might be willing to merge/join
As an example we could offer the USA the chance to get another four states:(or 6-8, just depends how split), it has some points of synergy:
1. We sort of speak the same language
2. We watch more of their TV than we do European TV (notwithstanding Wallander, The Killing, The Bridge, Spiral)
3. We listen to more of their music.
4. We read more of their books. (and we could help improve their spelling of colour)
5.They get to site some missiles a bit closer to Europe, we save on the cost of Trident renewal.
6. The Donald gets to complete his golf courses up here and once President of the new USA can send Alex to the resurrected Guantanamo Bay. (win win)
I think if we get a remain vote we should then have a bit of a beauty parade to find our best match, this EU relationship may have been just a fling but maybe we now need to settle down with a serious long term partner.
______________________________________________________________________
The difficulties can be solved
We can then unilaterally decide what to do with the EU citizens currently residing within the UK. I expect they will simply be invited to apply for temporary of permanent residency. Due to the historic links with the Republic of Ireland, I expect the UK and the Republic of Ireland will simply agree to free movement of people between them.
Can ROI do that if it remains in EU?
What is position re all the UK citizens (Is it 1.8m) living in the rest of the EU post event?
Do any of the current EU countries have restrictions re non EU citizens owning property in their countries, I know Sweden does not (as I checked) but what about all the others?
I am still one of the undecided voters, hopefully over time more reliable data, on which to bases a decision, will become readily available.
I of course have the further dimension to factor in re the Scottish dimension, no idea how Scotland will vote compared with rUK, but any outcome that sees the vote in Scotland one way but rUK the other will likely tear the paper thin settlement post the last debacle.
The ROI can do what it likes with its own territory. If it wants to fast-track temporary or permanent residency for Americans, Japanese, or post-Brexit Brits then it is allowed to do that. It just isn't allowed to discriminate between EU citizens. Some in Brussels may not like this, but that is the reality.
It is certainly not in the interests of the UK to forcibly deport the 2.3 million EU that are here and largely contributing to our economy. Neither is it probably in the interests of the likes of Spain, etc. to deport their large British communities, as it could completely trash some localised economies.
If the UK leaves then a barbed wire fence will not suddenly be erected between ROI and Northern Ireland. Neither will there be one if Scotland becomes independent from rUK and later joins the EU. Common Travel Arrangements would continue, whether the EU likes it or not.
If some countries, such as Sweden, place restrictions on non-EU citizens, such as owning property, then it is up to the Swedes to decide whether they want to change their own laws or not. If not, then the few Brits that live over there will just have to apply for an EU passport, pass the property to an EU spouse or relative, put it in a Swedish company or simply sell up.
In reality, it is highly likely that the UK and the EU would agree at least some sort or transitional arrangement for their nationals either side. After all, it is just that one country would have exercised its democratic right to leave the Union, it's not as if war would have broken out.
Hanging on in quiet desperation
If some countries, such as Sweden, place restrictions on non-EU citizens, such as owning property, then it is up to the Swedes to decide whether they want to change their own laws or not. If not, then the few Brits that live over there will just have to apply for an EU passport, pass the property to an EU spouse or relative, put it in a Swedish company or simply sell up.
Sweden has no such restriction, I have checked as the point is somewhat important to us.
Denmark used to have (may still have) a residency test re purchasing summerhouses and does still have (I think) some controls on non EU residents purchasing property generally. The reason we bought in Sweden is that at the time (2004) we could not buy a summerhouse in Denmark due to the tests (think may still be extant) re summerhouses.
Any vote to leave will mean a significant rewrite re these and myriad other matters- I still have an open but sceptical mindset but having experienced at first hand the effect the Scottish Referendum had on business confidence (The commercial property letting market near froze in the few months before and is still very delicate) any exit is likely going to dislocate business activity for a fair bit of time- it is never the changes themselves that cause the issues but the uncertainty surrounding the changes that shakes the markets.
Now this may well be a price worth paying in the long term but I am not sure either side has really convinced me, I do not believe EU reform from the inside is possible nor do I believe the grass is that much greener outwith the EU's embrace.
