A Christian 事例／患者 for Brexit
This short paper lays out a 事例／患者 for Britain leaving the EU, from a Christian 視野. It is not “中立の”, because there is no such thing as 中立, but it is hopefully truthful - that is, my 目的（とする） is that the 声明s in it would pass the scrutiny of 十分な Fact.
As we begin 査定する／（税金などを）課すing this question, I'd like to request that we make appropriate comparisons. A 罠（にかける） that I've seen people 落ちる into when discussing the EU conversationally is considering the EU they'd like to have instead of the EU we 現実に have. A 見通し is put 今後 of a collection of 自由に 共同製作 and 貿易（する）ing 君主 nations, all of one mind on most things, with a democratic, accountable and proportionate trans-国家の governance system. It is 簡潔に 譲歩するd that perhaps the 現在の EU has not yet reached this lofty ideal and then it is said: “Surely this is what we want? Why can't we stay in and work に向かって this?”
It's 著名な and perhaps telling that a hearty commendation of this European 見通し is utterly absent from the （選挙などの）運動をする literature of the 公式の／役人 Remain （選挙などの）運動をする. That might perhaps be because the 証拠 shows that the EU we have is not reformable. If 43 years of trying had not 証明するd it already, the 最近の 再交渉 行為／行うd by the British 政府 certainly has. David Cameron didn't even ask for many of the things he'd said in earlier speeches that the UK should 需要・要求する[1], because 予選 私的な discussions 明らかにする／漏らすd them to be impossible. Of the 需要・要求するs he did make, several got watered 負かす／撃墜する, and their permanency without 条約 change is 疑わしい. And this is when one of the largest members is 活発に considering leaving. How much いっそう少なく 改革（する）ing てこ入れ／借入資本 will we have if we explicitly 投票（する） to Remain? “Stay in and radically change things for the better” is not an 選択 on the 投票（する） paper or in reality. We can take the EU as it is, or we can 平和的に leave it. That is the choice that we have.
非，不，無-問題／発行するs
There are a number of much-discussed 問題／発行するs in the broader 審議 which I think are 現実に not 特に 利益／興味ing to Christians. These are:
- Personalities. It is not important which 政治家，政治屋, actor or sportsman is on which 味方する, and what they say about each other, and what 影響 this has on their parties, and so on. The 圧力（をかける）, to their shame, 焦点（を合わせる） far too much on this. Christians should already be good at 避けるing the 機械装置 of deciding what to do by 協議するing their favourite celebrity.
- The UK's 影響（力） in the world. This may go up and 負かす／撃墜する over time, 影響する／感情d by a 広大な／多数の／重要な many things 同様に as this 決定／判定勝ち（する）. This is all in the 手渡すs of God. What is far more important is whether we use what 影響（力） we have for good rather than evil.
- The 会員の地位 料金. The Leave （選挙などの）運動をする has done itself a disservice by choosing to 焦点（を合わせる） on the (in my 見解（をとる） insupportable) 人物／姿／数字 of £350 million a week. I'm not sure why the more reasonable 地位，任命する-rebate 人物／姿／数字 of £250 million a week wasn't chosen; it's still a big number. But if the EU is a good thing, and is 適切な taking on 明言する／公表する-like せいにするs, we should 支払う／賃金 税金s to whomever we 借りがある 税金s. If it's not a good thing, we should leave 関わりなく the size of the 料金.
- 経済的なs. There may be short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 肯定的な or 消極的な 影響s on the economy from leaving, but a 決定／判定勝ち（する） like this needs to consider the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 未来 of the country, not the short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. Far too much politics, both in this 国民投票 and さもなければ, is couched ーに関して／ーの点でs of 控訴，上告ing to 財政上の self-利益／興味. GDP is not irrelevant, but it's far from the only thing which 事柄s to people's 質 of life. Still, it's 信じられない to me that, if we leave, 貿易（する） will not continue, as it's in the 利益／興味s of both 味方するs that it does. Whatever 機械装置s or 協定s are used to make it happen, people's 願望（する） to buy and sell will reassert itself and businesspeople and 政府s will make it possible.
- 不確定. Both 味方するs in this 国民投票 have 試みる／企てるd to portray themselves as the “安全な choice”. In truth, neither is 安全な. The EU is changing 速く, as every new 危機 is てこ入れ／借入資本d into a greater centralisation of 力／強力にする, but there are many 不確定s about leaving 同様に - much depends on how 井戸／弁護士席 the 政府 of the day does at making new 手はず／準備. But reassuringly, safety and certainty are not 設立する in particular political structures or in having a particular colour of 政府. Our 未来 is in God's 手渡すs, and is 安全な・保証する in Christ.
So, then, here are the 問題／発行するs which I think are most 関連した.
主権，独立
“We need to build a 部隊d 明言する／公表するs of Europe with the （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 as 政府.”
Over the past two thousand years, under God, the people of the world (often led, in God's providence, by the UK) have （軍隊を）展開する，配備するd さまざまな 機械装置s which help を取り引きする the fact that any 政府 is made up of sinful men and women to whom it is unwise to give unrestricted 力／強力にする. These are: nations, democratic accountability, transparency and localism.
Each of these 概念s 与える／捧げるs to making sure a 政府 cannot become tyrannical, that there are checks and balances, that their 活動／戦闘s can be seen and the members can be held to account, and that people have input into the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s which 影響する／感情 them. That type of 政府 is most likely to 許す us to “lead a 平和的な and 静かな life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). We should not elevate 僕主主義 and its 関係のある 機械装置s to 存在 a saviour or an 絶対の, but we should see it as a good gift from God.
While admittedly we may have some distance to go on one or two of these here in the UK, this paper will 焦点（を合わせる） on how 井戸／弁護士席 the EU 会合，会うs these ideals.
Nations
“From one man he made all the nations, that they should 住む the whole earth; and he 示すd out their 任命するd times in history and the 境界s of their lands.”
The idea of a world divided into nations is one 認可するd of by God. Nations are not a result of the 落ちる. On the last day, “the nations will walk by [the] light [of the glory of God], and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into [the new Jerusalem]” (Rev. 21:24). 国家の 独特のs are not a bad thing; every nation has its own splendour. By contrast, Rev. 13 does not look with favour on the idea of one world 政府. Having nations 限界s the 力／強力にする of any 選び出す／独身 支配者.
So what makes a nation? I would 示唆する that a nation is a group of people with a ありふれた idea of who they are, where they are going and how things should be done, and who are associated with a particular geographical area. にもかかわらず the rough and 宙返り／暴落する of everyday politics, I think the UK is such a group (and Scotland 投票（する）ing to remain in the UK 耐えるs that out), but I would 示唆する that the entirety of the European continent is not, certainly when we are 含むd. And it is this 欠如（する） of a ありふれた 身元 which 疎遠にするs people from the EU's 政治の structures, and 炭坑，オーケストラ席s Greeks against Germans when discussing the best 財政政策 for the Eurozone. If they felt as if they were one nation, 会計の 移転s and bailouts would not be so 議論の的になる.
“A Europe of nations is a 遺物 of the past.”
When the EU was started 50 years ago, the 目的（とする）, it is said, was to 避ける 未来 war by 除去するing a dangerous 緊張する of 国家主義. But the chosen method for this was by 徐々に 除去するing nations themselves, making a 選び出す／独身 political （独立の）存在. However, we can 観察する from the experience of Christian denominations that 組織の まとまり cannot cover up heart disunity. Nations, 示すd out by God, are more than 簡単に political 建設するs, and the 現在の 緊張s between countries show that 存在 in the EU together far from 保証（人）s peace.
Democratic Accountability
The ability, if you don't like what they are doing, to 平和的に 除去する those who 治める／統治する you and 任命する／導入する new people in their place is a hard-won 権利, which many around the world are not able to enjoy.
How does the EU 形態／調整 up?
The part of the EU which has the “権利 of 法律を制定する 率先” - i.e. they get to decide the topics for 法律制定 and 令状 the 初期の 見解／翻訳／版s of new 法律s or changes - is the unelected European （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限. Yes, the elected European 議会 can 提案する and 投票（する） on 改正s, but the （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 gets to decide the でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing and 範囲 of each 法律 or change, and if the （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 does not want to 再開する a 法律 or 立法者 in an area, there's nothing the 議会 can do about it. This gives the unelected （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 far more 力／強力にする over the content and 範囲 of EU 法律制定 than any unelected 団体／死体 should have in a 僕主主義.
“There can be no democratic choice against the European 条約s.”
The EU also has a habit of ignoring democratic results it doesn't like. There have been eight “No” 投票（する）s in 国民投票s on さまざまな EU 条約s or 計画（する）s since 1992 and, with the exception of two 明言する／公表するs who managed to stay out of the euro, every 選び出す／独身 result has been either ignored or the country has been made to 投票（する） again until the 権利 answer is given. The “European 憲法” is the best example. 拒絶するd by the 投票者s of フラン and the Netherlands in 2005, it was 配列し直すd, 改名するd the Lisbon 条約 so it didn't 要求する a 国民投票 in those countries, and passed anyway. The Irish still constitutionally had to have one; they 投票（する）d No in 2008, so they were made to 投票（する） again until they gave the 権利 answer.
