Research and reason tell us that even common concerns about the EU’s control are best addressed by remaining
The nation is in shock as the referendum conversation recently turned from vitriolic to tragic. As horrified as all sides are by the murder of Jo Cox, we still have to vote tomorrow, and the latest polls show the leave and remain camps tied at 50-50. Thursday 23rd June will be the moment when we voters have to ask ourselves very deeply – and with a long-term view – about what we believe. In the words of Anthony Hilton, the Brexit question is really a ‘battle of ideas – contrasting visions of the future’. Ultimately, our choice is whether allocating 1-2 per cent of public spending to an international body is to the advantage of the UK as a nation in the future world order.
Some are still unsure about how to vote. They know about the benefits that the EU brings to the economy, security, trade, the environment, human rights and so on. But they still worry that the UK is losing control of its autonomy as a sovereign nation. They want to feel that decisions are being made closer to home, where the citizens’ issues are understood. They want to feel that their communities are stable. So let’s revisit some of these concerns.
“We’re losing more and more power to unelected officials in Brussels.”
The final say in European legislation lies with the unelected Council (although the elected European parliament plays a strong role). There are no independent European elections. But, if the UK is keen to protect its sovereignty, independent European elections are actually the last thing it would want. Independent, international party formation would be a sign of a major shift in global governance models. It would suggest that resources and power are moving toward the international stage with decisions moving ever further away from the nation states.
However, this is simply not the case. Political scientist Michael Zürn recently published some research into the four main posited possible futures of governance. His research looks into developments that are already underway that could lead to these models. His evidence shows that there is no sign of political will-formation at international level. This means that the resources, authority and power will remain largely with nation states for the foreseeable future. The trend of ceding more and more power to the international is a mythical one.
“But we are not the most dominant nation in the EU – we get bullied by Germany.”
Yes: and Germany’s dominance was thrown into painful relief over Greece’s debt. If we voters get grumpy about not wielding the most power in the union, what is the answer? Run to the corner of the playground and hide from the bully? If the UK leaves, post-imperial nostalgia won’t magically elevate us to a status above the effects of Europe. With an even more dominant Germany, the UK will be susceptible to its decisions without having any involvement in them. ‘Sovereignty’ is a nation’s capacity to govern itself, an idea that is intimately connected to a country’s relationships with others. Stepping out of a decision-making role does not enhance sovereignty.
“We want all policy that affects the UK to be crafted in the UK.”
The UK often has to comply with EU policy not made by the British government. Much of this policy is more supportive of the ordinary citizen than the situation we would see without the EU. In 2015, the government was ordered to take action to reduce air pollution by a committee chaired by Mary Creagh, who explained that it would have been impossible to hold the government to account on those targets without the EU having set them. The EU is a counterweight and a supporting buffer, lifting from our backs some part of the heavy responsibility of holding our government to account. The ability of citizens to hold their government to account is a central feature of a strong, lasting democracy: one that self-governs effectively without the need for external help.
“Uncontrolled immigration can affect our communities.”
If you feel unsettled about your community changing, you may feel like you are being unfairly labelled a racist or xenophobe. I’ll take it for granted that you don’t believe that the colour of someone’s skin or their accent affects whether they can share the same values as you. Perhaps you are concerned for values like neighbourliness, respect of privacy, respect of LGBTQ rights, respect of women, respect for secularism and freedom of religion. I’m in full agreement that these values need to be prioritised and enhanced in our society. What could stop this are not individuals from any particular country, but apathy and disempowerment in society overall. Immigration is not the problem in this regard.
To counteract apathy and disempowerment, we need strong local and national institutions and a government that is not unduly influenced by the interests of the corporate elite. If the EU isn’t perfect in its degree of transparency, what about the British government? Is it a beacon of accountability and fairness, made up of individuals who are all highly connected to the average citizen and incorruptible by power? Of course not. This reminds us of the famous question asked of Rupert Murdoch as to why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.” The EU is what stands between tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and even closer ties with our government.
There is no such thing as a perfect relationship. You stay in a relationship if the benefits are worth the costs. The UK should stay in the EU if its citizens are concerned about its future ability to govern itself, as well as to maintain stronger values and communities.
Image from: Buzzfeed News https://goo.gl/Dfa6vg