It was always so

On June the 5th "1975" the UK had a Referendum, whether to stay or leave what was then called The Common Market. Listening to the debate in the Oxford Union and the television coverage trying to convince the public of the arguments one way or the other one is struck, no amazed that if you had put a template over the one it would fit the current referendum debate to a tee. The stated hopes and the fears are identical.
The glib politicians, then as now, willing to exchange truth for half truth, or worse, without a smidgen of shame to discard honesty. Honesty was and is, not in vogue since we seem to be able, as Homo sapiens, to convince ourselves through sentiment that what ever the brain has convinced itself of, is sufficient.
Truth over such a complex landscape is variable. One man or woman's experience is different and the importance of some specific aspect of the benefit or loss to A, is less so to B.  
Intelligent men and women who engage in the business of persuasion, such as the politician should be discounted in a similar way one should always discount the work of the 'adman' or the public relations person when buying anything.
It's a sad fact of life that we can't be more even handed in our dealings with other people, we often become both defensive and antagonistic at the same time if our cherished ideals are brought into question. Lying to prove a point seems par for the course rather than re-examining the point you wished to prove. In setting out your case for convincing someone there will always be areas of weakness in your argument and we would do well to acknowledge them as weak-nesses and consider why they are weak rather than wish them away.
In this current Referendum "argument", since that is what it has descended to, an argument not a debate, I have yet to hear either side consider the other persons point of view.
Be it the economic argument, immigration and the stress on resources, the sentiment of being in charge of your own destiny, none of these complex arrangements are discussed in a rational balanced way. It's either black or white, no shade of grey, whilst in fact virtually all of it is 'grey' with elements of both effecting the outcome.
We do need immigration to keep certain of our services going but not the un-targeted,  un- controlled immigration that Schengen produces.
We do need to trade into the large population block which Europe represents but not to the exclusion of other markets. Britain has historically been a part of a commonwealth of nations and traded in what was known as the sterling area with countries across the globe. Other countries in Europe have not had this global reach and we suffer more than others in the EU from the enforced isolation which the rules of the EU impose on us.
Whilst the "Stay" Campaign claim that the BREXIT group can not tell us what economic  life will like in this country when or if we leave, it is equally true that the "Remain" 'status quo' people can not convince me that hitching our star to a shaky assembly of economically disparate nations, with clear structural economic fault lines, unless closer political union is sought (which of its self opens another can of worms), their proposition is no clearer as to a view into the future.
There is also the rights of EU citizens, especially the ones who are now being granted asylum from the war torn Middle East, to move freely from country to country which will, over time, distort our already distorted society.  

Big business trumpeting the claim of the EU is not a good omen for the ordinary man in the street. Globalisation has not been to the advantage of "the working man and woman".  It has divided the world into ever greater disparity and the national attempt to find solutions finds little or no support in the trans global boardrooms which now call the shots. Neo Liberal Western Capitalism seems to have won the day, until we have another seismic shock such as we experienced in 2008. The banks will fail because all the precautionary bullets have been fired and whilst we continue, unabated to leverage debt as if it were a positive commodity the day of reckoning is due to ravage what we assume is our entrenched entitlement.
It is my view cutting our cloth and relinquishing our historical position. Acknowledging our size and our mistakes, for instance in not keeping abreast with education, leaves us no option but to reappraise who we are. Our lack of economic clout (other than in the field of dodgy finance) and the perilous borrowing we undertake to appear solvent, must be brought under control. We can prosper, but as a nation with aims which fit us for our place in the new global dispensation.