I'm starting to think a 'Brexit' is a good idea and I never thought I'd ever say that

Britain is going to have to decide whether the UK stays in the European Union or not by the end of 2017 - and the for the first time ever, in my view, the arguments for us breaking ties with Brussels are looking more appealing.

The UK leaving the EU - dubbed a "Brexit" - wasn't something that I've ever thought was a good idea, either financially or politically.

After all, each of the 28 nation members are in it together, working under a single market ideal, where policies and laws are enacted for the good of all countries and do not give a distinct advantage to one more than any other another. Right?

Well, I don't think so anymore.

Seeing how the markets and politicians have dealt with the eurozone sovereign debt crisis, the worst refugee problem since World War II and constant squabbles over how EU lawmaking wreck national sovereignty, I've fully become unstuck from the mud of the pro-EU camp and will sit on the fence until we vote.

The EU referendum is not the same as the Scottish referendum

Naturally people will ask why I believe the Britain potentially leave the EU but still believe Scotland should be part of the UK.

Mainly, as with most of my arguments, it's the economics - cold, hard numbers. Scotland had a much better case decades ago for breaking off from the rest of the UK without cutting their nose to spite their face.

Scotland massively depends on oil for revenue and in the 1980s it would have probably been able to argue that the country's economy was strong enough to sustain jobs and its own balance sheet.

However, the landscape has changed and the resource that the Scottish National Party highlighted as a jewel in the country's crown doesn't fly anymore. The North Sea oil industry is in dire straits. OPEC statistics show that average oil output in 2013 from the North Sea clocked its lowest level since 1977, and prices have plunged.

Scotland depends on the rest of the UK for its pensions, its welfare and for jobs. Leaving the UK would've been horrific.

However, Britain is not in the same boat as Scotland, and we shouldn't treat both referendums the same way. The political and economic situation is far more complex.

No single market

We are meant to be operating under the bloc's Single Market mechanism as an EU member.

The EU describes it as "one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services." It's basically meant to stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, and helps cut prices.

We are meant to operate as one. Basically it only works if all countries are identical and work as a hive, like the Borg in Star Trek. That sounds like a Utopian ideal, and it has not worked at all.

Take a look at the complete schism between the economic growth of the UK, Germany and the rest of the Eurozone.

Britain's performance has more in common with the economic recovery in the US than the Eurozone. It doesn't really look like we need the EU, it needs us.

Britain is sitting pretty at the moment despite what political camp you hail from. Unemployment is just 5.5%, which is pretty much as close to "full employment" as we can get. Inflation is low, real wages are rising at a solid pace and more people are able to get on the housing ladder. We are also one of the key financial centres in the world.

Now compare it to these countries and the rest of the Eurozone as a whole:

Doesn't really look like a Single Market right? Certain countries are propping up Europe's economic figures, while others are still stagnant or practically in recession.

At the beginning of September, my colleague Oscar Williams-Grut pointed out that the so-called Single Market has a massive problem - Germany.

German manufacturing is a booming behemoth, while almost every other nation bar Greece is at some sort of low. Britain's manufacturing sector is not he same as it was back in 1950s and we now depend a lot on imports and exports (I will come to this later).

Greece's rebalancing towards exports has been achieved simply by imports collapsing. All you need to do is take one look at that country and realise there is nothing about that nation that is rebounding at the moment.

At the mercy of Germany

Concerns over the Single Market being a whole load of poppycock are more relevant than ever, especially since the eurozone debt crisis of 2009.

First and foremost, even though we are meant to be part of one big unit, the EU, we have no fiscal union to address underperforming areas.

In Britain, for example, London may generate greater amounts of wealth than certain regions in the country. If somewhere like Nottingham was struggling, the money is redistributed to pay for welfare or prop up the local economy. Infrastructure, like new railway lines, could be installed to link cities and create greater connection for people working or looking to expand business.

In the EU, we don't have this. Just look at Greece and the sorry mess it is. Sure, we lend money and force them to gut their country from the inside out, but a loan is not a re-distribution of wealth. Countries that need to devalue their currency to help the economy can't. The bloc is not a "single" anything.

The EU isn't doing as well as it used to and it's really down skewed economic reporting that suggests the eurozone is doing great. As demonstrated before, Germany is propping up manufacturing growth figures.

Take a look at how the EU really isn't as well-positioned as it was when Britain entered the bloc in 1973:

The EU's economy is "shrinking relative to other countries across the globe" and its population is ageing. In 2020, the ratio of working age people to pensioners in the EU will be 3:1, while in 2050 it'll be 2:1. This is according to a Business for Britain report published in June, which had Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs, John Mills of JML, and fund manager Helena Morrissey of Newton on its editorial board.

