Britain and the EU: Brexit and Bric it, or Stay Put and Shore it up?

Does Britain knows which direction she should take?

Britain is currently hotly contemplating  whether to leave the European Union and go her own way in establishing bilateral trade and other arrangements with her then - if she were to leave -  erstwhile European Union partners, or remain in the EU and campaign for the removal of EU laws, regulations and other arrangements which she, Britain, considers to be inimical to her own self-interests and freedom to govern the country as a sovereign state.

Now, it seems to me that Britain, or rather, sections of British society, have always resented the European Union, while the country, as a whole, appears to have largely considered it as somewhat of an 'irrelevance' to their daily lives and concerns.  Whenever much ado is made about Britain's membership of the EU, it tends to when it is instigated by the British Government or a prominent or not so prominent politician, such as, eg, Nigel Farage, whose aim is to destroy the EU edifice from within it.

So, now Britain is in the heat of EU pre-referendum mode, although it is not something which is consuming the political landscape, even if that is how parts of the popular media and the vested political interests would like to present it.

The fact is that the British, as far as some of the current negative pressures on the EU is concerned, is relatively more protected by the fact that the country is an island which is isolated from the European mainland; it is, in fact, Castle Britain. Whereas EU member states on the European mainland might have to resort to allowing tens of thousands of refugees and migrants from the Middle East to camp on their lands and/or take them in and make emergency arrangements for them, the British, partly due to their geographical separation from mainland Europe, have and can take more time to decide whether they can and want to do anything to help to relieve the pressures on the EU. In other words, they can be more selfish if they want to.

And this option to utilise Britain's unique geographical circumstances and opt for what might seem to be the more selfish option, is one of the engines driving the Brexit train. Probably somewhat surprisingly, it seems to be epitomised by something which the current British Prime Minister has said regarding his party's approach to the British economy. Namely to get more (value) for less expenditure. Getting 'more for less' is not necessarily about a 'fair price for good quality goods' or 'a fair wage for producing good quality goods.'  Instead, it can be about exploitation, with the producer being expected to provide the buyer or consumer with 'more for less'; the MFL principle.

And so it is that the political right in Britain, including those within the Conservative Party, might acquiesce to the country remaining in the EU, but only if the other EU states were to agree to 'British Exceptionalism', namely that the British should be excused from EU laws and regulations which the British consider to be detrimental to their own self-interests and sovereignty. Britain getting more out of the collective pool, while putting in less.  Not for her the principle of the stronger members putting in more to help the weaker or poorer member states.

The major concerns for those who are dissatisfied with the EU seem to be with regards to EU farming policies, Human Rights laws, Employment and Working Regulations laws, etc. For the liberals and the political left, probably the biggest opposition to the EU, as it is at present, is its comparatively undemocratic and oppressive nature.  It is arguable that, for an institution which has such a large and extensive influence over many aspects of the lives of the citizen's of its constituent member states, the EU is not sufficiently accountable for how it acquires and exercises this power. 

Of course, the EU might be able to argue that it exercises accountability through the representatives from the member states who form its governing bodies, and that if the citizens of the member states are not been consulted and having their views fed back to the EU, by the member states' representatives, reflected in the EU's laws and regulations, then that is a matter for the member states to address.  If this were to be the case, then, challenging it would not necessarily be on the EU's priority to address, as it would benefit from such a situation.

For all of its short-comings, Britain leaving the EU might not be to the country's best interest, or in the best interest of promoting good and equitable cooperation between different countries, at a time when the factionalisation of  many countries along religious and ethnic lines poses a threat to world peace and socio-economic growth.
The EU has clearly become a supra-government of Europe, with all the attendance economic, military - through NATO - fiscal - through the ECB - and political clout of government.

There is arguably an urgent need to redefine what the EU should be about, including its limitation, so that it stops evolving into something it was not meant to be, and usurps and undermine the sovereignty and governments of its constituent members. 

Britain has a role in remaining in the EU and advocating for the major reform which needs to take place in it.

Standing together to improve the wheel, or reinventing it?

OWOHROD