I love Europe. I love its diversity of people and places. I love its rich history. I love its cultural heritage. The European Union, on the other hand, is much harder to love. It is a rather unique organization founded with noble ambitions at a difficult time. Out of the ruins of the Second World War, the earliest form of what is now the EU was created to promote peace, prosperity and democracy.

Over the decades, the EU has grown deeper and wider: deeper in the sense that economic integration has been accompanied by greater political integration, and wider in the sense that it has expanded from an original membership of six countries to twenty-eight today. The deepening and widening of the EU is partly a sign of its success, but it has also made it much more difficult to function effectively and in a way that pleases all member states to the same degree. An organization as complex as the EU will inevitably pose deep challenges, but from the UK’s perspective I am far from convinced that the answer to these challenges is to walk away from them.

So, accepting that the EU is far from perfect, I want to examine the arguments put forward for leaving. It is hard to be passionate about staying in a flawed and complex organization. But in a world that is even messier and more complex than even the EU itself, the arguments for Brexit just don’t seem good enough to me.

 

Brussels has too much power. Let’s take back control

This is the ‘sovereignty’ argument. It’s understandable. We want to feel as if we are in control, that we can make decisions that affect our destiny. The idea of ‘taking back’ control implies that we can go back to a time when we actually had absolute sovereignty. The trouble is, that world doesn’t exist anymore. As we often hear, we live in an increasingly globalized world. Most countries possess only relative sovereignty – whether they’re inside or outside of the EU. If we want to possess absolute sovereignty, North Korea offers the gold standard. I doubt, of course, that the most passionate Brexiteer wants us to imitate North Korea. I also doubt, however, that leaving the EU would give us a greater sense of control than we currently possess. In a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized world, decisions will always be made beyond our borders that still affect us. Being inside the EU means that at least we have a chance to shape some of those decisions. Being outside the EU would guarantee that we couldn’t. The idea of ‘taking back control’ is a catchy slogan for the Leave campaign, but I doubt it would amount to a greater sense of control in practice.

 

We’re the fifth-largest economy in the world. We can survive on our own

We are, and we could. The difference is, do we want to survive or do we want to thrive? The single market and customs union give us instant access to over half a billion consumers with whom British companies can trade without tariffs. People who want to leave the EU say that trade will continue and that it would be nonsense for other countries to impose tariffs on our goods. They are absolutely correct to say that trade would continue, but the time it will take to renegotiate trade agreements from scratch, country-by-country, could cost our businesses dearly. And there’s little reason to suggest that the terms of new trade agreements would be favourable to us. Think about it: if we choose to willfully ignore the pleas of our European neighbours to remain with them inside the EU, why should we expect them to make life easy after we leave? Many Brexiteers complain about the EU because they say it isn’t just about economic cooperation, but it’s about politics too. If that’s the case, then by their own logic the remaining EU member states won’t be negotiating trade deals purely for economic interest; these trade deals will be hugely political.

Of course, Brexiteers point to countries like Switzerland and Norway, countries that are outside of the EU but still have access to the single market. I just don’t understand this argument, because both Switzerland and Norway must still accept the rules of the single market and must still contribute to the EU’s budget, but without any influence in setting these rules or setting the budget. More than that, if leaving the EU is about ‘taking back control’, Brexiteers should remember that in exchange for access to the single market, neither Switzerland nor Norway can restrict the freedom of movement of people. In other words, a post-Brexit UK would likely face a choice: do we want to be in the single market, or do we want the ability to turn away fellow EU citizens from working here? It’s one or the other; it can’t be both.

 

Immigration is just too high. We need to control it

Let’s think about immigration a little more. If you live in some of the most densely populated parts of England I have a lot of sympathy for people’s concerns about population growth and the ability of public services to cope. Some argue that because we are currently in the EU, we cannot impose restrictions on the number of migrants from other EU member states who come to work in Britain. However, even if we accept that immigration levels are too high, don’t assume that things would be fixed by leaving the EU. As we know, if a post-Brexit UK were to choose to remain in the single market, it would mean we would still be unable to restrict the movement of people from other EU member states.

