As somebody who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum, I’d be happy to have the debate again if it were even vaguely honest. The truth about the European Union is that being part of the single market obviously brings considerable benefits. But the EU is much more than a single market. It’s a political project committed to ever-closer union, one that progressively strips nation states of their sovereignty. And you either believe in sovereign nation states or you don’t. I voted Remain because the EU’s progressivism chimed with my worldview at the time. But world events, not least the pandemic and the authorities’ response to it, have opened my eyes and shifted my political outlook. And those waving the flag for the EU today should ask themselves a simple question: would they still be so enthusiastic about membership if the EU evolved into something they profoundly disliked? Because that’s the crux of the matter. You either want to live in a country where your vote matters, where there’s a direct line between the ballot box and the laws of the land, or you’re happy to sacrifice that democratic accountability to a bureaucratic, supranational body that takes powers away, slice by slice. Why do you think the European Union has its own flag, anthem and currency? Its architects have long envisaged a political union that goes far beyond economic cooperation, potentially culminating in a federal United States of Europe. And look what’s happening in the actual United States. A country increasingly divided into two bitterly opposed political camps, united under one flag but profoundly divided over values, identity and the direction of their country. There’s even been serious talk of civil unrest as political polarisation deepens. Do we really want to replicate that on a continent of countries with different languages, histories, cultures and political traditions? Why not focus instead on making the United Kingdom sovereign, strong and resilient? A country that cooperates with its neighbours, trades freely with the world and negotiates agreements without surrendering democratic control over its own affairs. Why is that such a controversial ambition? Why has the perfectly reasonable desire for democratic self-government become something that so many supposedly progressive people regard with suspicion, even contempt?