Having concluded last week that security is a bit of a red herring in the EU debate, I’m going to reach a very different conclusion in this week’s column on whether we are stronger in or out. Although, of course, it depends on how you define strength. For there is no doubt that if we were to leave the EU, we would be making laws for ourselves that are currently made for us elsewhere. Within our own borders, Parliament would become all powerful and some would argue that with that sovereignty comes strength.
I see the point and, make no mistake, it appeals enormously that our laws are made in our Parliament and that they are interpreted exclusively within our own courts. But that is just not how I define strength.
To me, strength is influence and to influence things you need to be in the room. We are unique in being a member of the G7, G8, G20, NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the Security Council of the United Nations and myriad other things besides. Our voice in international diplomacy is greater than our military might or the size of our economy because we sit in the middle of all that. If we leave the EU, we will no longer be a member of one of the biggest and most important clubs in the world. In my view, our strength would be diminished as a result.
Now, some would quite legitimately argue that if that is strength, good riddance. It ain’t worth the membership fee. My view is that we would not be as strong if we were on the outside of the EU. Whether you agree is up to you. And so, is whether you care.