I have always assumed I'm IN because I've travelled extensively across Europe for both business and leisure in the last decade, met, shared good times and made lasting friendships with people, and enjoyed the border and hassle free travel across the Union. I am all for free movement of people. I have no problem with it. I'm pro-immigration. All that good stuff. To be honest, I'm not even that averse to closer political integration, as long as the people making the decisions are elected freely and fairly.
But the more research I have done, the more I have serious reservations about the EU as an organisation.
I understand that EU laws are approved by directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. But it also seems to be the case that the laws themselves are drafted and proposed the European Commission which is a wholly unelected body. This implies that an unelected body gets to ultimately choose what actually gets proposed to the elected body, in what format, and how many times. And I have no idea who these people are, what they stand for, and what their interests are.
I understand that the Parliament can block, or propose amendments to legislation from the Commission if it disagrees, and that a formal process exists for negotiation and reworking, but that's only half the question. My understanding is that the Parliament is wholly reliant on the Commission for "input" if you like. Which means there's recipe for all manner of fiddling, blocking and self-interest by any number of "persons unknown" long before any elected person even gets to read it. In this context, it's not so much about what the elected Parliament sees, but what it doesn't get to see.
I also have a very hard time understanding the trade negotiation argument. Some say we are free to negotiate our own trade agreements with non-EU countries, whereas others say we are bound by whatever the EU as a collective has negotiated. Whichever is the case, I can't see how a manufacturing and export-led economy like Germany's can possibly want the same thing as a service and financial sector-led economy like the UK's.
As I said, my argument isn't about borders, immigration, Johnny Foreigner meddling in our affairs, or any of the commonly touted arguments of the out campaign, but it's about whether an In vote would be seen as an endorsement of the EU's shortcomings, and signal the end of any hope of reform. Cameron's tour to seek support for reform was an absolute joke, and achieved nothing. Part of me thinks we need to leave in order to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it's another round of British whinging that can be safely ignored. Another part says we don't fix something by walking out, and that being at the table is the only way to drive the changes we need to see. But then how much influence do we have, if we are being brutally honest? I honestly don't know.
That's a bit of a brain dump there, and in no particular order. I really, honestly don't know which way to vote.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 5 May 16 at 12:02
|