Will watch the ongoing discussions with interest but if I were a betting man I would back the outcome postulated by Pink Floyd's "Time"- "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way"
Brexit -Rose tints all the way
The Brexit champions are looking at the future through rose -tinted spectacles after looking at the past through rose tinted spectacles.
Why should the UK get better terms than Norway, for example. They have the worst of both worlds- they have to pay EU contributions and apply EU regulations but still have no votes.
Bring back the independent kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia!
Norway
Why should the UK get better terms than Norway, for example.
Could it be something to do with the fact that there are 65 million people in this country, but only 5 million in Norway?
We have a common travel agreement (CTA) with Ireland
This was in existence long before the common market, or EU, appeared.
We also have a CTA with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Rights of continuing EU states to come to unilateral agreements?
This was existence long before the common market, or EU, appeared.
We also have a CTA with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Yes, but is Ireland, as an EU member when we are not a member, permitted to have such an arrangement i.e can an EU member state have an individual travel arrangement with an non EU member state?
Why not? The EU would have no say in it if we left.
Whether the EU would deny Ireland the privilege of the CTA is yet to be discussed or determined. I don't see why the EU would be bothered or involved.
We have a bilateral agreement with France re the refugees at Calais.
Refugees at Calais
We have a unilateral agreement with France re the refugees at Calais.
They're not refugees (or not all of them anyway). They're not even asylum seekers, or else they would have applied already (in France). They are would-be illegal immigrants.
I always wondered why Greece continued with the Euro
I've found the answer ... the only way they can stop using the Euro is to leave the EU.
The Euro has been a disaster for all but Germany.
It seems once you accept a treaty you are stuck with it forever, no matter how bad the results are (as with the Euro), as there is no way you can reverse it, other than leave the EU, or get all the countries to agree.
Project what?
The OUT lot talk about Project FEAR being what the IN lot are promoting.
I much prefer that to Project FAIRYTALE that the OUT lot seem to believe in - Do they really think that the UK can go back to the good old days of the 1950s?
They ought to stop reading the Daily Express or perhaps only read the bits about Princess Diana.
We need a country fit for the next 100 or 200 years; one that can thrive in a world of mega states - US - India - China - Brazil - maybe Russia if it can get its act together - and even Australia and parts of Africa.
Voting OUT is a bit like 100 years ago wanting independence for the Isle of Wight.
What idiot got us to this point?
We ought to stop sitting on the side-lines and moaning about the EU. We should get in there and work to make it better (and nobody thinks that isn't needed) for all members. That is how we will do best
Joe Soap
The EU cannot be improved or saved, it is in it's death throws. The only possible choice is to leave before it drags us down with it.
The death throes of spelling
The EU cannot be improved or saved, it is in it's death throws. The only possible choice is to leave before it drags us down with it.
You mean "death throes", not throws. As the art of spelling is currently in.
Dreamer
"We need a country fit for the next 100 or 200 years; one that can thrive in a world of mega states - US - India - China - Brazil - maybe Russia if it can get its act together - and even Australia and parts of Africa."
There's only US and China that has a bigger GDP than the UK.
Trying to make the EU better is a joke. The undemocratic rulers think the Euro and freedom of movement is more important than efficiency. It's like running Japan and Australia using the same rules.
but my dream is not a nightmare
T"here's only US and China that has a bigger GDP than the UK."
The UK is the 5th largest economy (not the 3rd) and that is in 2015 (or whatever). How big do you reckon those others that I mentioned will be in 2066? Do the maths. And if you say you don't care you lose.
The biggest problem with the EU is that it/they/we have social security support system (in the wider sense of that term) that are unsustainable. So either you dump all of that (not on my vote you don't) and go the US way with a vast underclass or you fight it and find a balanced and sustainable way forward.
You don't know my children but if there are enough people like them in Europe, and there are loads of them, then the right balance can be found. What do your children want of their future?
And let us know the reasons why the EU is undemocratic, which it is, please, as that goes a long way to explaining its present failings.
