> This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".

I'm opening myself up to discussion, you are the one dismissing it.

> The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world.

Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.

> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.

The problem you're not perceiving is a bad deal is a bad deal. For example, the UK has had 50 years of common fisheries policy issues (and note there are many others with the AGP, EEP etc.) and the EU won't fix those, they were so bad that Greenland left it shortly after formation. It led to the destruction of some fishing waters through overfishing and destroying fishing towns and industries across the UK. Now, this is not necessarily the worst, because the benefits may outweigh the losses, right?

The way the CFP arrangement was made is that it requires an unanimous agreement from all countries involved, it is not a majority vote. Unfortunately, no agreement is made because there are parties to the deal who distinctly benefit from the particular rules. This is being confused further as the parts that have flexibility involve the budget and maritime fund, which give the illusion that change actually occurs in these arrangements, they do not. As a fisherman forced out of fishing, this impacts me greatly.

Overall, the EU has been responsible for amplifying economic depressions in the EU, the poor monetary policy in Europe as well. It is hard to forget when the ERM was imposed on the UK because it kept the pound, it is hard to forget the terrible mismanagement of Greece, which the EU government knew ahead of time was a problem and ignored procedures. Then, because they couldn't trust the Greeks, put in foreign banks to manage the money that was 'given' to the Greeks. Of course, the money was mismanaged by the banks and then the Greeks were blamed, while the unaccountable Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commision (which overrode parliamentary decisions in the EU when it came to monetary policies and also is the exclusive organisation to propose new legislation in parliament) now works for Goldman Sachs which for some reason, was able to profit immensely from the decisions made on Greece? It made the EU poorer.

Normally when a country’s economy is overvalued, their currency value is decreased through controlled printing of money, this in turn makes the country cheaper on international markets for services and products and leads to more income during a downtime that allows a country to recover. The EU denied Greece this option. The EU was further meant to protect the EU from entities like China gaining economic control, however, guess who bought a port and expanded it to be the largest shipping port in the EU. In doing so, their economic investment is the primary reason why Greece is in a better position now than before. Now Greece is defending Chinese interests in the EU parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that the EU failed in it’s protectionism and its ability to negotiate or manage economic trade.

I don't expect most people of Britain to have even researched this far, they are unhappy because both the EU and the UK government have failed them and that has lead to wide-spread unhappiness, which is what led to the vote.

> And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal?

The EU prevents the creation of any alternative trade deals with other countries that do not go through it, you do not see that in other trade deals typically. Other trade deals are typically setting the standards of trade between the two entities and not preventing trade with everyone else by removing the abiltiy to create trade deals. That is the difference when it comes to these trade deals. There are exceptions of course.

> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 100 countries with EU trade deals.

Indeed, and it’s unfortunate, but the cost for them is too high. On a positive outlook, we can view this as an opportunity to gain access to the rest of the world. Are you trying to suggest that we would do worse than island nations like Iceland or Greenland? Because, I think they are fine places and I think we could do better.

> More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?"

I’m honoured you think my idle question was a slogan, I’m still willing to listen and discuss.

> and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?

I have explained some of the issues above and the reality is not so clear cut like you make it out to be.