The absolutes proposed by Remain and Vote Leave are drowning out all of the middle ground necessary

Although probably an obvious issue, amidst much of the cacophony of absolute views and opinions I feel that it’s necessary to bring the argument regarding the EU referendum back down to levels of manageable and distinguishable debate. The country and opinions of voters are in the eyes of many being divided between two camps which are vilified in equal measure by each other one as a group of small minded racists and misguided idealists respectively. Both sides are passionate in their opinions and understandably are not going to give the opposition an opportunity by conceding anything which goes against their own stance. The debate has left little chance for calm and considered thought and it is not surprising that I’ve heard people say that they are not going to vote simply on the basis of being unable to make an informed decision. In my own personal decision I decided to vote for the UK to remain the in EU but that is not to say that I am 100% in favour of everything the EU does and I hope that an identification of some sort of middle ground is made by many or there is a risk of greater division within society in the UK.

As it stands I do not think that the EU is the absolute, wondrous organisation which much of the Remain campaign proclaims it is. The EU is not an entirely unchallengeable organisation which has been the force behind everything good from the mid-twentieth century. Much work for peace was arguably achieved by NATO, the European Convention is a separate entity whilst the World Trade Organisation has been particularly important in lowering trade barriers around the world. The sheer levels of bureaucracy within the organisation are not favourable whilst I feel that the general lack of knowledge about what the EU actually does is in fact hindering the decisions of voters in the referendum. A huge behemoth of an organisation is difficult to dissect for someone who doesn’t actually know the function it performs whilst something which is so large an has an influence on the lives of so many people needs to be easily understandable for the average voter. Furthermore, the fact that its leaders are appointed rather than democratically elected goes against the idea that it acts as an ultimate democratic force as a question of accountability and responsibility can be raised.

I have nothing against the contributions. It is natural that the richer, larger economies contribute more to the pot than poorer economies and as a result the UK will be a net contributor as part of a policy of codependence. However, (much as I assume that many Scottish Nationalists felt during the Independence Referendum) the institution because of its size and variety of nations does seem to naturally go against the opinions of one nation and if there are more UK-specific issues which the UK wants to deal with but can’t due to controlling only a small number of seats will naturally lead to greater difficulties in making decisions which affect UK. However, whether you feel that Europe should be viewed as a whole entity is another personal, nuanced view as with how far such a union should stretch (e.g. Turkey). The fear of a United States of Europe is understandable with the lack of general transparency which the organisation has exuded over the last few years has increased along with its size. This argument is not solely nationalist. A more integrated Europe which moves towards coordinated economic policy may simply not be possible due to the great disparities between the economies across Europe. A one size fits all monetary policy for the whole of Europe arguably doesn’t work and whether or not the Euro experiment has failed is something else which has recently been called into question. The EU should be viewed with a critical eye and not taking what it does for granted. Pointing out issues with it is a natural part of the debating process which has been hindered by people claiming it is an unchallengeable entity. We examine our own government and national institutions of power critically so why not do the same with something which has a great influence on our lives (the extent to which it actually does I am in the dark).

And yet I voted to Remain. Both the Common Market (despite the common external tariff and possible reliance on the continent rather than further afield for trade) and freedom of movement do have strong economic arguments behind them and have possibly contributed to much of the economic developments across Europe over the past thirty years. Levels of trade for the UK with the continent are very high and even though the UK may need to reduce such a dependence the risk of a backlash in the event of Brexit may have significant consequences. Equally, the standardisation of product safety etc. has made the flow of goods and services across the continent far easier whilst moves towards equality such as equal pay have certainly made inroads. It is very easy to travel and work abroad and as a student the ease of studying abroad is also a good argument. Saying that the EU hasn’t done everything is not to say that it hasn’t done good. Just because it hasn’t been the sole reason for peace, free trade, freedom of movement etc. does not mean that it hasn’t helped the process.

A close Europe which has similar interests and goals is not necessarily a bad thing and I believe that the EU facilitates a closeness which doesn’t have to revolve around close economic links. One of my primary voting ‘In’ is the clause which allows the UK to veto any moves for “An Ever Closer Union” which (although part of a relatively weak new deal with Europe) would theoretically help prevent high levels of interdependence which could put the UK economy at a greater risk of external economic shocks from the continent. I am not a believer in Treasury forecasts for 2020 as they cannot possibly predict something so far in advance and although there is a large amount of scaremongering regarding the consequences of Brexit (which should be ignored on the whole) my gut instinct tells me that economically it would be too great a spin of the roulette wheel, particularly when from a very generalised macroeconomic perspective the UK economy is still (slowly) recovering on a relatively stable path. The Scottish aspect of the debate is purely a personal stance and although some would argue it is not my place to say or of my concern but I would prefer Scotland to stay a part of the UK and something which may endanger this positions (assuming that Brexit strengthens the position of the SNP) helps push my vote in a certain direction.

Undoubtedly there are faults and problems with the EU but whether these issues are uncontrollable or insignificant is personal opinion. For me, the veto on “An Ever Closer Union” most likely swung it in favour of Remain along with the arguments for free movement of goods, capital and labour as well as an uncertainty as to what may occur if we left. The status quo is relatively predictable and the Eu’s shortcomings can still be fought against.

However, my individual opinion is not really what matters and if I have made mistakes regarding factual information then I hope that only serves to demonstrate the difficulties that anyone faces in finding out what is actually the truth in the mirth of uncertain statistics and predictions. The author Robert Harris recently described the referendum as “The most depressing, divisive and duplicitous political event” of his lifetime. Yet, despite both sides proclaiming that there is no issue with their side there is a debate and referendum for a reason and there is a need to acknowledge that. Unsurprisingly the reality in my opinion lies between the opinions of sides. The truths or ‘truths’ in the debate aren’t necessarily racist on the one hand or idealistic on the other and the official campaigns will not fulfil the public’s need for information with their barrage of indecipherable absolutism. But then, this is politics and sound debate is a pipe dream.