On June 23rd, Britons will make what has been endlessly dubbed as the biggest political decision in a generation. The seemingly perpetual debate continues to drag on, producing a cacophony of noise that can make it difficult to sift fact from fiction. It may be of little surprise, then, that almost a fifth of voters are yet to make up their minds.

One man seeking to cut through this “mud-slinging” is Chris Bickerton, author of the new book The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide, which aims to demystify the EU by casting aside the “impenetrable” jargon. And Bickerton is far from undecided: when the 23rd comes, he’ll be voting out.

“For me, it’s ultimately about democracy,” he says as he sits across from me in a comfy armchair in his Queens’ College office. Bickerton’s essential stance is that, unlike liberals, he could “never trade the democratic process for the EU”. For him, this is simply a “really bad way of thinking.”

When I ask whether he believes that we must look to national governments to tackle political problems, his response is enthusiastic: “absolutely, that’s right” he says, adding that the “only way to resolve problems is to work through the representative democratic process.”

And it is in relation to this that Bickerton – who read PPE at Oxford – believes some students err.

“The problems students think about most in this debate are problems really unrelated to the European Union.” When it comes to job prospects and the possibility of renting forever, he’s adamant that the “EU is not the decisive factor”, the British government is.

“If you want governments to do the things that you believe in, then elect them. If they’re not saying what you believe in, get involved so you can shape what they say.”

Bickerton is however quick to stress that, unlike some Eurosceptics, it’s not his view “at all” that leaving the EU will magically create a “perfect and pristine” national democracy in the UK.

“There are really deep problems in British politics today”, he says, pointing to self-serving politicians who are “focused on their own careers” as a factor in the “real political disenchantment” that pervades society. To think leaving the EU would change that is for him a fallacy as “that would all be the same”.

Rather, the significant issue for him is politicians utilising the EU as a tool to shift blame. Voting to leave is therefore voting to prevent “the political class looking to the EU and saying ‘this is Brussels’ fault’” when trouble arises. Brexit, therefore, could strengthen our democracy if British politicians are “[forced] to take responsibility”.

But Bickerton’s concerns aren’t purely domestic. Despite the freedom of movement, he thinks that the EU has not “at all” fostered a European society: “The EU was not set up to allow for a public sphere, so it’s no surprise that one doesn’t exist”, he explains. Equally, he concurs with the popular perception of the EU as “shadowy”, telling me that it was designed to be “shielded from national politics” and that you have to “really dig around” to understand it.

The sad thing for me, I tell him, is that the national debate concerning Brexit has failed to do any real digging. He agrees, arguing that he “thinks the debate’s been very bad.”

“It’s not really been about the EU to be honest. The Remain campaign has talked about the economy, the Leave campaign has talked about immigration – that’s it… And I think people have found that extremely frustrating.”

Why has the debate been so poor? Bickerton’s answer is that the Remain campaign’s focus groups revealed widespread fears of economic uncertainty, and “therefore they have refused to campaign on anything else.”

“A guy from the Remain campaign told me”, he continues, “that there are no votes in talking about the EU, so we don’t talk about it. And this is in a campaign about the UK’s membership of the EU.”

On immigration and the economy, Bickerton opposes the crude narratives spun by either campaign. When I mention Farage’s argument that immigration isn’t practically sustainable, he rejects it in his characteristically soft-spoken manner: “I don’t agree with that at all […] The things that people like Farage describe as ‘natural limits’ – that there’s only so many people we can have on this island – are really ‘social’, they’re created.”

For him, the immigration debate merely exposes the “deep cuts” in public services and the “chronic housing shortage” facing the country. “These are social problems; they’re nothing to do with the numbers of people coming in”, he adds.

When it comes to Brexit’s economic risks – which Cameron has rehearsed ad nauseam– Bickerton is reasonably optimistic, arguing that the British economy’s “capacity to adapt is quite high”.

“I think the government has clearly decided it wants to win at any cost”, he continues, viewing the Treasury “signing off” on Cameron’s economic arguments as “political judgements they’ve made, rather than being any neutral position.”

And in spite of the economic dangers, Bickerton argues assertively that it’s hard to imagine that large corporations couldn’t find a way into the single market. “These are the things people don’t talk about because they’re so politically committed to showing that Brexit is going to be a catastrophe,” he continues, “but if Brexit did happen, then very quickly solutions would emerge.”

Does this mean Cameron is scaremongering? “Well, if the risk of Brexit is as bad as he says and could lead to ‘global conflict’… then he’s basically telling us is that he is the most reckless Prime Minister that the country has ever had, or he’s lying.”

“He is probably pretty reckless, but in this case I think he’s probably lying.”

Even if Cameron’s lying, it seems to be working. Bickerton concedes as much, agreeing with me that we’ll probably revert to the status quo. The EU, he says, does have a record of “sighing with relief, and then pretending something never happened”.

However, even if Britain remains, Bickerton is sceptical about the Eurozone’s viability. He says he can readily foresee a major player such as Germany – whose citizens are losing out to the tune of €200bn due to Eurozone policies – eventually saying: “this is not for us”. And as attempts to strengthen the economic union are, he believes, “just not going to happen”, a different solution must be sought.

For the Cambridge academic, the best option is an “orderly dismantling of the Eurozone”. But this isn’t an easy way out because economists just “can’t work out how to do it.”

With less than two weeks to go, a partially puzzled population, and a national debate severed from the EU itself, one can only hope that the British population can ‘work out’ their relationship with the EU.

Listening to what Chris Bickerton has to say would be a good start.