Well now, here is a conundrum: Chris Grayling, Leader of the House of Commons, says “The EU is disastrous for the UK…” John Major, sometime Prime Minister of this country, says that we should be in the EU in an increasingly dangerous world.
One hears the arguments played out in the TV and radio studios: politician A says we would save enormous amounts of money, not be subject to European integration and still be able to trade just as effectively with the EU if we left. Politician B says no, that’s nonsense; the cost of trading would be virtually the same, and we’re far better off in than out.
Clearly there are emotional issues; some people ‘feel’ close to the Europeans and want to be ‘in’; others feel exactly the opposite. This is a fair and understandable position. But the financial argument surely must be subject to a relatively simple analysis. Is it cheaper in or out? Tell us that, then each one of us can weigh the emotional argument against the financial one and make a decision.
What is infuriating, is that the ‘stays’ insist that we will save no money if we leave; the ‘leavers’ insist that we will. Both propositions cannot be correct. We need an objective assessment where both sides agree to the validity of the analysis, so that we, the voters, are able to make an informed decision on what must be one of the most important votes this country has ever had to make.
Leave a Reply.
Welcome to the Mirli Books blog written by Peter Maggs