Brexit! Brexit! Brexit! Brexit!

We draw ever nearer voting day on our continuing involvement in the European "Experiment". As I stated in my previous post I will be going over the same old ground rather lot in the coming weeks. 

Even though the vote itself draws closer I am not sure that the arguments for and against have become any clearer. 

We have had a US President tell us to vote "IN". This has not helped, unfortunately. The "In" campaign have said that "I told you we would be at the back of the queue" and the "Brexit" campaigners saying how dare he interfere. The camps are polarised as before but not it seems for any other reason than blind faith in their own stance. Meanwhile the ordinary voter is still in the dark and seeking information. Of which there is a distinct sparsity. 

There was a pamphlet delivered through my door a few weeks back. And I did attempt to read it. However it was so cloyingly pro Europe that I threw it away. Which is a shame because it would have made a nice post about how NOT to promote an "In" vote. It was unashamed propaganda and contained little in the way of facts or real hardcore information about the good and bad of remaining in the EU. 

My concern so far at the talking heads that pop up on this subject is that i can't help feeling most of them have a vested interest in some way. Politicians with multinational corporation contacts want "In". The business owners who want out seem to find the idea of their work force "enjoying" rights of any kind quite abhorrent and would thus reverse 30 years of working privileges.

Sometimes it is hard to know which way to turn. 

So my opinion is that "in" is better on the whole. 

• We are already in free trade agreements with Europe. Why re invent the wheel by negotiating them all over again?
• being "In" gives us a voice on all the legislation that we have to abide by. 
• The Charter on Human rights is an invaluable tool in protecting living conditions in Europe. It protects us from a "race to the bottom" where unscrupulous companies can erode our freedoms in the name of chasing a profit. 
• We are free to travel within Europe to further our work opportunities. At this point in time the UK is an attractive economy but it may not always be so and it is entirely possible we will cut our noses off to spite our face for what may be a short term benefit. 
• The UK does benefit from all the inward migration. All these highly skilled workers are showing up and employers have had to make no effort to train them. The lessons of the US are such that every wave of migration has had MAJOR benefits to the country in so many ways. Certainly, over the course of time, the US has grown stronger on its immigration. No reason we can't be the same.

The argument for "Brexit" is solely about self determination. Not wanting legislation from Brussels to have to be enshrined in UK law over and above our own Parliament.

I have to say I think it is a fair point. But no one got richer by getting smaller. 

But it does have to be said that the large swathes of EU policy making is carried out by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. 

Thus far they have been relatively benign. 

This is an issue the EU will have to address in time. I am not wholly against a united states of Europe but only if the proper democratic controls are introduced. 

The Tony Benn test is this; If I don't like this government how do I get rid of it? The meaning is really "what controls do we have on the states power?" Currently there are parts of EU government no one has control over. No one elected anyway.

Strong as that argument is against remaining in the EU, it is by no means a barrier. If the political will is there it can be altered. It could be possible to codify democracy in the EU. But we can only insist on it if we are "In" it.