Let’s think more broadly. In the latest figures, more people migrated to the UK over the last year from outside the EU than from other EU countries. And then, what about the 1.3 million UK citizens who live in other EU countries? Would they keep all of their benefits? If they lost them, would many of them want to relocate back to the UK, thus propelling our population even higher? And, finally, the UK has an aging population. This means that over time, the strain on our public services, particularly the NHS and on pensions, is gradually increasing. So even if we accept that immigration levels to the UK are too high in 2016, we may well come to depend on flexible migration from across the EU in order to support our future economy and public services. Current immigration levels are certainly seen as a problem by many people, but it’s an issue with many different dimensions. Leaving the EU offers no clear solution.

 

We send too much money to Brussels. If we left the EU, we would have more money to spend on the NHS

On the surface, it makes so much sense, doesn’t it? If we send £350 million to Brussels each week, that’s £350 million that could be spent on our own priorities. We could build more schools, hire more nurses and improve our infrastructure. It would be nice if it were that simple. In the first instance, the UK does not send this amount to Brussels each week. It gets a rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, worth about £5 billion each year. Then let’s consider the other money we get back, whether it’s in the form of subsidies to farmers or funding for infrastructure projects. Brexiteers say that this merely amounts to spending our own money, except that we don’t get to choose how to spend it. However, they miss a critical point. Yes, the EU has costs, as with any organization. But they miss the ‘value added’ aspect of our EU membership: the idea that we get more out of being in the EU than we put in, that our economy is bigger as a result of us being in the EU than it would be outside of it. This matters. A stronger economy means more jobs, better jobs, and a higher standard of living. A less strong economy (not necessarily a ‘weak’ economy) not only means that there would be fewer jobs and a likely lower standard of living, but it also means that tax revenues would be lower and so there would be less money to invest in the NHS, schools and infrastructure. Getting our money back from Brussels sounds tempting, but it would be like ripping up one cheque only to find it harder to pay our other existing bills. Does that really sound like ‘taking back control’?

 

We don’t need unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that affect us

Nobody likes bureaucracy, whether it’s in Whitehall, Brussels, or even your local council headquarters. But let’s make sure we understand some things about how decisions are made in Brussels. For one thing, the size of the EU bureaucracy has been exaggerated. The European Commission employs about 25,000 people. That sounds enormous, but if you knew that the City of Edinburgh Council employs just under 20,000 people, it doesn’t seem just so bad for an organization that supports a membership of over half a billion citizens. But there’s something more important than the number of bureaucrats: it’s what they do. Britain’s Eurosceptic press often draws attention to the ‘unelected’ European Commission. It is true that it is unelected: commissioners are appointed – one from every member state. But these commissioners aren’t tyrannical dictators. They cannot just click their fingers and make the rules. That isn’t their role. Their role is to propose legislation, not make it. Their proposals then go to the elected European Parliament and government ministers from all 28 member states. It’s a complicated, messy process with lots of different stakeholders. That’s the side of EU decision-making that’s not mentioned much in the press. It’s not very exciting. Instead, it’s usually more interesting to write about the mysterious, faceless European Commission and imply that it can do what it likes. Of course decision-making in the EU could be more democratic, just as decision-making in the UK could be much more democratic. And yes, EU decision-making is complicated. But let’s not sleepwalk towards Brexit based on lazy journalism and a lack of understanding around the decision-making process. Let’s keep some perspective on the fact that member states remain firmly in control of the vast majority of policies that affect themselves, and that the policies that do come out of Brussels are passed by MEPs and government ministers who voters elect in the first place.

