Caroline Lucas, MP for the Brighton Pavilion Constituency and Tom Hickey, Lecturer in Philosophy and Political Economy

The first half of the referendum debate has been a distortion of the central issues. One side has argued for British withdrawal to escape the constraints of EU legislation on UK policy, and to restore UK sovereignty. The other argues for continued British membership but in a EU whose protective legislation and regulations are weakened in the interests of those who benefit from the free market and neo-liberal policies.

There is another debate entirely. It is one that is not confined to pursuing neo-liberal policies outside the EU against those who want the same policies pursued within the Union.

This different debate is one about justice, equality and environmental sustainability. It is between those who think these values are best pursued as part of the EU, and those who think the nature and structure of the EU to be incompatible with them.

The different positions in this debate do not defend 'little England' as a preferable place to be. Nor are they about the best conditions for the operation of market capitalism. They are about human need and flourishing, and whether the EU offers a route, or an obstacle, to those objectives.

That is the discussion that ought to have dominated the EU Referendum debate. Here is a contribution to that discussion: two introductory and contrasting perspectives, and plenty of time for participation in the debate.

Hosted by the Politics, Philosophy, Aesthetics Seminar Series, 

Admission free but seating and admission are limited. 

Doors open at 7.30