The Leave campaign and the referendum have both been engineered to rid Britain of both UKIP and Euroscepticism, one way or the other. The only good thing that will result from Brexit will be the disappearance of Nigel Farage, who will no longer have a reason to exist.

Cameron has left article 50 inactive — more or less guaranteeing a Brexit trial period as far as the markets are concerned, and also guaranteeing a second referendum in the form of a Conservative leadership contest and subsequently a general election, with manifestos promising to initiate or cancel Brexit.

Worst case scenario, on a global scale, UK fares well and EU starts to crack — Leave campaign was right (against all the odds and math) and article 50 is triggered.

Best case scenario, UK fares badly, for EU it's business as usual, article 50 never activated, people vote for reformed Conservatives or Labour to cancel Brexit with landslide after people suffered with pricy food and clothing for months.

For a damage control strategy to handle the result of a fundamentally terrible decision — to ask the masses a question without a definition of a meaningful majority — it's actually not bad.

It's not all about economics. There are other reasons to Leave that have nothing to do with economics (or immigration, for that matter). Perhaps if you took the time into understanding the problems that exist in the EU you'd see this too. I'd be happy to explain further if you wanted to understand my own position.

I would like to know those reasons, thanks. Almost what I have read from the leave camp are economics, immigration and some nebulous freedom.

Quoting http://www.leftleave.org/seven-more-myths-about-the-eu/ :

> Those fundamental treaties severely limit the ability of EU member state governments to fund public investment, rescue failing companies and industries, save jobs or use public ownership for wider economic, social and environmental purposes. Should Britain elect a left or progressive government, the treaties will act as a strait-jacket on its policies, which could only be removed if every other EU member state government agrees to treaty change.

While it's true that this still concerns "economics, immigration and some nebulous freedom", the argument is that the EU policies aren't left enough, and, for example, restrict the right of refugees. Quoting from http://www.leftleave.org/the-eu-ratcheting-up-racism/ :

> ... the fact that is that the biggest ratcheting up of the attack on migrants has just been pushed through by the European Union; the treaty arranged by Angela Merkel between the EU and Turkey. That ripped up long established rights of refugees fleeing war and means those in Greece will face deportation back to Turkey, itself becoming less stable, and new arrivals will now be put in detention camps unlike before. The corruption behind all this, with the EU bribing the Turks to sign, speaks volumes about the undemocratic nature of the EU. And yet there are those who think Farage is the main driver of anti-migrant racism, not noticing he’s been sidelined and could only dream of doing something as despicable as fixing that treaty with Turkey.

Here is an interview (with transcript) of people for a "Left Exit", http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/24/debate_after_shocking_... .

Leftist parties in other countries have a similar anti-EU positions.

However, they are, as far as I can tell, quite the minority.

Sad but true.

It seems to me the EU has every incentive to offer the worst deal possible, to discourage other EU states from risking the same sort of vote.

Probably the best we could do is get the same deal as Norway, but Norway still pays money to the EU, follows EU regulations (many of them are necessary to sell goods to the EU), and allows the free movement of workers. (As does Switzerland, even though it's not in the EU, and voted against it.)

A number of Leave voters apparently want no immigration and those immigrants we have to be "sent home". I expect this includes all the ones born in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester etc, whose parents arrived in the 1950s and 1960s.

This is not what has been said, what has been said is that UK can't have the same trade deals they have right now without the duties they have right now.

This all comes back to media manipulation. Sometimes the media doesn't lie to you directly, they lie through omission. For example, take a look at this comedy sketch from The Guardian about the European Court of Human Rights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

This video was brought out at the time when the EU referendum was being publicly discussed. It seems to make a good case for staying in the EU, right? However, there's one key bit of information that is omitted from the video, the European Convention on Human Rights which forms the legal underpinnings of the European Court of Human Rights was negotiated outside the EU through the Council of Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

Do you see how, in the context when it was released, that the video could be misleading, even when there weren't any direct lies in the video (that I'm aware of)? I'd suggest it'd be easy to assume after watching the video that giving up the EU also means giving up the European Convention on Human Rights, even when that's not the case.