WITH the arguments hotting up from both sides of the European membership debate, we can look forward to months of claim and counter claim on the supposed benefits of remaining in, or exiting from, Europe, being part of our daily news feeds and in our public and private debate.

It can become very confusing for the general public to make clear decisions when the information or propaganda becomes a constant barrage and all truth and clarity is forsaken to enable either camp to force home their argument. What then, are we, the mere players in the game, to do in order that we may make the best choice?

Perhaps, instead of being led by the nose by PR and propaganda, we should take the time to fully ingest the information. What is it that is really being debated? Is it really only an economic argument or is there more at stake? Collective defence has been given as a reason to stay, border control a reason to leave. In truth, the nub of the argument surely rests on who makes the laws to control the collective populations of member states or, more to the point, the collective market place and its work force.

There are enough examples of over-burgeoning bureaucracy and money wasting from the EU to warrant at the very least an overhaul of its structure or to justify leaving altogether. On the other hand successive British governments have proven just as profligate and overbearing, the difference I guess is that New Labour (Conservative lite) had at least enough conscience to make some concessions to social justice by trying to ensure the survival of the NHS, invest in general education, and establish Sure Start and early years centres…possibly their greatest achievement, whilst the Conservatives can't close them fast enough. The last thing they want is everyone to have a Sure Start and their latest impositions on junior doctors is proof enough of where their focus lies.

It just shows how powerful PR and spin really are. The Conservatives manage to convince large sections of the population who are not rich enough to afford to be Conservatives to vote for them. It's clear that our own politicians can't be trusted with petty cash, let alone expense accounts, and left to their own devices the Tories would sell their own mothers if they thought the share dividend was favourable. Mind you, as children, they were probably left to strangers in some infamous boarding school, to be raised, technically abandoned by their parents, foster care for the wealthy as I like to describe it. Is it any wonder they display such lack of empathy for others and personality traits worryingly similar to sociopaths?.

I have a suspicion that the “outers” appear more concerned with sovereignty and willing to make (and break) their own laws on all manner of of issues ranging from human rights, working hours, immigration, trade agreements, to union rights and taxation. They appear to me as being very focused on their mission of having the freedom to exploit any course of action that will favour their opportunity to make money.

I do not feel their motives are in any way led by care for the masses. They have been taught and believe that they are better then the rest and the only reason they find themselves in such fortunate positions is because they deserve it, "the deserving elite", no thought of nepotism and the "old school tie".

One only has to watch a collection of Boris Johnson's best bits on Youtube to see how deluded they are and how dangerous. Not that the "inners" are any better, Cameron is of the same ilk as Johnson, just not so much of a buffoon. However, their trajectory from the playing fields of Eton to the smashing up of restaurants in the infamous Bullingdon club at Oxford, is deeply entwined. How apt is it's call to arms, the chant, of "bully bully, bully".