 

The UK is drowned out in Brussels. Our voice will only be heard if we left

It’s true that the UK is the ‘awkward partner’ in the EU. We’ve always valued the single market much more than anything to do with political integration, and that hasn’t always pleased neighbours like France, Germany and Italy. But before complaining about the few things we don’t get, let’s remember the things that do go our way in Brussels. In a study by Simon Hix and Sara Hagemann of the London School of Economics, the UK was on the winning side on 87 percent of the decisions taken by the EU’s all-powerful Council of Ministers. Then, let’s think about our own special treatment. We don’t have the Euro, and likely never will. We aren’t part of the Schengen Agreement, meaning that we still have the right to inspect the passports of anyone entering our country. We enjoy a substantial rebate from our annual contribution, and have done so for years. Think what you like about David Cameron’s recent renegotiation efforts, but one outcome was hugely significant: an official recognition that the UK is not interested in ‘ever closer union’. The truth is that the UK, being a bit ‘different’, has managed to secure plenty of concessions during its membership of the EU. The latest one secured by David Cameron confirms that.

 

I don’t trust a single politician. Let’s show them who’s really in control!

I can think of plenty of reasons not to trust politicians, but I could hardly think of a worse argument to justify leaving the EU. From time to time, we like to register a protest. Indeed, general elections are often about throwing one party out of office than warmly sending another in. Politicians from all parties have done much in recent years to weaken our faith in their integrity. However, this is not a general election like those that happen every four or five years. This is not about giving politicians a bloody nose. This is much more fundamental. If we don’t like a particular government, we can choose a different one soon enough. If we don’t like the post-Brexit world in which we would find ourselves if we voted to leave the EU, there’s much less we could do about that.

Nigel Farage takes great pleasure in making this referendum a David versus Goliath contest: the people versus the political establishment. That’s a red herring. It’s not just politicians doing the talking. Let’s consider the sheer range of broader interests at play: businesses, large and small, trade unions, church leaders and charities. The Governor of the Bank of England is on the same page as the Secretary-General of NATO. Jeremy Corbyn is on the same page as Jeremy Clarkson. It isn’t a conspiracy that so many in the ‘establishment’ and beyond happen to agree with one another: it’s a consensus among people in positions of responsibility who are using their very positions to advise us to remain in the EU. Around the world, our allies are worried. From President Barack Obama of America to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia, our friends have made their views known, perhaps too strongly for our liking. But it’s what friends do when they see another on the verge of making a mistake. The only foreign politicians of note who want us to leave the EU are Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. Make of that what you will.

In this referendum, the voters of the UK are firmly in control. This is an exercise in popular sovereignty that Brexiteers argue we lack. In everyday life, we get advice from our family, friends, teachers, employers and neighbours. We don’t have to take it, of course: we can make our own minds up as to how we live out our lives. But just as we don’t need to ignore them all in order to prove to ourselves that we make our own decisions, so too we don’t need to vote to leave the EU simply in order to remind politicians that we are in control. The political establishment would be hard hit by a Brexit, but you can be sure that they wouldn’t be nearly as hard hit as the average voter.

 

I can’t stand all of this scaremongering. The Remain campaign seems to be all about Project Fear

I have been pretty frustrated by the exaggerated claims from both sides of this referendum debate. With so much at stake and public opinion so evenly split, both sides have been guilty of negative campaigning and hyperbole that just ends up putting people off. Make no mistake, however. Brexit could well be a scary place. Voting on whether or not to stay in the EU isn’t a minor question. It is a profound question, and so it is likely to have deep consequences. Scotland could end up with a second independence referendum, border controls could return to Northern Ireland’s border with the Irish Republic, and Northern Ireland’s hard-earned stability could be thrown open. It isn’t scaremongering to suggest that the UK as we know it is on the table in this referendum. It is reality to state that one huge constitutional change could, in turn, prompt a series of unintended subsequent constitutional changes. If this was the only argument in this referendum campaign, it would be a weak one. We should not vote against change purely on the basis of the uncertainty it would create. However, when the arguments for Brexit are otherwise so questionable, we owe it to ourselves to seriously ask whether leaving the EU is worth so much risk.

I said it before and I will say it again. I love Europe, but I don’t love the EU. It is hard to feel passionate about remaining in an imperfect organization with plenty of obvious flaws. However, the arguments for leaving it just aren’t good enough. Those who want us to leave the EU tell us that we will ‘take back control’ if we go it alone. Instead, I think we will just feel alone.

Also published on Medium.