Of those quoted by YOU
T"here's only US and China that has a bigger GDP than the UK."
The UK is the 5th largest economy (not the 3rd) and that is in 2015 (or whatever).
I was talking about the countries you referred to.
Today's news
Re Mr Macron's comments about ending the arrangement for UK border guards to operate in Calais if we leave the EU. Scaremongering per Boris, certainly, but on the basis the migrants want to be in the UK, not France, why would they not simply be put on Eurostar with a one way ticket!
As previous posters indicate, if the negotiations are not finalised within two years the UK is simply ejected from the EU with no concessions, agreements etc in place. This does not look like a good option to me, but it does appear to be the most likely outcome.
As I said before, leaving the EU will be like divorcing a vindictive spouse! Yes, it can be done, yes, leaving can succeed, but we will need a very firm grip on things from the top. If we Brexit , Cameron would need to go and no doubt be replaced by Boris.
The Dublin Treaty
States that refugees must stay in the first 'safe' country that they enter to claim asylum. UK would not be the first 'safe' country and they can therefore be sent back to France.
However, the EU are now making loud noises about scrapping or amending the Dublin Treaty, so it is quite likely we will get a share of the refugees even if we stay in the EU.
Edited to add a link:
How many safe EU countries did they go through to get to Calais - At least 2. The treaty is not being applied unless it suits non UK EU memebers
Empty French threats
The French threats are meaningless. If Britain leave the EU we will be free to stop all benefits to immigrants/asylum seekers. With no benefits, no housing, and the certainty of being arrested, put in a deportation camp, then shipped back to wherever they came from, there will be nothing to attract them here.
Empty UK threats
With no benefits, no housing, and the certainty of being arrested, put in a deportation camp, then shipped back to wherever they came from, there will be nothing to attract them here.
Yes, but we're not even getting rid of the failed asylum seekers. There was one on TV the other day who'd just been released from prison after committing some violent offence, but instead of being deported (or detained until he could be deported) they just set him free. He couldn't understand it himself!
I disagree that
The French threats are meaningless. If Britain leave the EU we will be free to stop all benefits to immigrants/asylum seekers. With no benefits, no housing, and the certainty of being arrested, put in a deportation camp, then shipped back to wherever they came from, there will be nothing to attract them here.
The French threats are meaningless, why wouldn't they 'outsource' the Calais jungle to Dover. I would if I were the mayor of Calais seeking re-election!
I agree with your second assertion, we could indeed do what we like if we leave the EU, but the question is, 'will we'? It's going to take someone with 'balls of steel' to run the border controls/immigration policy in such a way to stop immigrants being attracted to the UK, and I look at the powers to be and I just don't see that happening. Instead, we will get another Lin Homer and a deportation camp in Dover with a huge population!
Sovereignty is a graded thing not binary!
The French threats are meaningless. If Britain leave the EU we will be free to stop all benefits to immigrants/asylum seekers. With no benefits, no housing, and the certainty of being arrested, put in a deportation camp, then shipped back to wherever they came from, there will be nothing to attract them here.
How will we be free from this just because we have left the EU - what about other agreements we have signed like this one http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html
Presumably you would then propose leaving the UN as it also infringes our sovreignty as well.
Face it, in an interconnected world, which has produced a world vastly richer and safer than the one that existed 50 to 100 years ago all nations (with the possible exception of places like North Korea) give up some sovreignty to supra-national bodies and are usually better off doing so.
A blank cheque
Face it, in an interconnected world, which has produced a world vastly richer and safer than the one that existed 50 to 100 years ago all nations (with the possible exception of places like North Korea) give up some sovreignty to supra-national bodies and are usually better off doing so.
Yes, but with all these other bodies, we have merely entered into commitments, which is not the same as giving up sovereignty. With UN charters, NATO, etc, we know exactly what we've agreed to do.
We haven't given them a blank cheque to make law like we have with the EU. I don't see stacks of new legislation every year driven by the UN or the IMF. Just the EU. It's way in excess of what is necessary to operate a free trade area, or even to have free movement of people, goods and capital.
