LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION - AND WHY ORDINARY PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER

In general, both those British people who support their country remaining in the European Union, and those who want it to leave the EU, have some agreement about some of the things they do not like about being a member state of the European Parliament.

Some of the negative or disagreeable things they share about Britain's membership of the EU, are that:

1. The European Union is too bureaucratic, and that this has lead to it being inefficient and costly, both to the Union itself and to its constituent member states.

2. That it unacceptably impinges on the sovereignty of its member states, by, eg, subordinating their Supreme Courts and Parliaments to the European Court and European Parliament.

3. That Britain is paying more money into the EU than it is getting out of it.

4. That it is compromising Britain's control over having her own immigration policy and implementing it as it deems fit.

5. There needs to be major reforming of the European Union.

In addition to the above, it is the case that many Brexiters are of the view that,Britain continuing as a member of the European Union would make it into becoming 'a free-for-all' immigrants who want to come to Britain, 'to scrounge off our welfare state and take away our jobs and massively change our way of life with their different cultures, languages, religions and ethnicity.'  

For these Brexiters, and, indeed, some of those who want Britain to remain a member of the EU, Britain must retain and fight for its 'us-ness', against the 'them-ness' of these migrants who want to come to Britain to enjoy our 'better and more desirable way of life.' The draw-bridge, whether real or virtual - probably by way of 'The EU membership being seen as a Trojan Horse' - needs to be pulled up, and allow Britain to revert to being an 'observer' of what is taking place on the European mainland, instead of being a participant. 

Yes, it is actually a reversion to a time which predated the EU; one when Europe was in a state of much less security and prosperity, and inter-state tensions and conflicts were being fought out on both the European mainland and colonies abroad. No, it was not a good time, and it therefore beggars belief that anybody would want to return to such a time; and to do so without being forced to, like the people of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Considering the above problems, it is true that the EU is very bureaucratic, and that bureaucracy can and does lead to inefficiencies and increased costs. 

Governments are known to be bureaucratic and inefficient, even corrupt, but it is not many people who would argue that we should therefore do away with governments. Instead, many would argue that it is something which comes with the institution, and that the cost of the bureaucracy is a lesser cost than not having the government. The EU, both in terms of the European Parliament and the membership states, has the added problem of having to take account of the differential linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic differentiation of its membership states in its deliberations, which contribute towards it bureaucratic system. 

Yes, of course it should constantly be endeavouring to reduce the level of bureaucracy and increasing the efficiency.


With regards to the EU impinging on the sovereignty of its membership states, of course it is doing so, to some extent.  We have heard, for example, a member of the British Government, Teresa May, bemoaning how that country was unable to deport alleged and/or convicted terrorists, because of the European Court. That is clearly a problem for governments, but how much of a problem is it for the ordinary citizens of any country, that their government might not be able to deport an individual person? 

I would contend that it is no great problem, outside of the political arena. Having the option of resorting to the European Court in your quest for justice, is 'a right' which no British citizens - probably except for politicians - should not give up, except probably under threat of being flayed alive - because you should never imagine that your country, should it consider it expedient to do or for reason of malice or poor judgement, will always treat you or others justly.

Britain 'taking back her sovereignty' from the EU, while it would accords the British state, greater power over her citizens, is unlikely to result in any real benefits or advantages for them. Since when do politicians use their power for the greater good of people, unless it is to enhance their power? The ordinary British citizens should not allow themselves to be won over by this issue, as they have more to lose from it than to gain. 

The argument that Britain is paying more into the EU than she is getting out of it, might be true. It is a fact that the relative economic strengths of the 27 or so countries forming the EU vary. Is it such a bad thing that those countries that are wealthier or have stronger economies should be expected to put more into the EU coffers? There was a time when people might have thought it commendable that a country contributes towards the common good according to its capacity to do so. 

Did Britain joined the EU so that it could make a profit from what it contributes towards it, and is the EU to be looked at as if it were 'a public for-profits' company?

If so, is that the yard-stick or performance criterion which we are to use to judge our governments; that we are getting more from them for the taxes they involuntarily take from us?

Britain joining the EU and remaining a member of it is not to re reduced to simply a matter of economics. It is about international relationships and politics as well. It is about the country's fate in playing a leadership role in Europe and the rest of the world. The view that 'Britain can become Great again', by bailing out of Europe, out of the EU and become a 'global entrepreneur' again, is not one which is going to lead the country anywhere, except probably up a blind alley, as there are no uncharted markets and resources to be exploited. The 'club', 'group' or 'union' has now taken hold as the developmental model which nations want to follow, which means that, if Britain leaves the EU, she would then have to start her own 'group' or 'gang' or try to join existing ones.

Why leave and then have to go through all that hassle, for uncertain outcomes, you might ask?

To be continued