The claims and counter-claims in this referendum have been dominating the airwaves for weeks. The public is confused. On the doorstep people are not yet fed up with it, but they yearn for a clarity in the debate. Having taken part in all manner of discussions and debates I believe there are two broad fault-lines between those who wish to Remain and those who wish to Leave. One we have heard much about, the other less so.

The first stems from the EU’s evolution from an economic bloc into a social as well as economic union. I have no doubt that this is why so many on the right believe we should leave; they see the EU as responsible for a swathe of regulations that they claim hamper the economy. For example, Steve Hilton – now a prominent Leave campaigner – wants to scrap all maternity rights and end temporary workers’ rights. I think it is fair to say the obsession with destroying Social Europe is why so many Thatcherite Tories and Ukip members feel the way they do about the EU.

The second fault-line, unlike the first, is now unique to Britain: we have yet to come to terms with the end of empire. The ghost of the British empire is everywhere in this debate nearly seventy years after it began to end, yet nobody dare address it head on. You see it in the claims made by the Leave campaign that anyone who is in favour of staying in the EU is ‘talking the country down’ or that our membership of the Commonwealth demands we strengthen our links there and cut ourselves free from Europe or that an ‘Anglosphere’ will provide the networks and status we need. As the world’s fifth largest economy, they say, we need not to be members of a ‘protectionist’ market.

At the heart of this is a failure to recognise that the truly patriotic case is to build Britain’s global influence by being part of Europe. The world transformed beyond all recognition even before we first entered the common market in 1973. Back then, as the process of decolonisation was already all but over, Britain’s leaders recognised that to continue to maintain our global influence Britain needed a new settlement, an arrangement that made our economy more resilient and which continued to enable us to punch above our weight in a world we no longer dominated.

The idea of Britain going it alone and striking out trade deals with the rest of the world is superficially attractive; no need for compromise, and the terms we set can be ours. But this idea is based on the false premise that we must choose between Europe or the world. Membership of the EU enhances, not hinders, our place in the world. The reality is that modern spheres of influence are more often than not manifested through trade relationships and that being in a large economic bloc affords us more sway over our affairs.

Ngaire Woods, economics professor at Oxford University, summed this up brilliantly on Newsnight. All markets will size each other up and trade deals will be determined on the basis of what the other side can offer. Big markets will always prevail over smaller ones. It is perfectly possible to secure deals outside of being a member of a large market, but the deal will most likely be lopsided and unequal. This is one of the reasons TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is taking so long – the US cannot simply dictate terms to the EU, and many in the EU are opposed to aspects of the proposed deal. If Britain were on its own there is scant chance of the UK (65 million strong and 2.5% of world GDP) securing the terms it wants in a deal with the US (320 million and 16% of world GDP). This would hold true whether the UK is at the front or the back of the queue.

Being a member of the world’s largest market is a pre-requisite not an additional luxury when it comes to maintaining our global influence. I have always believed that our position in the world is vital to delivering on people’s needs at home. If we are serious about meeting today’s challenges: securing more and better-paid jobs, improving skills and life chances, fighting poverty, disease and climate change then our global influence matters.

For many Leave campaigners sovereignty is the key issue. But sovereignty without influence is meaningless. It doesn’t deliver any more jobs, reform any discriminatory marketplace or protect any key industry. A belief that sovereignty trumps all else is bound to lead to Britain losing its global influence.

Britain’s last significant colony, Hong Kong, ceased being British in 1997. In the almost twenty years that have followed we have yet to position ourselves to make the most of our advantages and confidently carve out our future path. The EU is by no means perfect and there are many aspects to reform. But no-one has yet suggested an alternative in a world where we need to be ever-more inventive and resourceful to maintain our global reach. We must make the patriotic case that Britain’s national interest is best served by maintaining our global influence through membership of the world’s largest market. To genuinely ensure Britain has a strong, confident and proud future we must not let the ghost of Empire scare us away.

———————————

Seb Dance is a member of the European parliament