The European referendum (in/out shake it all about hokey cokey debate)

The momentum is gathering for a referendum on the UK's continuing membership of the European Union (EU). In my past I have been a sarcastic critic of the whole shooting match. Not so much on this blog, but in my youth. Because of things like the common agricultural policy (CAP) which produced huge surpluses of food stuffs that went to waste purely to maintain the price for farmers. These policies were riddled with unintended consequences. Prices were fixed to ensure we maintained a farming capacity but farms became so dependant on the system that the very nature of farming was changed and now they are reaping the reward because they are not always able to adapt.

The main thrust of the argument for those that want to leave is about the supremacy of the Westminster parliament. It isn't. It always has to give precedence to Brussels. No matter what government we elect here in the UK it will always have to cede to Brussels.

So it is about self determination. However I have my doubts about the ability of a Westminster parliament as it currently stands to accurately represent the country. In my opinion the supporters of Westminster are on a sticky wicket. The current UK government of David Cameron was elected with approximately 38% of the popular vote and yet it controls 330 of the 650 seats available. So nearly 2/3 of the popular vote activeley did not vote Conservative so there is an argument there about just how representative parliament is. Thanks to the "first past the post" system, several parties did very well and some very badly. UKIP, with whom I have no interest, have only one sitting MP. However they gained the fourth largest share of the vote but because they came second a lot, have 1 MP. The SNP captured around 56% of the Scottish popular vote but have occupied ALL but 3 of the 56 or so Scottish seats.

The advantage of the "first past the post" system is that it allows for decisive election victories and short handover periods so there is little interuption of power.

My personal suspicion is that Westminster politicians are keen to garner more power for themselves. I have yet to be convinced by any other argument put forward that we would be better off outside the EU.

1)Immigration - like it or not immigration is essential for this country. We have an ageing population and a shortage of skills. We require the injection of youth and skills to make the economy grow and progress.

2)Trade - we could still have free trade with the EU. We could but we would be like Norway who have to conform to EU legislation in order to trade but have no mechanism available to them that allows them to influence that legislation. Conformity without representation. Pro exit supporters often mention the Commonwealth (the remnants of the British empire) as future trade partners but the we are 40 years behind the likes of China and other so called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations who are already there. We have been unable ot compete with these countries on a cost basis for many years. what will be different outside the EU.
Free trade agreements could still be forged and GATT treaties still apply so the legal framework to support us is there but without the clout of the EU behind us if we had issues who would hear us?

It has been said that this country is a conservative country by nature. That we would probably back the status quo. Maybe I fall into that category too. I fear that the UK exit supporters are delusional however, about the UK's ability to prosper outside the EU. The argument for exit appears very London centric. Based around the ability of Westminster to govern and the City Of London to play with other peoples money.

I could go on. I have said enough for now.