In or Out Referendum: Should the UK lead or to be led?

On Wednesday morning (22/5/2013), during his interview on Radio 4 Today Programme, the Prime Minister declared an "Incredible unity and agreement across the country" in our relationship with the EU and carried on: "what we need is to renegotiate our relationship, get the relationship right so that Europe will help us, and then hold an in or out referendum. That is the boldest, clearest, most straightforward policy on Europe that any party leader has had for 30 or 40 years". (Full interview is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22608797)

I am sorry to say, but I do not recognise the basic premise upon which the statement is made, nor do I buy into the political aim the statement includes.

First of all, the premise that there is an "incredible unity and agreement across the country" about EU is false. If anything there is an "incredible disarray and disagreement across the country" - look at UKIP's gain of almost a quarter of popular vote, look at the Tories arguing for an immediate exit, look at the Labour party sitting on the fence (doing nothing). That is not an expression of "incredible unity and agreement". The only 'united' party on Europe is Liberal Democrats.

It is a fact that in logical constructions one can prove anything if the premise is false. So the conclusion of the boldest and clearest policy on Europe is meaningless and there is no need to argue with that. However, the narrative leading to the boldest and clearest policy is positively dangerous.

We will renegotiate our relationship 'to get Europe to help us'? Surely a leader should aspire for more? The UK should take a lead in Europe not conditioning our involvement by 'Europe helping us'. We are a part of Europe and we cannot but act in Europe. Every time Britain resigned its interest in the past it led to European and worldwide disasters. Every time Britain has not pursued its legitimate interest 'the Continent' and British Isles suffered.

History taught us to take a lead in Europe and 'the Europeans' perceive our contribution as a positive one. The BBC is still the most trusted source of news, the English laws and arbitrations are used in a number of legal contracts - to name but two proofs. Because of that our European partners wish us to be involved. Our 'special relationship' American partners urge us to remain involved. It is a paradox that the American President urges us to stay in the EU and our own ministers hanker for 'free trade', 'free will', 'free destiny' withdrawal. Such a 'free' world does not exist. No country in the world is so free as to take a complete disregard of her neighbours in her actions. And if we withdraw just because we were not able to play the part we wish to play our image will suffer. We will not be taken as a serious negotiator in the future if we just 'leave' Europe. And how can one claim to be able to become 'a part of the world' when not even managing to be a fully fledged 'part of Europe'?

We need a 'bold, clear and straightforward' policy on Europe. But a policy of leadership, a policy of 'Britishness' in Europe a policy of engagement and a policy of influencing and shaping the European agenda. A refusal is not good. The type of 'in or out' referendum I would like is "Do you agree Britain should be leading in Europe or do you wish to stay out on the periphery?"

Once you answer that question as your logical premise and if you agree that Britain should lead in Europe then the logical conclusion is that you must vote Liberal Democrats. And this time the conclusion is based on your own, free and true premise - so it must be the right conclusion.