The EU's stated aim is to establish a 'United States of Europe'. Run from Brussels/Strasbourg, with a European army replacing national arrangements and a universal approach to movement of people, access to benefits, healthcare, the law, taxation and government.
It would be like the USA where there is a national government making most of the laws but where individual states have the ability to make some limited laws of their own. But where 'local laws' are subservient to the national 'voice'.
You may have views on this scenario, positive or negative. You might think that an overall, Europe-wide controlling government and defense force would be a good thing. You might, like me, feel that being governed from further away, by people you don't know and who, crucially, know nothing of your local issues would be a negative step in terms of democracy and influence.
You might think that bringing some corrupt regimes and relatively poor people into a bigger 'club' will have a positive effect on prosperity in those countries over time. Alternatively you might think that aligning a 'first world' economy with others in which corruption is a way of life, will have a detrimental effect upon our own hard won (relative) prosperity, laws and freedoms.
As we have seen, harnessing unequal partners into a single currency has been disastrous for some participants. Even relatively prosperous first world countries like Italy, Spain and France have and are suffering massively by being tied in to the Euro (effectively to Germany) to the extent that they cannot devalue their relatively inefficient economies (currencies) in order to remain competitive on a world stage.
But Germany is prospering from the Euro because it now enjoys currency exchange rates that are at least 30% lower than would have been the case with the Deutschmark, because the Euro is 'valued' internationally in a way which includes the economies of Spain, France, Italy, Eire, Holland (which is currently teetering on the brink of collapse) and many other economies that are a mere shadow of these formerly successful economies. Like Albana, Greece Romania and Bulgaria.
The EU was established to protect smaller countries from domination by the bigger ones after the last unpleasantness (WW2). It was originally designed (so they tell us) to prevent any more European wars, to protect the weaker nation states and to promote the European diversity that I think we all value. I love Spain because it's Spain. Italy because etc. If I want Germany, I'll go to Germany. The richness of culture, music, food; the differences we find when we visit European countries is what makes them special and valuable in my opinion. The EU is a massive threat to this - it wants to homogenise the continent. To iron out any quirks, any foibles. Any health and safety differences, working hours, retirement policies, taxation systems.
It (the EU) seems to me to want everywhere to be Germany. Efficient. Productive. Soulless. Boring. I'm not saying Germany is boring by the way: It has wonderful culture and great people, music, arts places, history. What I am saying is that it is not Italy or France or Spain - they and others - have their own specialness. Their own value and culture and the EU seems to me to be wanting to subvert those qualities in a way which will make them disappear.
Anyway, here's the rub. Apologies for the wistful rambling!
If the UK stays in the EU we will ultimately have to give up the pound. You simply cannot have a single European state, with universal tax and benefits laws without a single universal currency. There is no model anywhere on earth, in which a single body/government has (or could) operate successfully without having a single currency. if it wants (as the EU does) to homogenise tax raising powers and governance. Some people might point to Canada which has its own currency and is closely linked economically with the US. But it is not governed by the US. The EU model sees us being governed (as we increasingly are) from Brussels.
So just as in 1971 when we signed up to the beneficial 'common market' (which has since developed without our approval into the less-about-trade-and-more-abut-control European Economic Community and now the fully fledged EU), a vote to stay in the EU - or having no opportunity to vote in a referendum - will see us ultimately having to join the Eurozone and give up the pound.
There is no other alternative. But that emotive issue will not be on the ballot paper.
It will simply be the next 'it's not really very important' issue after we either vote to stay in or are denied that vote as this 'death by a thousand cuts' process rumbles on.
As I say you might be entirely cool about this whole thing.
You might well take a 'yeah whatever' approach. That approach has been promoted by the way by the endless joke EU directives on straight bananas, olives etc, to the extent where most people switch off when another EU story breaks. So that when a real biggie comes along, (like retaining one's nation state) people are not interested.
But make no mistake, if we vote to stay in - or, more likely we are denied a vote - we will be giving up not only the pound but our ability to control our own destiny as a nation. And our foreign policy (for example) will be decided by 27 other countries' views rather than our own. I'm not sure if I'd be happy about that if I lived in Gibraltar or the Falklands.
The funny thing (to me) is, that if we left the EU, it would almost certainly fail. We're the second biggest net contributor after Germany. If it failed almost all of southern Europe would be better off. And yet we are ridiculed by EU MPs who show their disdain for the UK endlessly from their ivory towers.
Dave holds many aces in his renegotiation stance but sadly I think he's struggling with the game of 'snap' let alone serious poker.
But then he's a Europhile anyway. What hope is there for us? Farage?
Yikes.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment