You're right that I think that Westminster is 'high enough'. There are really two reasons for this:
First, I have a general tendency towards localism. I believe that mayors and councils are the most democratic structures that we have. I believe that localised decision-making allows people to feel closer to their representatives, have more visibility of decision-making and have more influence per capita over decisions.
It is not an absolute belief. Certain things like defence are clearly not local issues. I understand the anguish around 'postcode lotteries' in health spending. But generally, the lower the better.
Thanks for giving the rationale. FWIW I do agree with you that more local should be preferred wherever practical. I guess our disagreement in that regard is that I do see greater benefits in many situations in having common approaches. Too often, 'local' can end up as different authorities competing against each other in a way that does more harm than good (instances of Nimbyism being one obvious example).
I tend to feel that harmonisation tends to develop organically on the market when it is really useful (e.g. the ubiquity of USB sockets and the shape of USB plugs). I tend to think that harmonisation for harmonisation's sake tends to have an anti-innovative effect.
I would say it's more complex than that. I work in IT, and in that field I see many situations where harmonization has been very beneficial but also situations where harmonization would be beneficial but hasn't happened (a good example would be laptop battery shapes). The problem is that in order to happen 'naturally', harmonization doesn't merely need to be useful, it also needs dominant players in the industry to take the lead, often in the process, sacrificing some short term profits or accepting greater competition. Too often, that doesn't happen precisely because companies fear the greater competition etc. brought by harmonization, believing that they gain more by locking consumers into their own products. In those case, action by the authorities is likely to be highly beneficial (provided, obviously, it is done competently).
On my second point, in a way I think you're right. It is not entirely rational. It is that I feel British. I feel that my neighbours on these islands are my countrymen. I don't feel that we are a superior breed of human, but I do believe in a national culture. I do believe in a national psyche. I do believe that there is something that makes us British. I don't believe that it is exclusive to people born here - I think people can become British and it's a wonderful thing when they want to. I believe that our culture is a good one.
That is a very honest answer, and I think it's very reasonable too. In many ways I feel exactly the same way. There is something special and unique about the UK, which I feel proud to be a part of. (And I don't mean to denigrate other countries by saying that. I'm sure that almost every culture and country is unique and special in different ways). However, at the same time I also feel a part of humanity and that a loyalty to 'humanity' as a whole without regard to national borders is equally important - and I see no conflict between that and being British. Maybe, that's partly why I feel more at ease with the idea of significant governance coming from the EU. And of course, when I see that some problems can be better solved at a transnational or European level, the pragmatist in me says that that is more important than my emotional feelings of attachment to the UK. I'm going to hazard a guess that the difference between us here is simply a matter of degree rather than principle.
I'm still young but perhaps I am just old enough to feel like this. Perhaps the younger generation, who grew up with global media and internet access and smartphones from a young age feel connected to Europeans to a much greater extent. Perhaps borders and frontiers feel much more artificial to them.
I think that is true too. One of my concerns about Brexit - and indeed one of the reasons why I finally decided I was for 'in' is a fear that by leaving, we would be going in the opposite direction to the life that many younger people will expect, in which borders become less important and the ability to experience different countries and to move freely will become more important. And to that extent, a Brexit is likely to damage the ability of many people to experience the life that they want.
Incidentally, my partner is from Nepal (and for a significant period, we had terrible problems staying together because of immigration restrictions. Now long since solved, but that is a part of my life I definitely do not wish to live through again. I really think those who casually call for tighter controls on immigration do not realize what they are asking for, or what devastating effect it can have on many people's lives. I also work online, and most of my closest colleagues are in the USA, with a few scattered around other countries. This definitely gives a sense of a world in which borders are becoming less meaningful. I rather fear that what many on the Brexit side are for all practical purposes seeking - at least as far as borders is concerned - amounts to a return to a world that is divided, and simply not appropriate for the future.
I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I voted for Blair in 2001 and 2005 for social reasons and voted Conservative in 2010 and 2015 for economic reasons. I won't tie my hands for the next election as Cameron isn't my favourite politician right now!
Ah sorry, I was mistaken about your politics. I rather doubt that 'Cameron' will be an option at the next election (not least because he's ruled himself out anyway!)