“[Bailouts are] expressly forbidden in the 条約s by the famous no-bailout 条項. De facto, we have changed the 条約.”
The EU also ignores the 設立するing 条約s when it 控訴s it. The Greek and other bailouts at the time of the 財政上の 危機 were 明確に 違法な によれば the 条約s, and it was 認める that it was so. And yet they happened. This should give anyone pause who thinks that さまざまな 権利s in 条約s like a UK 拒否権 will 許す us to stop things happening in the 未来 that we don't like. The EU 見解（をとる） is that the 条約s, in the end, can be and are ignored if doing so 許すs the 事業／計画（する） of closer 統合，差別撤廃 to continue.
Transparency
“The [European] 憲法 目的（とする）d to be （疑いを）晴らす, 反して this [Lisbon] 条約 had to be 不明瞭な. It is a success.”
The more it is possible to see what a 政府 is doing and who 正確に／まさに is doing it, the better it can be held to account.
How does the EU 形態／調整 up?
The EU lawmaking 過程 is not very transparent at all. One example will stand for many: after さまざまな 会・原則s have 表明するd their opinion in さまざまな ways, the final form of any EU 法律 is (often) not 決定するd by a public 改正 過程, but in secret “trialogue” 会合s where 代表者／国会議員s of the 議会, the European 会議 and the European （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 get together and decide what the 法律 is 現実に going to say. These 会合s are informal and unminuted and, because the 会議 大統領／総裁などの地位 only lasts six months and 議会 代表者／国会議員s have to be re-elected 定期的に, the 永久の and unelected （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 tends to 持つ／拘留する the strongest 手渡す. This method of 決定するing the text of 法律s 意味ありげに 土台を崩すs the 力／強力にする of the part of the EU which is elected.
Large 多国籍のs spend millions of euros per year on ロビーing the EU, to 説得する 国会議員s to change 草案 法律s to their advantage. As 合理的な／理性的な 経済的な actors, they wouldn't spend their money this way if it wasn't 効果的な. Yet the public does not know which parts of 草案 法律s were written by lobbyists.
Localism
Localism is the idea that 決定／判定勝ち（する）s are taken as の近くに as possible to the people they 影響する／感情. This moving of 力／強力にする to the 辛勝する／優位s 妨げるs any one person or group of people at the centre from having a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of 力／強力にする, with the consequent 危険 of them sinfully 乱用ing it. 地元の leaders are also more accountable because they are more personal and better known to you.
How does the EU 形態／調整 up?
The EU technically has a かかわり合い to localism, but in practice any 問題／発行する can be made an EU-wide one, where harmonization is 要求するd, for the flimsiest possible 推論する／理由. Examples abound of the EU making 支配するs about the smallest 面s of things. And by design, the 法律s in e.g. Latvia are in part made by 立法議員s from Italy and Spain. This is certainly not localism.
For example, why is it a 事柄 for the EU what level of 付加価値税 we 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 on tampons? ーするために 減ずる it to 無, George Osborne had to go and ask 許可 from the unelected EU （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限. He （機の）カム 支援する triumphantly 説 he'd got it, and that this was a 広大な／多数の／重要な day for the UK's 影響（力） in Europe. But it still hasn't happened, and recently the EU 議会's 委員会 on Women's 権利s and Gender Equality 投票（する）d against the idea. The 未来 is uncertain. But regardless, why on earth should we have to ask 許可?
Another localism problem is the EU's penchant for trans-国家の 貿易（する） 取引，協定s like TTIP - the Transatlantic 貿易（する） and 投資 共同, a 提案するd 貿易（する） を取り引きする the US which the EU is 交渉するing. Unlike some who …に反対する TTIP, I am 一般に in favour of 自由貿易 because I think it's a 大規模な driver that 解除するs poorer countries out of poverty, and that fair 交流 is no 強盗. However, the 準備／条項s of TTIP go far beyond 除去するing 貿易（する） 関税s. It's hard to know which 部類 of problem to とじ込み／提出する such 取引，協定s under. Their secret 交渉s are a transparency problem. Large chunks of the 条約 manipulate the market in favour of 確かな players, which is a 僕主主義 problem. But the biggest problem is perhaps a localism one - that a large 団体／死体 of 法律制定 covering wide areas of human activity is agreed, then 現在のd all at once as a “yes or no” 決定／判定勝ち（する）, to be taken by the EU and then made binding on all the member 明言する／公表するs. Such a 決定／判定勝ち（する） is as far from 存在 localised as it's possible to get.
