Toby at Straight Banana continues his quest to disprove Euromyths. If pro-Europeans really have to go into this much detail each time, we could be in trouble. There are hundreds of these things, and some of them are truly barking.

And, unsurprisingly, the usual tactic of modern political debate is brought up in the comments – an attempt to discredit the entire, insanely detailed research of the article by picking up on one small inaccuracy. Which, as is also often the case in modern political debate, isn’t actually an inaccuracy at all…

Some good news for the pro-EU camp is that the Eurosceptics’ previously fairly united front seems to be fracturing, just as the pro-European camp has before them.

This is hardly surprising – as noted here the other day, Britain’s attitude towards and relationship with the EU simply can’t be boiled down to a black/white, Yes/No issue. It’s an insanely complex affair, with many ranges of belief and perception – from the hard-core nationalists who want out of the EU entirely on the one side through to the Ted Heaths of this world who think the EU can do no wrong on the other.

Most people, if they thought about it for a few minutes (which many, sadly, don’t), would lie somewhere in between. They would see that the EU has its benefits, but that it also has its flaws. They would see that it is very hard to prove categorically one way or the other that further integration will be to Britain’s benefit, and that it’s very hard indeed to prove that Britain would be better off out. We simply don’t know.

Much as with the 1975 referendum, most people (if given the choice) would opt for the status quo, because it’s practically impossible to work out which direction – if any – is the best. Given the choice to leave the EU, they’d say no; given the choice to join the Eurozone (with all the fears of federalism that entails) they would also say no.

Of course, the problem is that if the rest of the EU charges ahead, and we don’t follow along with them, the status quo will be impossible to maintain. Quite what will happen – and it is impossible to stress this point too hard – no one knows. Only one thing is certain – sooner or later Britain will have to make a major choice between following her EU partners or going it more or less alone into uncharted waters. Of course, the other EU member states will also be heading into the white areas of the map – but they will, at least, have safety in numbers.

But this, too, is falling into the trap. Anyone who claims to be able to predict the future is a charlatan speculating on insufficient evidence – nothing more. This is precisely why the two sides end up polarising a debate which is far more complex than simply “Yes” or “No”, and keep getting bogged down in the details.

I’m offering no solution here. I’m not sure if there is one. The details need to be examined and discussed. The myths need to be dispelled, and the problems need to be highlighted. But we need to keep the broader picture in mind at the same time or risk getting into the classic blind men/elephant scenario, with everyone having a different interpretation of what’s going on. Perhaps this has already happened – it’d certainly explain the infighting between all the various EU-focussed camps.

The provisional constitution is symbolic of the entire problem – overly complex and detailed, and very hard for most people to understand even if they can be bothered to try. To resort to cliche, the entire European debate has got to the stage where not only can none of us see the wood for the trees, but we can barely see the trees for the leaves.