“We recognised – Wellington recognised, Churchill recognised, every statesman for centuries recognised – that a united Europe, with Britain on the outside is the most grave threat to its existence. And we are preparing to give up our foremost foreign policy aim for no distinguishable benefit. Not only that, we’re doing it because we’re afraid there will be more integration, a common foreign policy, a common defense policy, the very situation we could both prevent and ameliorate the worst effects of if we were in the EU. To give away a United States of Europe of which the UK isn’t a part seems foolish, short-sighted and potentially suicidal.”
This all feels a little redundant now.
I was going to say this felt like a pretty simple choice between principles and practicalities.
I was going to say that the principle of less-opaque government, closer and more responsive to the people it serves was a good one, and an important one.
I was going to say that when a decision will have a material impact on your quality of life, it’s entirely valid to choose to vote based on that rather than on principle.
I was going to ask how the people who boasted of watching Suffragette with their daughters were going to explain the fact that they were trying to make sure that the votes the Pankhursts fought for meant less and less.
I was going to ask the warriors for freedom from the tyranny of the state how they could justify leaving the only organisation that guarantees the free…
View original post 1,723 more words