Should Britain stick with the EU?

The idea of a growing unity between its members states is central to the founding documents of the European Union. Sadly, however, the founders did not let us in on their secret, the exact meaning of 'ever closer union'.

Does it refer to an increasingly porous trading bloc, with growing opportunities for mobility and for collaboration on pressing problems at home and abroad? Or does 'ever closer union' mean, eventually, a European super-state, a United States of Europe?

I'd be in favour of one of those options, but not the other.

While EU apparatchiks won't talk about a total political union, at least in public, their collective decisions often betray a desire to consolidate power in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Earlier this week I joined a news debate on the EU referendum on BBC TV. A fellow guest suggested that speaking about ever closer union – at least in its obvious political sense – simply allows the debate to be hijacked by emotion.

Actually, this is not an emotive issue as much as a philosophical one. Everything else hangs on it.

If we further reduce the sovereignty of nations within Europe, we move government one huge step further away from the governed. We also remove from the administration and practice of jurisprudence the rich history which nations like Britain bring to it.

A Europe with a unified political system would place too much power in the hands of as yet unelected bureaucrats.

It would also deny the fact that where Europe is strong, it is strong because of its underlying mix of unity with diversity.

Europe's cultural diversity is a large part of what makes it interesting and attractive as a place to live and work. I think it also potentially heightens Europe's ability to be creative and to inspire inventiveness.

Stamping a false political uniformity on Europe would only weaken its diversity and reduce its capacity for innovation.

A failure to recognise diversity has already caused havoc in Europe.