"And the 'migrant crisis'. If we stay in we will almost certainly be forced to take a share of the people Merkel so rashly invited. Even if we managed to avoid that, in five years time the current million plus will all have citizenship, and certainly a large proportion will take advantage of that to decamp to Britain. And more and more keep coming, the tide hasnt stopped and they are rarely sent home, jut released to head for Britain if an application fails."
So what do you suggest should happen to these people instead?
The vast majority of refugees come from Syria. They cannot stay in Syria because they are being bombed to death. This isn't about wanting to better themselves or enjoying an affluent Western lifestyle: an estimated 11.5% of the population of Syria has been wounded or killed, with an estimated death toll of 470 000, of which just under half are thought to be civilians, many of them small children. We are not the ones on the Titanic: they are. You can hardly blame them for trying to jump off if they possibly can.
Neighbouring countries are already crammed to bursting point (have you seen the size of Lebanon on the map?)
The other European countries are already taking far more than their fair share of refugees compared to the UK. (stats available on the BBC website)
There is a strong argument for suggesting that the destabilisation in the Middle East and the growth of fundamental Islamist groups is partly due to British intervention in the area (Iraqi war etc), much of which was strongly criticized at the time by the very same countries who are now having to deal with the greatest number of refugees.
This is a global crisis affecting all of Europe and the Middle East. So how do we justify the idea that we alone should not do our share?
We are a small country- unlike the Netherlands? Lebanon? Denmark?
We can't afford it- unlike Greece?
We are selfish bastards who don't care about the rest of the world- ah, that one might actually work.