I stand by the arguments I made during the General Election last year on the EU: the Conservative plan for an In/Out referendum was too arbitrary and full of vested interests. I raised concerns that the move was simply to placate troublesome Tory backbenchers, and predicted that much of the next Parliament would be taken up by lengthy negotiations and infighting (sound familiar?). I was happy to stand by the Liberal Democrat policy of having an In/Out referendum when a new treaty change was proposed, rather than on an arbitrary date. However, the referendum is nearly here. We have the opportunity to either put to bed a long standing question, or take a dangerous leap in to the unknown.
'Project Fear' is always a sad reflection on British politics, especially when there is a positive case for staying in the EU, which needs to be heralded loud and clear. In the globalised world that we live in, freedom of movement is ultimately a good thing. We haven't had a war in Europe since 1945, due in no small part to European cooperation. A great deal of our trade is with Europe (almost 45% of our exports are with other EU member states, and 53% of imports are from the EU). The EU gave a directive to paid holiday leave across member states. We have a rebate on our EU contributions, and surely you pay to join a club for benefits other than money in your pocket?
Unfortunately, elements of 'Project Fear' are sometimes necessary. It is a leap in to the unknown to leave the EU, and it's foolish to think that the day after a Brexit vote we'll suddenly be unshackled from the EU. Too much of this Parliament has been taken up by EU negotiations; do we really want the latter part of it to be taken up by similar moves? Norway and Switzerland still pay in to the EU budget to gain access to the single market, proof that we can't wave a magic wand after voting Brexit.
British politics is odd at the moment: SNP figures are talking about being better together, whilst some Unionists are saying that we can forge our own destiny. Neoliberal free marketeers are saying how we can spend the money saved in the event of a Brexit on the NHS, whilst previously (and probably secretly still) Eurosceptic Jeremy Corbyn has outlined the socialist case for staying in the EU. Inevitably, the EU referendum has come down to a fight between the economy ('In') and immigration ('Out'); if the immigration argument leads the campaign, then I fear a Brexit vote. To those who lambaste EU migration, I cannot stress enough how it is a net positive for our economy, and it works both ways: what about the UN estimate of 1.2 million Brits living in other EU countries?
Of course the EU needs to be better. For a University exam, I had to revise how a bill becomes law in the EU, and the process is needlessly tedious: the European Council set the agenda, the European Commission has a monopoly on introducing new laws, which are then debated between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, before being voted on. This all sounds too much like Monty Python's Life of Brian, where the confusion is over whether the name is the 'Judean People's Front' or the 'People's Front of Judea'. Three Presidents (one each for the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament) is far too many. However, these are reasons to reform the EU and make it better, rather than to petulantly leave it.
Ultimately, it will be my generation that has to deal with the effects of a Brexit, which is why it is so important for the youth demographic to get out and vote. I'll sum up my reasons for an 'In' vote like this: we get a good deal out of the EU, and can make it better; an 'Out' vote is a stab in the dark and leaves us poorer economically and in terms of influence.
This isn't a General Election, where you can vote for an alternative if you're not happy. We're bound by the result of this referendum, and the consequences. Please vote to stay in the European Union.
Picture copyright: www.zimbio.com and www.strongerin.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment