Brexit – a fillip for UK

The EU was originally set up after WW2 for defence and security reasons – to deter a WW 3 following the ravages of the first two wars

Since then, it has steadily grown from the original six founder nations (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) to the current 28, including the UK

Poor European countries have clamoured to join this EU club – cynics say “more to get help for their own ailing economies than help others”

And, throughout its development, EU leaders have kept wanting to centralise control rather than devolve it more by creating:

  • A common market for greater economic power, protected from outside world competition by tariff barriers
  • A common currency, the euro – this meant member countries lost the ability to devalue their own currencies if markets turned against them and left many vulnerable to economic disaster – note the suffering of the Med nations such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and even Italy
  • A common legal system, with an ECJ – an unelected but all-powerful European Court of Justice comprising judges from member countries which can over-rule decisions taken by any member country
  • An accumulation of power for EU leaders themselves, despite them being unelected, unknown, overpaid and largely unaccountable – hence, even EU official accounts rarely pass muster yet it continues at ‘full steam ahead’

 

In addition, the EU insists on free movement of populations between member countries as well as goods and services – the Schengen agreement – this has become an essential requirement of being in the EU

Naturally, most of such population movement has been outward from the poorer EU members, and inward to the rich few like Germany, France and the UK – so complaints about foreign immigration levels have inevitably risen in these richer EU nations

Essentially, current EU attitudes could be summarised as follows:

  • Averse to the devolution of power to member nations, more keen on accumulating it at the centre
  • Dogmatic about its rigid rules to uphold the value of the euro which forces inequality on many of its members
  • Turns a blind eye to many members’ economies which are steadily getting worse as protectionism from outside competition is condoned
  • Content to ignore the plight of outside poor nations by not letting them in to their common market – EU charity begins and ends in Brussels
  • Lacks a common agreed foreign policy, so always argues or dithers about any action needed internally or externally, thus making arguments made for a common army risible

 

Conclusions:

  • The British people have decided there are more negatives than positives to being an EU member:
    • They want back control of their borders, their laws and who they can trade with
    • They want to rule themselves, choose their own leaders and get rid of them if they’re not liked – it’s why they fought WW1 and WW2, to avoid being ruled by others from abroad
  • Economically, the UK may or may not be better off in the EU but that’s not their main issue – they managed well before the EU so there’s no reason why the same or better cannot happen again
  • The EU may be the UK’s biggest export market but, at present, it’s still only a small % of our total output (~ 8%):
    • There’s a lot more growth and demand potential in the rest of the world outside the EU
    • We should first start strengthening trade relations with the huge market called ‘the Commonwealth’ – already more nations, more population and more demand than the EU
  • Whatever Brexit option is finally implemented, overall it will probably be worse for the EU than the UK – we should weep crocodile tears on our departure given the EU comprises economies which are mostly basket cases – our current 8% exports to them would have been heading south anyway
  • Yes, there will be certain joint initiatives with the EU which might stop or be stalled e.g. joint research efforts, fights against terrorism – this will be a pity if they are stopped but they’re not game-changers
  • Back within the UK, the four home nations are now heavily inter-bred – essentially, they comprise one family, one tribe, one nation – Scotland seeking to break away is a Nicola Sturgeon pipe-dream – the vast majority of Scots know on which side their bread is buttered – they also want to be ruled by their own, either in Edinburgh or Westminster, not by unknowns in Brussels
  • We will welcome immigrants who come here to better themselves, their families and the nation or who desperately need sanctuary – however, we will not welcome others who simply want to enjoy a slice of our successful economy or its publicly funded services when they have done nothing to pay for them

 

In addition:

  • David Cameron should be appointed President of the UK on the Queen’s demise – and installed in Buck House, that well-known Central London council house
  • Why?
  • Despite being a devout ‘Remainer’, he allowed the UK to vote on whether to continue being a member of the EU or not, thus enabling us to ‘jump ship’ before it sinks
  • The UK has much to be thankful to him and the law of unintended consequences

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.