I would hate not to be able to go to Spain and buy cigs at half price. Is that a reasonable reason for me and mine to vote to stay in the EU? You see, do you not, that, if I vote ‘Remain’, it will be for purely selfish and ‘single issue’ reasons. Frankly, I see no reason not to take that view since ‘single issues’ seem to predominate in Government attitudes.
So why should I not vote ‘Remain’ simply because I can import cigs from Spain at half price? Would that ability be denied me if I voted ‘Leave’?
But there is more. The EU limits tobacco control to some extent. Is it not quite likely that if the UK leaves the EU, then our country will become like Australia – the ultimate Bully State? What is the difference between Australia and North Korea? The only difference that I can see is that dissidents are not actually killed or imprisoned in Australia as they are in North Korea. Instead, they are ostracised, their careers are ruined and they have no legal resource to protect them. In fact, is it not true that the reason that TC can lie so much is because there is no legal resource which can challenge them? That applies in the UK and in the EU, and it applies in the WHO and the UN.
There must have been, in the past, some point where a comparatively small group of influential people got together and decided upon some broad principles, such as that European wars were caused by the existence of separate countries. It would be foolish to deny that separate ‘kingdoms’, ‘autocracies’, ’empires’, did not produce conflicts. But it was not the ordinary citizens of these ‘kingdoms’, ‘autocracies’, ’empires’ which caused the conflicts.
In a way, I can understand Cameron et al’s desire to stay in the EU, and it would also suit me, if my ability to import cigs is threatened. I could understand Cameron et al if it was true that they could reform the EU. But they cannot, because they and their predecessors set up the EU in the way that it is. The vast bureaucracy is too powerful to be reformed – no one would know how to do it. The only reasonable way to do it would be to destroy it and start again.
The problem with the EU is that it is all the wrong way round. NATO, a treaty agreed by the USA and European countries, protected most of Europe from communist aggression. The beginnings of the EU should have started from NATO. PROTECTION should have been the initial goal. A European military force could have been built to protect European nations. Subsequently, having protected the whole of Europe from aggression, property rights could have been secured. When I say ‘property rights’, I do not mean the aristocratic ownership of land. All the land belongs to THE PEOPLE as a whole. I continue to be amazed that ‘the land’ was never nationalised. That should have been the first thing to be nationalised. By ‘property rights’, I mean the right to enjoy property without state interference provided that nothing illegal was going on there. The idea of ‘public places’ as applied to ‘private property’ is a contradiction. Whatever gloss might be applied by words, the fact is that a property cannot be both public and private at the same time.
So I must make a decision. Do I risk an Australia-like bully state by voting ‘Leave’, or do I risk dictatorship by the UN, WHO, EU hegemony?
I think that I know which situation might be most easily corrected, and it is ‘the Australia-like bully state’. The reason is that we can vote for representatives who can change the hegemony. That is the important thing.
We HAVE TO leave the EU. That is the only way in which new Treaties can replace the failed ones. Staying in only reinforces the existing, faulty Treaties.