Commitments or treaties - what's the difference?
[/quote]
Yes, but with all these other bodies, we have merely entered into commitments, which is not the same as giving up sovereignty. With UN charters, NATO, etc, we know exactly what we've agreed to do.
We haven't given them a blank cheque to make law like we have with the EU. I don't see stacks of new legislation every year driven by the UN or the IMF. Just the EU. It's way in excess of what is necessary to operate a free trade area, or even to have free movement of people, goods and capital.
[/quote
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there:
http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs189.pdf
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
These agreement have to be implemented into our law, just as EU agreement do - it's just that the EU system is more formalised and less ad-hoc than these and with the qualified-majority voting system in place agreements can be made without unanimity.
Anyway it's not the EU that actually makes the laws - it's the member states.
The member states get together and horse-trade - for example Britian will demand that there is free competition for government contracts and Poland will only agree if there is also free movement of people.
The problem is mainly in how it is then reported back home:
In Britain the politian says "We have successfully forced Brussels to open government contracts for British industry - this is a victory for us!" and later says "Brussels has forced us to accept free movement of people from Poland, there's nothing we can do about it, damn Brussels!"
In Poland the politian says the same with the policies reversed.
It is in both politians interest to say this - they get the credit and a faceless 'Brussels' gets the blame.
I would say that 'entering into commitments' as you describe it also gives up some sovereignty - we have agreed to change our laws to suit an international body , or if it's a bilateral agreement another country.
Now you can say that we can walk away from those agreements and doing so exercises our sovereignty, and you would be correct - just as deciding to leave the EU would also exercise our sovereignty.
The point I am making is that to be totally sovereign we would have to cut all ties and agreements with other nations, something which is it abundantly clear is not in our interest to do.
You can liken it to agreeing to live under the rule of law - we agree to be policed by the state, when collectively we could easily overthrow it, as we see that the benefits of living in a state where rule of law applies (compared to anarchy, despotism or totalitarianism) to all vastly outweigh the costs in restrictions to our actions.
I see the EU as the best example of trying to apply the principle of rule of law to work between nations rather than the system we had before in Europe - which was anarchy between states, characterised by the balance of power with it's shifing alliances and the frequent wars when that power shifted.
Not the same
These agreement have to be implemented into our law, just as EU agreement do - it's just that the EU system is more formalised and less ad-hoc than these and with the qualified-majority voting system in place agreements can be made without unanimity.
That's quite a big "just" though. It means that EU law automatically over-rides our law. Not quite the same as agreeing the Kyoto treaty. We chose to incorporate that into our law. With the EU, they seem to more or less have carte blanche to make all our laws.
I accept that the EU needs QMV to get laws through or else there is always someone who will block them. I also accept that there is little point in having laws (with some important exceptions) if countries can choose to opt out and ignore them. What I object to is the scope of these laws. Why do we need to have so many regulations intruding into every nook and cranny of our lives? Laws imposed by the EU under QMV should be few and far between, and imposed only where necessary to facilitate free trade, not to facilitate ever closer union.
Anyway it's not the EU that actually makes the laws - it's the member states.
No, it's the EU Commission that makes the laws. The member states authorise them (or rubber stamp them, depending on what they've been offered not to kick up a fuss).
The problem is mainly in how it is then reported back home:
No, the problem is the fact that we have no say over them (or none that counts anyway).
You can liken it to agreeing to live under the rule of law - we agree to be policed by the state, when collectively we could easily overthrow it, as we see that the benefits of living in a state where rule of law applies (compared to anarchy, despotism or totalitarianism) to all vastly outweigh the costs in restrictions to our actions.
Sorry, I'm not having that. You can't compare life outside the EU with anarchy or despotism. We didn't live in anarchy before 1973 (although the unions tried very hard to make it so). We already live under the rule of law. Your argument only holds water if you believe that the EU should be a single country with common laws over everything. I certainly don't believe that.
