[user104658]

I didn't say that some of them are not convincing opinions but they're still not facts. I suppose some people have a loose definition of what constitutes a "fact"... I happen to be quite picky about what I'm willing to conceed is fact.

That said, I wouldn't say that my opinion if the EU has changed, per se... I was never so much "Pro EU" as "Pro remain" which is slightly different. If we were NOT current members and we're voting on whether or not we should JOIN, I would always have said a definite "no". My Pro remain stance, as an allegory, works well like this:

You're on a mad scientists table, he asks you "Do you want me to embed this experimental microchip in your brain??". You'd have to be insane to say "sure why not." that's the vote "to join".

THIS vote, however, the scenario is... You wake up, you already HAVE the chip embedded in your brain, thousands of wires have sprouted from it and are woven throughout your skull. The question NOW is... Do you dig your fingers into the hole in your skull and rip it out (LEAVE), or do you leave it ALONE (REMAIN) because of the irreversible damage that pulling it out now will do?

Anyway, that always has been and still is my opinion. What has softened my stance is some fairly convincing arguments that the EU is now doomed to unravel anyway, and may well have been before this also. These are still not facts. It may well thrive without us still. I have been swayed to the OPINION that it will probably not.