![]()
When I went to the Great Hall to attend the debate on the EU before the Long Exeat, I had rather been hoping for answers and a sense of conviction, but instead was left with questions, and doubts. Such is the subjective vortex of political debate. I cannot say definitely who won. Seemingly this debate brought many people together only to divide them spectacularly over the issue in which no statement is ever clear cut, and no comfort can be drawn from statistics that should have enlightened us all. Instead my grasp on the whole debate was largely from its conceptual and historical aspects. Would this sceptre’d isle be better off outside the yoke of Europe, or not?
Much of the historical rhetoric was about the sacrifice of our ancestors in World War I and World War II, which produced dual and opposite conclusions. Tom Pursglove MP thought that our fight to remain free was being undermined by our European friends. On the other hand, Alasdair Bert MP advocated a view that days later Cameron would broadcast on the front pages of all national papers: Brexit could lead to World War III (long term).
This rather alarming suggestion was well served by Mr Bert’s excellent oration. While this unnerved me, I was not entirely convinced that World War III was imminent. The past alone played a key role in dividing our hearts, especially those of the elder generation who embodied a huge proportion of the hall. Alasdair Bert MP continued to use World War II to great effect in his impassioned argument, pleading with us to preserve the bridges we have forged since the war. ‘Brexit’, he espoused, ‘could unleash nationalist tension in France and Austria.’ Both sides seemed to endorse patriotism as a vehicle to justify in their polarised conclusions. It did not, however, provide the entire basis of either argument.
In terms of economics, Mr Pursglove argued that Britain could better preserve our industry and strive for more international markets away from the EU. Mr Bert retorted that not only would this be unlikely to occur, but that we were lucky to have the deal we currently have in the single market.
Both ‘tigers’, as the judicator labelled them, clearly cared deeply about the destiny of this country. The debate over the merits of the single market unfolded, many questions were raised by the audience, including one about the state of the fishing industry. I had no idea what her point was, so I had to do some research to find that while Britain used to have jurisdiction of waters over 200 miles from our shores, the EU had restricted it to just twelve miles.
In other industries, the IN campaign have said recently that leaving the EU would ruin the British motor-industry. To be frank, I think the British motor industry rather did itself in a long while ago in the form of the Austin Allegro. However, they make a good case when many British car marques like Mini are largely German owned.
Immigration was noticeably absent from the debate, despite its significance in anti EU rhetoric.
So, I left the hall probably better informed, but in no way more certain of the merit of either argument. Like many others, I am still left with only a gut instinct that will most likely not be swayed by statistics.
Having said that, Tom Pursglove MP asked an interesting question in his closing statement: Would we vote to join the EU, if that was our decision on June 23rd?
And I thought they were there to answer questions.
Henry Phillips-Sheard (S)