Britain’s exit from the EU would further weaken, potentially fatally, an institution that is already being buffeted by the most severe tests of its legitimacy in its history.

The British political punditry is currently gearing up for its second referendum in almost as many years, this one over British membership in the EU. One can be sure that in the coming weeks the unsuspecting public will be inundated with everything from projections of hypothetical trade flows to the minutiae of soon-to-be-potentially-abolished regulations, alongside all manner of various other conjecture. But amidst all this talk, I fear that the prevailing discussion will lose sight of the forest for the trees.

This referendum comes at a time of mounting pressure on the ideas that are fundamental to the continued viability of the European project. The ongoing financial debacle in Greece has shaken faith in the wisdom of a currency union, while refugees pouring into the continent by their millions has forced a rethink of unrestricted open borders. Right wing, anti-European parties are on the rise across the continent, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Greece’s Golden Dawn.

Such a backdrop might seem to suggest that abandoning the sinking ship of the EU is the most prudent course of action for the UK. But this line of thinking neglects to consider that a British withdrawal from Europe would be a shot in the arm to this already surging anti-Europe movement. Brexit would embolden by precedent, legitimising their message against an ever closer union. Given Britain’s right to hold an exit referendum, it’s surely not particularly unreasonable for others to demand similarly. This political momentum could be difficult to stop once it gets rolling. France holds presidential elections next year, the pressure to cave and offer an in/out referendum to take the wind from Le Pen’s sails, in much the same way David Cameron offered one to Britain in an attempt to appease UKIP, could become immense. In short, Brexit burdens the EU with yet another crisis precisely at the time it is least equipped to deal with one. It is the political equivalent kicking someone when they’re down.

An obvious response from the British Eurosceptic is simply ‘So what?’ After all, the UK has always been a hesitant member of the EU, only joining in 1973, refusing to adopting the euro, and agitating for renegotiated terms for the majority of David Cameron’s tenure. For Britain, the EU was always more of a transaction than a project.

Why then should Britain care about the fate of the EU? Easy as it is to forget, the EU is primarily a project rooted in idealism for a better, more secure future for the continent. By tying economic destinies to each other, allowing free trade and opening borders to facilitate migration, the theory was that wars such as the two that defined the continent’s twentieth century would no longer be possible. This vision has evolved from simply a method of avoiding war, transforming into a collective commitment to strengthen ties across the continent as a good in and of itself. And even if one takes umbrage with the notion that collectively identifying with a large political entity is worthy for its own sake, it is still undoubtedly better for UK interests to have a strong, stable and vibrant Europe than the opposite. The EU, for all of its failings, has helped to ensure that this continues to be the case.

Indeed, the EU itself has noted the potential for damage posed by Brexit, and in its negotiation of new terms for Britain has acceded to the majority of David Cameron’s demands. As a result, even Mr Cameron, hardly a noted supporter of the European project, will be campaigning in June to remain in the Union, reasoning that under the new terms Britain can enjoy the best of both worlds: gaining the benefits of free trade while simultaneously keeping a maximal amount of sovereignty.

This is not to argue that the EU is perfect. Far from it, there is plenty of merit in the widespread perception of the EU as a cumbersome, opaque and over-regulating bureaucracy. But these are arguments for improvement, not dismemberment. By remaining in the EU Britain can continue lend its influential voice to meaningful progress and reform. By leaving, not only does Britain lose its seat at the table, it mocks the very premise of the European Project.

Despite this pessimistic talk, I don’t mean to presume that the EU would simply immediately crumble upon a British vote to leave. In fact, this seems unlikely. But an EU that lacks Britain would certainly be both a weaker and less stable institution. British post-war prosperity is built on the back of a stable continent, and so any move that destabilises the EU would be bad for Britain, bad for Europe, and bad for the world.

Declan Molloy is entering his final year of a combined Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics)/Bachelor of Arts majoring in Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney. He has been on exchange at both Georgetown University and the University of Edinburgh. Declan has interned in Westminster in the office of David Lammy MP, and currently writes policy papers for Labor MP Anthony Albanese.