They added that tax payments to the EU, the level of bureaucracy, and the changing population are all contributing to greater cost for the nation.

Destroying national sovereignty

Relinquishing national sovereignty sounds a lot like right-wing hooey, but having a look at how the EU has operated in the worst of times hasn't resolved any of these concerns.

Sovereignty is meant to be when a state is has the absolute power to govern itself, make, execute and apply laws and impose and collect taxes.

Of course being part of a union means we should all technically share that burden and have a say in what laws are enacted, while also making sure others aren't penalised to the advantage of other nations. It shouldn't be all bad.

Take a look at Greece again. The country has teetered on the brink of collapse so many times, it might as well jump off the cliff. But it can't because it's stuck with loans that seem near impossible for it to pay back.

The one thing it did to show some semblance of sovereignty or power is conduct a referendum on its bailout - where the public voted for or against the extremely harsh (and arguably necessary) conditions in exchange for emergency cash. And we all know how that turned out - an utterly pointless exercise.

The nation overwhelmingly voted against the conditions in July this year but all that happened is that Greece wound up its creditors so much that they used it against them for their next round of negotiations.

German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said radical left-wing Greek finance minister Yannis Varoufakis "strains the solidarity of European partners" shortly before his departure from the government.

And what happened to Greece - well the referendum didn't make a difference and it still had to go back to its creditors with its tail between its leg and be smashed by more austerity pain.

Renegotiations look impossible

There are a few things that Britons are getting really tired of, and a growing mountain of examples to show how the UK doesn't really have much of a say in what happens within the bloc.

Since 2010, the EU has introduced over 3,500 new laws affecting British business. Business for Britain highlighted in its report in June that the sheer volume of red tape that affects the UK is costing billions.

"The British Chambers of Commerce has shown that the total cost of EU regulation is £7.6 billion ($12 billion) per year," said the report. "Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force in December 2009, it has cost British businesses £12.2 billion ($19.3 billion) (net) in extra regulation."

Furthermore, Britain doesn't really as much of a say as I thought.

"The Commission proposes new laws in the EU, but the UK's representation has declined dramatically and many officials are adamantly opposed to the sort of changes that the UK seeks," says the report.

"When the UK joined the EU in 1973, we had 20% of the votes. Today we only have 9.5% of the votes. British MEPs voted against 576 EU proposals between 2009 and 2014, but 485 still passed and became law."

While the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has publicly said that he and George Osborne would prefer to stay as part of the EU but under renegotiated terms, genuine reform seems highly unlikely to happen.

He is reportedly being repeatedly snubbed and major issues and a growing number of voters are going unheard.

Zero say over policies

Britain shouldn't leave the EU because of fears of immigration and shut the borders, but the position the country has been put in is an extremely uncomfortable one.

As demonstrated, Britain's economy and society is unique and doesn't fall into a hive mind of Europe. No country within the European Union does, that's why a Single Market doesn't actually exist.

However, the way Brussels has handled the worst refugee crisis in over half a century is not making it easy to bat away concerns over sovereignty and understanding of the different needs of a country.

The United Nations said on October 1 that it was expecting 700,000 migrants and refugees to reach Europe via the Mediterranean sea this year. The same amount again in 2016.

Britain, as well as the rest of Europe has to tackle this but by forcing countries to blanket quotas, which is what was bandied around over the last month, it js only making it even more apparent that there is one way - their way or the highway.

Economically, take a look at the financial transactions tax (FTT) proposal. The FTT, more commonly known as the Robin Hood Tax, places a 0.05% on trades involving stocks, bonds, foreign currency, and derivatives.

However, the European Commission is aiming to launch the FTT in January 2016 with slightly different tax calculations - 0.1% on shares and 0.01% on bond transactions where at least one of the parties was based in the EU.

The Conservative government, the financial sector, and various business groups are heavily against the FTT. The Tory-led government hates the tax proposition so much that UK Chancellor George Osborne even had to go through the length of launching a legal suit against the FTT plan which was adopted by 11 EU states.

Basically, even if Britain doesn't sign up for it, the UK would be still financially penalised if it does business with other countries that sign up for FTT.

Now, I am still not fully up for Britain leaving the European Union - there are still a huge amount of advantages of staying in. But the argument for leaving is not looking as scary as I first thought.

We are a nation that depends on imports for energy and goods and in turn of being part of the EU we have a decent mechanism for trade. Severing links could easily make it more expensive to import or ship goods.

But, at the moment, if Cameron is unable to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership under the EU, I fear I may have do the previously unthinkable and vote for a Brexit.