I will be voting tomorrow to remain in the EU. It is not a difficult decision for me; I believe that Remain has all the best arguments. The economic case, backed by 90 per cent of economists, is overwhelming by itself.
But I have found that for me, this decision has not just been a cerebral exercise about weighing up pluses and minuses; it is visceral. At stake, it seems to me, is the question of what sort of a country we are and what sort of role we wish to play in the world.
The EU is not perfect, goodness knows, but on the brink of this historic vote we should remember how and why this extraordinary community of nations came into existence. I know my father hasn’t forgotten. His first memory, aged two, is of a family holiday interrupted by sombre news: the outbreak of the Second World War. By its end, the war had claimed two of his young uncles.
To think that septuagenarians like my parents have experienced war in Europe is a reminder, for me, of how shockingly recent it was. The EU, set up with the express aim of binding nations together in peace and prosperity, has been remarkably successful in that mission.
The danger of another war consuming this continent, once a depressingly regular occurrence, has receded to such an extent that my own generation revel in luxurious complacency about it most of the time. Being part of a mutually beneficial free trade area has helped greatly to reduce the scope for conflict. I do not suggest that Britain voting to leave would somehow precipitate war, but with the continent facing daunting new problems such as Russian aggression, terrorism and the humanitarian and logistical challenge of the migration crisis, can anyone truly doubt that we are more effective, stronger and safer within it?
A dozen UK defence chiefs, five former Nato secretary-generals and a procession of former White House foreign affairs and intelligence chiefs have argued that Britain is safer in the EU. Is every one of them wrong? You decide.
I want to be part of a nation that is a self-confident partner with its neighbours, one that recognises its national interest is best served by being outward-looking and closely engaged. Continuing membership of the EU serves that vision.
The EU is often understandably criticised for being too disengaged from those it serves but the answer is surely reform, not rejection. It is not for nothing that we have chosen to pool a portion of our sovereignty; it is because it serves our national self-interest and we do, after all, retain a veto in many important areas. If we leave, we will lose the huge benefits EU membership brings.
Read more: Leave campaign claims Brexit will make Scotland 'more sovereign and independent'
For one last time, let’s just remind ourselves what those are: tariff-free access to the world's biggest free trade area (250,000 Scottish jobs depend on trade with the EU) and access through the EU to other huge world markets; lower costs for Scottish households; social and environmental regulations that safeguard our working conditions like paid holiday and maternity and paternity leave and ensure we have clean air and water; and crucial funding supporting everyone from farmers to community energy projects to the unemployed (Scotland has already received £1.2 billion in European subsidies). President Obama, the IMF, the OECD, most major British businesses and business chiefs, most unions, most economists and the Bank of England believe that Britain’s future prosperity and influence in the world is best served by remaining in the EU. Why risk all of that?
The Leave campaign’s claim that Britain could retain all of the good bits about EU membership while dumping all the less popular bits is simply not credible. Other non-EU countries pay a fee to the EU and abide by its regulations to gain free trade access to the EU market but without any say in how it operates. And negotiating any such deal would take years. Claims of a cash windfall as Britain keeps what it would otherwise pay into EU coffers take no account of the downturn economists predict would follow Brexit.
There is no escaping the xenophobic tone of some elements of the Leave campaign. But there are also many people who have reasonable concerns relating to immigration. What is the right level for the UK? Well, we certainly need immigration because of our ageing population and immigrants contribute far more than they take. Many argue that tightly restricting immigration would not serve Britain’s interests. But it is highly questionable whether Brexit could deliver tight restrictions anyway. The Australian points-based system favoured by the Leave campaign has resulted in higher levels of immigration per head there than we have here. And if we wanted to maintain access to the single market, the EU might well insist that the UK continued to allow free movement of people. The Prime Minister’s renegotiation deal, on the other hand, has resulted in restrictions on benefits for migrant workers in their first four years.
Read more: Nicola Sturgeon - EU vote is not about Scottish independence
The prospect that we might actually leave the EU not only worries but also saddens me. Let’s not turn in on ourselves; let’s not throw over this imperfect but in many ways wildly successful partnership with Europe in favour of an unrealistic idea of how Britain might operate alone. Let’s reaffirm Britain’s status as an open, confident and engaged nation with an important role to play at the top table of Europe. That means voting to remain.
Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist and commentator.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel