As the UK’s future membership of the European Union hangs in the balance, I find myself on a flight between Washington, DC and Dallas, Texas. I’m cruising at 36,000 feet, somewhere over West Virginia. Flying makes me happy. I love that liberating feeling when you sit back, look out the window, and just think: think about where you’ve been, and where you’re going.

I can’t help but be struck by the sheer contrast between these two places and what they mean to people. They aren’t just places on a map. They are symbols in the contemporary American imagination. In the mind of an average American, Washington equals bureaucracy, sleazy politicians and shattered promises. It always seems to be broken, need fixing, need cleaned up. It takes so much of the flack for America’s problems that life would seem so much easier if it weren’t in the way.

Texas, of course, equals just the opposite. Texas equals freedom. It’s about being in control of your own destiny, possessing that fiery sense of independence and a profound objection to being told what to do. If Washington somehow curtails the American dream, Texas is where it somehow becomes possible again. It must be tempting to think how well Texas could do if it weren’t for the shackles imposed by those meddling bureaucrats and self-interested politicians in Washington.

It wasn’t always like this. After gaining independence from Mexico in 1836, Texas stood alone for ten years before joining the Union in 1846. It could have done just fine on its own. But the overwhelming endorsement of accession to the Union by its voters reflected their appreciation that they could do even better if they joined something bigger. Sure Texans grumble at Washington; they take pride in doing so. As the American economy as a whole staggers along and as the federal government grows bigger than many Texans would care for, it’s easy to see how a state with a booming economy and a love of small government would grow frustrated with its relationship with the federal government, ‘Washington’. An independent Texas would be the world’s twelfth-largest economy. But nobody would seriously suggest that Texas would have a stronger economy or enjoy greater freedom outside of the United States. They are in tension with one another, but there’s no doubt that they very much need one another.

The European Union is not the United States. Brussels is not Washington. The EU is not a superstate. It cannot raise taxes. It has no army. It is a product of sovereign member states that have all at some point decided to pool their sovereignty with others in order to achieve more than they could simply achieve on their own. Equally, Britain is not Texas. It is a sovereign country that survived, and indeed thrived, for centuries on its own. Most Texans define themselves as Americans first and foremost; few Brits would ever think of themselves primarily as Europeans. There are, however, two important underlying parallels; both of which serve the case of unity over the case of separation.

The first is that the people of both Britain and Texas are inherently suspicious about the distant location of power. More than that, they are suspicious of political elites in general, however far they are from home. But neither a suspicion of political elites nor a suspicion of the centralization of power is sufficient to establish that separation is preferable to unity. Only a minority of Texans like or trust President Obama, and few have much respect for Congress. Similarly, few Brits have much faith in the European Parliament, the European Commission or the European Council. Even fewer could correctly name the President of the European Commission as Jean-Claude Juncker or the President of the European Council as Donald Tusk, let alone know the difference between the two offices.

The question is: Would people’s confidence in government dramatically improve if political power were located closer to home? Would Texans respect their governor more if he or she were their president? Would people in the UK respect MPs more if it no longer elected MEPs? Both of these seem unlikely. The real issue is not over the precise structures of power; the real issue is an innate distrust of any political elites, whoever they may be. That’s why the British public are skeptical about the EU in the first place, and why they are having a hard time listening to the pro-Remain advice of ‘the political establishment’ at home. However, the very fact that we are having this referendum means that it is ultimately the will of the people that matters – not the preferences of the political establishment. We don’t need to vote to leave the EU in order to show that.

The second parallel is that both the European Union and the United States are entities that are based on varying degrees of pooling of political power. With nearly 10 percent of America’s population, Texas could easily go it alone. It could do reasonably well as an independent country. The question is: Would it really gain more than it would lose? Would it possess more power alone, or more power as one of fifty American states? This question is particularly important in the Brexit debate. Those who suggest that leaving the EU would restore British sovereignty must surely appreciate that sovereignty can never be absolute; it is always relative. North Korea is arguably the world’s most sovereign state by virtue of its insular independence. But what good is absolute sovereignty if it actually results in less freedom for its citizens, less serious influence, and less global power?

Texans could decide that they want to send a powerful message to those fat cats in Washington once and for all. They may decide that they want to be in total control of their destiny. But the real losers wouldn’t be the political elites in Washington; it would be the millions of ordinary Texans affected by higher prices, fewer jobs and a lower standard of living. They may decide that they want to take back control. But what good is it to be in control if it comes at such a heavy price? For all its grievances with Washington, the gaining of its own sovereignty would hardly give Texas greater influence. It would make it weaker.

On Thursday, the people of Britain may well decide to reject the advice of the prime minister, all living former prime ministers, the government, the opposition, the Bank of England, the IMF, business leaders, trade union leaders, church leaders, and our allies around the world from America to Australia. But would these elites really be the biggest losers, or are they simply informing the public of how they see the reality, based on the very fact that they are in positions of responsibility, have access to a wealth of information, and possess countless years of combined political experience? We may well decide to give the political elite a bloody nose in order to somehow gain more sovereignty and ‘take back control’. But the likelihood is that it won’t just be the political establishment suffering, and nor will the legal transfer of sovereignty back to Britain necessarily mean that Britain will have a greater sense of control in practice. We will be on our own – and we will feel alone.

My flight is still cruising along at 36,000 feet. The captain has just announced that we are taking a slightly longer route to Dallas because of some thunderstorms that have accumulated to the west. As I sit and stare at the lightning flashing through the clouds in the distance, I am thankful for his caution. This is no disservice to our plane, a lovely Boeing 737-800. It can handle a storm. It can withstand a lightning strike. It’s built with sturdy materials. But having to sit for an extra half-hour doesn’t make me feel more constrained if it means enjoying a smoother flight and staying clear from a weather system that would undoubtedly expose us to a greater risk of danger. Similarly, Britain is a strong country with a strong economy and even stronger people. We could make it through the storm of Brexit. But if the gains of leaving the EU on paper are eroded by the costs of Brexit in practice, then why head straight for the storm clouds when a different path already exists? We don’t trust political elites in the way that we trust pilots to navigate us away from unnecessary turbulence, but maybe this time we should.