On the EU referendum

I am more astonished than I thought I could be by the vitriolic arguments and fantastic claims on both sides in this referendum. 

David Cameron agreed to hold the referendum as a sop to the extremists in his party, and we have seen since how the Conservative Party seems about to explode. I am not at all surprised to read over the weekend that Jeremy Corbyn is allegedly preparing for a snap election. If the Labour Party is sensible and can grasp the opportunity, including aligning with the SNP, Corbyn could be Prime Minister very soon.

I have submitted my postal vote. As a historian, I know what mayhem and misery European wars have caused in past centuries, and if the EU has nothing else it has prevented war between European nations since its inception. Those who ask what else the EU has done for Britain should watch Patrick Stewart on this topic, here.

If we had surrendered our sovereignty, there would be no referendum. Ultimate sovereignty rests in our Parliament, and the EU prevents some of the excesses our politicians dream up. We helped and guided the EU in the design of its human rights legislation.

I remember leafleting to join the EU in 1974, after the long battle against France's veto.  Still a fervent and unabashed European, the other arguments I find most convincing are:

·       We need more young people to ensure someone will pay for our pensions - I believe most developed countries will be desperate for young workers to come to them in the near future

·       We are insular in our mentality and must recognise that we are a tiny island and need to belong to a larger economic community 

·       We should be friends with our neighbours and work with them to improve the EU, not abandon it for an unknown and isolationist future. 

Also, while its the absolute sum of our contribution to the EU may sound huge, as a percentage of government spending it really is paltry - 0.37% according to this graphic, about half what we give to relieve Capital Gains Tax on homes: