For this discussion, the Parliament Magazine originally tried to set up a head to head debate between myself and UKIP deputy Roger Helmer. Roger however declined to set out his arguments, having also ducked my offer of public debates together about the pros and cons leaving the EU. So, instead I want to take a moment to respond to the London-based Bruges Group's article by Robert Oulds which appeared in the last issue of this magazine.
Sadly Robert's points fly in the face of reality. Norway and the other European economic area countries have no say over EU legislation for the single market or indeed over anything else. In neither of the EU's two legislative chambers which make the EU laws together, the council and parliament, do Norwegians have a single seat or a single vote. And, worse, they have to pay into the annual EU budget without having any say in fixing its details.
Being 'in' or 'out' of the European Union boils down to whether or not you want to have influence over your future or not. Inside the EU, the UK is very influential. Outside we would drift friendless, and we would have to go in whatever direction the Germans and French and other members decided. We would have no say at all over our own destiny. How unwise is that?
Major businesses, which provide many jobs in the UK, insist that they want us to stay inside the EU. Shell Oil, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Diageo, and many more; because they want Britain to be able to protect their interests, while 80 per cent of the confederation of British industry (CBI) members want us to stay in. What on earth is the advantage of leaving the EU and thus having far fewer remaining jobs in the UK?
And who else has advised the British to stay inside the EU? The US government, the Japanese government, the Australian government, and even the Norwegian prime minister. So, Mr Oulds thinks he knows better what benefits Norway than Norway itself?
Why does it matter that giant multinationals want the UK to stay in the EU? It matters to the British people because they provide us with jobs and exports. Even talk of 'out' damages our chances. Multinationals veer away from the UK, because of the uncertainty.
With the failure of the WTO to produce new improvements to the rules of world trade, the EU is negotiating a new free trade agreement with India and, another, the transatlantic trade and investment package with the US.
If our British voice was not part of these negotiations, could we rely on the French and Germans to look after our interests after we had walked out on them?
Would the Americans give us a better deal? "Let's see, you burned down the White House in 1812, you wanted to tax us without allowing us representation, you tortured our president's father in Kenya, and you have withdrawn from the EU against our advice. You've got only 60 million people against our 280 million (and against the EU's 500 million) and you Brits think we will give you a better deal?"
Cue the sound of very hollow laughter in Washington DC.