I reached the same conclusion as Toby, for much the same reasons.
Sadly, the heated rhetoric has only increased since the result being announced, probably fanned by the SNP as leverage to get a second independence referendum (the more aggrieved people seem, the greater the political pressure).
I disagree with Gavin's description of the EU as "a fairly loose framework" - it is, after all, self-defined as "ever closer union", and the responses so far from EU leadership have focussed on deepening EU integration still further. They have integrated currency, customs, immigration controls and now starting to include military elements too - is there any real sense in which that body, with its own flag, parliament and laws is NOT yet a central government?
If it really were a loose framework for cooperation - more akin to the UN or NAFTA - I'd have supported it. As a body which writes and enforces laws, and forbids us to negotiate trade agreements with other countries? No - hence my vote.
One factor in my decision was their insular nature and inward focus - they're obsessed with internal trade, to the detriment of external, which is why they have fewer trade deals than you might expect: 52 of them ... 3 of which are with parts of the British Isles, and very few of any significance (China, and one with Canada which hasn't taken effect yet). I expect we will find it easy not only to replace but to surpass that quite quickly, assuming our government has the sense to start working on that! (Several governments have already confirmed willingness not only to negotiate trade deals with us, but to assist us in doing so with other countries; meanwhile, the EU's attempted trade deal with the USA probably won't happen any time soon, particularly without our help. (Post-Obama, Britain will almost certainly be able to conclude a deal years before the EU manage it!)
Trade
Sadly, the heated rhetoric has only increased since the result being announced, probably fanned by the SNP as leverage to get a second independence referendum (the more aggrieved people seem, the greater the political pressure).
I disagree with Gavin's description of the EU as "a fairly loose framework" - it is, after all, self-defined as "ever closer union", and the responses so far from EU leadership have focussed on deepening EU integration still further. They have integrated currency, customs, immigration controls and now starting to include military elements too - is there any real sense in which that body, with its own flag, parliament and laws is NOT yet a central government?
If it really were a loose framework for cooperation - more akin to the UN or NAFTA - I'd have supported it. As a body which writes and enforces laws, and forbids us to negotiate trade agreements with other countries? No - hence my vote.
One factor in my decision was their insular nature and inward focus - they're obsessed with internal trade, to the detriment of external, which is why they have fewer trade deals than you might expect: 52 of them ... 3 of which are with parts of the British Isles, and very few of any significance (China, and one with Canada which hasn't taken effect yet). I expect we will find it easy not only to replace but to surpass that quite quickly, assuming our government has the sense to start working on that! (Several governments have already confirmed willingness not only to negotiate trade deals with us, but to assist us in doing so with other countries; meanwhile, the EU's attempted trade deal with the USA probably won't happen any time soon, particularly without our help. (Post-Obama, Britain will almost certainly be able to conclude a deal years before the EU manage it!)