[FeatureRush]

I agree with Chris2048, in time before the actual vote in UK polish media tried to present both options and their arguments, one of the interviews was really memorable for me, the conclusion was that "no fisherman in UK will vote for stay". Of course I know, that the interviewee did not represent all of their trade and some probably voted stay. But the sentiment of it was very familiar to me, it was just like some polish farmers, mostly living off (very) small farms (<10ha). Before Poland joined EU it was feared that those people will have troubles, and let's be honest: with or without EU being a small farmer really sucks. The way that fisherman spoke about more than a decade of hardship and bureaucracy EU created for them was just what I'm hearing here. About new (higher) norms, about artificial production limits, even the part about how other EU countries are taking advantage of it to kill our industry was easy to relate to... And the emotions, last year in my region woman broke down in cries at paper-filling training, because she just couldn't stand it any more. If this was UK she would vote leave. Sure you may say that in a way she failed to make use of great opportunity EU provides, possibly because of lacking education, and there is some truth in that. But blaming people for being uneducated, stupid and cynically manipulated solves non of the problems, this is just an excuse to deny that EU has any problems at all.

[robotresearcher]

Some people are better off than others. But stating as a fact that the EU was no benefit for some people needs a supporting argument, since it can't be demonstrated empirically (as a counterfactual case).

[bordercases]

I'm sorry, but that sounds like bullshit to me. You're implicitly assuming your conclusion by asserting without proof that the negative is counterfactual. Your mind might contain all the background knowledge you need to make any other statement sound incredulous, but in terms of discourse you need to reveal that information or let your own claims go just as unsupported as well.

Additionally, "no benefit for some people" is such a weak statement that you're bound to observe some contrary cases even if they aren't typical or representative. So at the limit I don't think you're making the right bets. But I would agree that the more evidence should be given. I would disagree that this evidence can't be empirical; it's obvious that it's a statement with empirical consequences, as we're speaking about elements of the world (people who live under EU policy in the UK).