RELUGAS

Referenda seem to bring out the blogger in me. So I’ll have a wee go at setting out my view of the EU ‘Brexit’ plebiscite that will take place on 23 June 2016.

For me it’s not as fundamental an issue at stake as the one we voted on in Scotland in 2014. This is because, whatever the outcome, we will still get to choose our national government. As Scotland voted ‘no’ in 2014, that government is at UK level, albeit there is a devolved government with many powers over specified issues. So our elected government at Westminster will represent us in EU matters, as they have done in the recent negotiations that have preceded this referendum.

And this is the crux of the matter. The EU is a body made up of nations, each of which elects a government which represents it in its dealings with the other members. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, UK governments will continue to deal with those of our neighbours – both those within the EU and those outwith. So, while it does matter, it doesn’t have the existential consequences of September 2014.

At the moment I plan to vote to remain in the EU. That’s because I believe the EU has been of benefit to the continent in helping to overcome some of the divisions that contributed to the conflicts of the first half of the 20th century and has helped the transition to independence for the new or re-established states of Eastern Europe. Its economic and democratic power are beneficial in providing some balance to the powers of the USA and China. As a union representing many cultures and languages it sends a powerful signal of working together to achieve mutual aims. Many of the major issues facing us – climate change, poverty, migration, security for example – supersede national borders and the EU is an important part of tackling these.

On the downside, there is a ceding of sovereignty which takes power further away from the people. This in turn gives greater power to multinational corporations. There’s the economic imbalance which contributed to such pain for the people of Greece. There has also been a growth in bureaucracy, again undermining democratic influence. However, in my view these disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits outlined previously. And the very negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks demonstrate that it is possible to overcome differences.

So ultimately there is a case for saying that, on balance, a vote for the UK to remain in the EU is the more co-operative, optimistic option, in terms of both symbol and substance.

How do I square this with having voted ‘yes’ for Scottish independence? Well, it’s straightforward for me: the vote in 2014 provided an opportunity for greater democracy, government closer to the people, Scotland working with our neighbours as an equal partner. Scotland voted to sacrifice sovereignty entirely for the sake of political unity. The vote in 2016 is about pooling sovereignty –  the outcome of pooled sovereignty may not always be what we wish for, but we still get to choose who represents us in the process.

The EU model of union may require more give and take than the UK model, but it allows each of its constituent parts to continue to have an influence as a nation. A properly federal UK might work like this too, though there doesn’t seem any prospect of such a thing emerging in the foreseeable future.

So while some of the arguments we hear over the next few months will be all too familiar, the question at stake is a very different one, and there is not necessarily any direct correlation between how people voted in 2014 and how they choose to vote in June.

Now, as to what should happen if the UK votes Out and Scotland votes In, or if the UK votes In and England votes Out, well that would merit the overused ‘uncharted territory’ cliche.