国境s
Our 現在の 移民／移住 system is neither fair nor compassionate, and leaving the EU opens up the 可能性 of having a 政策 which considers each 事例／患者 on its 長所s, rather than one which 差別するs against people from 確かな countries. The UK has 重要な historical links with, and long-standing expat communities from, countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Yet 国民s of those countries find it far harder to come here than someone from Latvia or Romania. 非，不，無-EU students for theological colleges are finding it very hard to get ビザs. I'm sure it's true of 牧師s and missionaries 同様に. A fair system would level this playing field, and make it easier for such people to 伸び（る） admittance.
“It is a sin to despise one’s 隣人, but blessed is the one who is 肉親，親類d to the 貧困の.”
Controlling and 減ずるing 移民／移住 would also make it easier to help the genuinely 貧困の 難民s, as Scripture and Christian love 命令（する）. Let's say the 総理大臣 wants to 発表する that the UK will take 50,000 or 100,000 難民s from Syria and Iraq. Is that 政治上 more likely if 逮捕する 移民／移住 has been running at north of 300,000 a year for the past five years, or if it's been more like 100,000? Lots of people immigrating to a country in a 比較して short time 原因（となる）s problems with the 準備／条項 of public services, and with social cohesion. But then the 憤慨 those problems 原因（となる） also 除去するs the political space for helping the truly 貧困の. In short, every 経済的な migrant who comes from Eastern Europe makes it 政治上 harder for a 難民 to come from Syria.
It is true that leaving the EU does not 保証（人） that we will get a fairer and more compassionate 移民／移住 政策. But it does at least make one possible.
国家の Character and Worldview
Finally, one 推論する／理由 why our 利益／興味s (and 投票（する）ing patterns) diverge from the 残り／休憩（する） of the EU more than any other country is that there are differences between the way the UK 見解（をとる）s the world and the way 大陸の Europe does. It's possible to overstate this point, but it is 平等に an error to ignore it.
The UK is a culture where whatever is not forbidden is permitted. The EU (反映するing the 残り／休憩（する） of Europe), by contrast, has a 見解（をとる） that whatever is not 規制するd must be 怪しげな. It has been said that to an EU 公式の／役人, “unregulated” is nearly synonymous with “違法な”. I have 本人自身で heard European （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 公式の／役人s 賞賛する 規則 as a good in itself, without consideration of the goals or end. 規制するd, to them, is always better then unregulated.
I think that “whatever is not forbidden is permitted” sits much better with the Christian 見解（をとる） of liberty, and it is an 態度 which, when 支配的な, is much more likely to 保存する freedoms that Christians 持つ／拘留する 特に dear, such as freedom of worship, freedom of 良心 and freedom to evangelise.
結論
The UK's history and 国家の character, and Christian 知恵, support the 完全に reasonable 願望（する） to have one's country run by the people one elects, with direct democratic accountability. The EU is not 適切に democratic and not reformable. It is moving inexorably に向かって a 選び出す／独身 superstate. If that's what the 国民s of the other countries want, we should wish it 井戸／弁護士席 from the outside rather than trying to put the ブレーキs on and 妨害する them by complaining from the inside. No-one who wants to leave the EU is 説 we should turn our 支援するs on Europe - we can be friends with the EU, co-operate 自由に with the EU, 貿易（する） with the EU, and holiday in the EU. But 非，不，無 of those things 要求する giving their 法律 最高位 over ours. It's much better to be good 隣人s than grumpy tenants.
その上の Reading
The best 世俗的な 事例／患者 for leaving is made in the 調書をとる／予約する “Why 投票（する） Leave”, by UK MEP Daniel Hannan. I recommend it as a companion to this paper.
Joe Boot of Christian 関心 has written such a good article on this topic that I almost gave up 令状ing this one when I read it.
Please 接触する me if you find any errors; I would be happy to 訂正する them.
[1] Some 引用するs from earlier speeches and manifestos: “回復するing social and 雇用 法律制定 to 国家の 支配（する）／統制する”, “a 完全にする 選ぶ-out from the 借り切る／憲章 of 根底となる 権利s”, “EU jobseekers having a 職業 申し込む／申し出 before they come”, “改訂するing the Working Time 指示的な to give 柔軟性 to the NHS”, “ending the European 議会's ... wasteful habit of 会合 in Strasbourg 同様に as Brussels”, “改革（する） of the ありふれた 農業の 政策”, and “改革（する） of the EU 構造上の 基金s”. He didn't even ask for any of this when he started his 再交渉. 支援する up.