I see the EU as the best example of trying to apply the principle of rule of law to work between nations rather than the system we had before in Europe - which was anarchy between states, characterised by the balance of power with it's shifing alliances and the frequent wars when that power shifted.
We don't need the EU to prevent wars. That's a fallacy that keeps getting trotted out, yet it's a complete load of garbage. It's democracy that prevents wars. It's a well-known fact - no 2 true democracies have ever gone to war with each other. As no true democracies existed before the 20th century (except New Zealand in 1893) we only have the last 100 years or so to go by, but I can't see us going to war with France or Germany over land, trade, money or anything else for that matter - the people just wouldn't allow it. The soldiers in the trenches came damn close to ending the First World War with a football match in Christmas 1914. Shame there were no TV cameras in those days.
The decision has come down to what I always feared it would:
"Which is the least worse option?"
Straw poll
In a completely unreliable straw poll of individuals and small businesses that I have spoken to about this issue over the last few weeks, the significant majority are in favour of staying although often without great enthusiasm. There is no doubt that those in favour of OUT are more passionately engaged.
Get Nigel in place :)
He would send them all back. :)
On a more serious note, threats are not usually well received by anyone. It makes it clear what type of people we are expected to 'cooperate' with, and will give the OUT campaigners even more ammunition.
From the BBC website
Who will be able to vote?
British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are resident in the UK, along with UK nationals living abroad who have been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years. Members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar will also be eligible, unlike in a general election. Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.
Winston Churchill
Richard Willis - could you tell us when Winston Churchill made that statement.
I suspect that the world has changed considerably since then in ways that people at that time (including Churchill himself) could not even imagine.
If I were not already that way inclined ...
If there is one thing that might cause me to vote out it is Francois Hollande warning "I don't want to scare you, but there will be consequences"
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Putting a gun to our heads
If there is one thing that might cause me to vote out it is Francois Hollande warning "I don't want to scare you, but there will be consequences"
Exactly, this might backfire on them I think. If there's one thing people don't like it's having a gun put to their heads.
Another victory they turned into defeat
Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, they never learn do they.
I bet they regret winning back Calais
Another Out here......
I for one do not want freedom of movement for any more countries and Turkey will shortly be joining the EU.
I want my daughter to grow up being able to get doctors appointments, hospital appointments and school places for her children.
There are groups that want to completely destroy us and we are letting them walk right in, if we don't stop this now......
But, you are going to have to let people in or face .....
I for one do not want freedom of movement for any more countries and Turkey will shortly be joining the EU.
I want my daughter to grow up being able to get doctors appointments, hospital appointments and school places for her children.
There are groups that want to completely destroy us and we are letting them walk right in, if we don't stop this now......
But, you are going to have to let people in or face some hard choices re state pensions/ workforce etc,
Whether it is the people arriving currently or different people , given age demographics and birth rates within the UK something will have to give, the balance between the proportion of the population working and those retired/studying does need addressed and will continue to need addressed.
So, there are some choices to be made. Reduce services (NHS et al) provided via the state, further increase pension age,means test state pensions, increase taxes further to cover provision but in consequence likely reduce long term GDP growth rate, the perms are endless.
To date the holes in the sustainable growth model for a developed Western Society with an ageing population have been papered over by immigration. I have yet to see any economist proffer a solution that does not involve immigration to keep feeding the machine. The only other long term alternative I can see is a society which say reduces healthcare to the elderly to increase their mortality rate- it may be where we eventually end up but it is not the most palatable choice.
So any EU leaving/remaining discussion imho is going to have no bearing on UK population growth in the long term (short term maybe yes, long term no), said growth will continue to meet the demands of society, the only difference is what choices the UK gets to make re the "who" but no choices, in the long term, re the "how many".
Brexit should not be sold as a cure to population growth, it will continue (in the long term) irrespective of EU membership, any argument that Brexit is a magic cure to UK population growth is frankly misguided.
Scots
Interesting to note that you are a Scot, tiercel55. Kind of puts the mockers on SNP's claims to speak for the whole of Scotland in saying that they want to remain in. But then their arrogance should surprise no-one.