I have read today, here and there, that the EU unelected want to rush the UK into invoking Clause 50 to exit the EU. The panic is palpable.
Erm… No. Clause 50 applies to Governments and not to ‘The People’. When ‘The People’ voted ‘Leave’, they did not instruct the Government to follow a timetable. They did not yell ‘Brexit this instant’. What ‘The People’ told Government to do was leave that entity known as the ‘European Union’. They did not say, “Throw out all the trade agreements, scientific cooperation, student exchanges, free movement of goods and citizens of European nations, etc”.
Only in the fairly recent past has the EU Commission become a King. The commissioners are not elected, and yet they, and only they, have the POWER introduce laws and NOT to introduce laws. That POWER is the power of a king or an emperor, and not an elected government.
So where do we stand? At what point in time and in the history of the EU was everyone reasonably happy with the status quo? That is the positive idea as compared with the negative idea of ‘when did things start to go wrong?’ Was there a ‘moment’ when things started to go wrong? I put word moment in inverted commas because there might have been a series of events which started the rot and accumulated. But was there a period of time when everything was working well and everyone was reasonably happy?
I do not know, and no one, no university studies as far as I know, have examined the situation. Why have universities not been up to date on that question? Why are so many university resources being wasted on ‘tobacco studies’ when that subject is old hat?
My own opinion is that ‘the moment’ was imposition of the Euro. Remember that it was touch and go whether or not the UK also adopted the Euro. I personally was in favour at the time, but I was naive enough to believe that the ‘common currency’ would be just that – the equivalent of little silver and gold coins. ‘Naive’ is the right word since it is now obvious that the Euro was always intended to be a control mechanism. Thank heavens that we did not fall for that trick. I suppose that the success of the American dollar was what swayed clever buggers to support the Euro, but is the American dollar such a success?
I would think that a bit more thought about the Euro could have created a ‘virtual’ currency. A bit like travellers cheques. Do banks still ‘do’ travellers cheques? You could buy travellers cheques in pounds or US dollars decades ago. You then took the cheques on holiday to, say, Spain, and converted them into pesetas. If you went then to Portugal, you could convert your cheques into escudos. That is how I envisioned the Euro. I could buy ‘Euro cheques’ (notes) and spend them in shops and bars etc anywhere on the continent. I still think that the Euro could be such a medium of exchange. In Spain, recently, I used my debit card to buy cigs, and, of course, to pay my hotel bill, and even in one hotel a year or so ago, to pay my bar bill! That is, and this is what is important, my pounds Stirling were converted into Euros in the blink of an eye at a conversion rate which was determined by ‘internationally’ agreed rules. But there is an extension to that idea. Why has Greece not reverted to the Drachma? Why was Greece afraid to do so? Why was it that the money men in the Greek government could not see that holiday makers who went to Greece with ‘Euro travellers cheques’ would not be bothered if prices in bars etc were quoted in Drachma and/or Euros? Do these people think that we, THE PEOPLE, are too thick to be able do simple calculations?
For some time, after herself and I started to go to Spain on holiday and before the Euro, I used to do precise calculations of costs of this and that in terms of pesetas and pence. It took me a long, long time to realise that my calculations involved tiny percentages and tiny amounts of money. In fact, I only realised that using such calculations was actually detrimental because they were much the same as trying to translate words and phrases into English rather than remembering the meaning of those words and phrases in ANY language. EG, in our pubs we order ‘a pint of beer’; in Spain, they order ‘cerveisa grande’. For the vast majority of us, tiny variations in the exchange rate are irrelevant. The BIG factor is that cigs, for example, are half the price in Spain as compared with the UK. A few cents/pence here or there are irrelevant. If Spain went back to pesetas tomorrow, with a ratio of 5.111 pesetas to 1.222 pounds, then I would not blink an eyelid. I would say, “One and a bit pounds equals 5 and a bit pesetas, and I would be very pleased that I can get a ‘cerveisa grande’ for only 5 pesetas. Do I need to translate that into 1 and a bit pounds? On my last trip, I enquired as to the cost of experimenting with a hookah thing. The cost was €20 for up to five people, and more for more people. I did not need to convert the €20 into pounds and pence to decide not to bother. For my purposes at the time, all I wanted was to experience the taste and effect. I might, just possibly, have expended, say, €5 for fun, but not €20. Note that I have not translated those quantities into pounds and pence.
It would have made sense for the EU to have floated the idea of a common ‘virtual’ currency, which could smooth transactions. Yes, it would be possible to have a ‘hard’ side to the virtual currency in the form of Euro notes and coins, but they would only have real value after conversion into the local currency. The important thing, however, would have been that the number of Euros in circulation would have been commensurate with convertibility needs. In the simplest terms, suppose that I go to Spain holding in my hand my debit card. My bank account funds are expressed in pounds Stirling. At any given moment, my banked funds have a peseta equivalent value. That equivalent value is changing a tiny bit all the time in terms of exchange rates. But suppose that we have an ‘ideal’ currency against which all individual currencies, such as pesetas, can be compared? That ‘ideal’ currency could be ‘virtual’ in the sense that it need not have any quantitative limitations, either more or less. May I put it this way. ‘Real’ currencies would be like gold and silver coins which are metals not easily extracted from the surface of the earth. The virtual currency would be like glasses of water taken out of the Atlantic Ocean.
Sorry – I have blathered and blathered once again. But I think that I have made my point. A decade or so ago, the vast majority of the people of Europe were content. The threat of Russian aggression (unless that threat was just a propaganda ‘thing’ all along) had more or less disappeared. Was there ever such a threat? Was there ever a threat that the Russians would overrun Europe, including Great Britain? Or was it always just propaganda? Only a few days ago, the ‘Remainers’ said that Russia could totally overrun Europe in 60 hours. But why would Russia want to invite total Armageddon by doing such a totally idiotic thing?
Reform of the EU is not possible.
But nor is reform of the UN. It would be better for the UN to be defunded and destroyed, and, at the same time, replaced. The UN is corrupt beyond imagining even more than the EU. It costs even more billions of pounds/dollars but has no useful function. None whatsoever. It seems to exist on a level of puritanism – ban, ban, ban. To the best of my knowledge, the UN has not produced anything of a positive nature whatsoever. The UN did not land a man on the moon; the UN did not send a probe to Mars and beyond; the UN did not liberate the Russian and Eastern Europe from the communist yoke; the UN has not helped, not one jot or one tickle, to create ‘Independence Day’ for England and Wales.
Our new Government soon-to-be must consider all the recent factors which have made our people fearful. ‘The Environment’ is a factor that we must care about locally, for our own benefit, and it is right that we should recycle. Where are the university studies about how we can recycle glass? It was once suggested that broken glass could be crushed and used as part of the amalgam which is used to surface roads. Why do local authorities say that ONLY bottles made of plastic should be recycled and not ALL plastics of any kind? Why did the EU stop an entrepreneur, who had worked everything out and gained all the necessary permissions, and spent loads of money acquiring the machinery and the plant, to burn the massive, massive amount of waste cardboard to generate electricity, from doing so, merely on the grounds that the EU had decreed that such ‘waste’ had to be dealt with in an antiquated way?
None of it make any sense. The EU is a dinosaur. It ought to be extinct but is kept alive by constant and massive injections of life-giving money.
So what can be salvaged? Old fart politicians from the former communist block are not the people to decide. They are the ones who buggered everything up.
As far as I can see, the referendum means that our Government must avoid negotiation with the EU Elite, but can negotiate with individual European nations, either solely or collectively.
The EU Commiserate is dead.