Does Brexit Have to be Complicated?

The key word are ‘have to be’.

What did we vote for in June? We voted ‘to leave the European Union’.

There was much agonising in the lead up to the referendum as to how the question should be phrased. The ‘Commission’ decided that the question asked should be simple and clear – no buggering about with leading questions. ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ was decided to be the clearest wording. But little consideration seems to have been given to the meaning of the words ‘the European Union’. In fact, I do not recall anyone in either campaign group stating, with any precision what the words the European Union’ meant.

Before casting my vote (Exit), I gave some thought to what I was voting for. I must admit to being a bit depressed by the fact that neither side elaborated with any precision.

“The economy will tank”, said the Remainers.

“The economy will thrive”, said the Leavers.

And so on. But no one talked about precisely what the words ‘Leave/remain in the European Union‘ meant.

So you have to ask what is the physical thing called ‘The European Union’? It is strange to call a disembodied construction  a physical thing, and yet the EU acts like a massive chemical reaction. It acts like a catalyst in chemical reactions. It makes verbal and theoretical regulations which cause massive physical changes.

The crux of the Brexit negotiations is what we voted for, and it was very clear. We voted ‘to leave the European Union’. All that is necessary is to define ‘The European Union’. There is no negotiation involved in that decision. It is ‘absolute’.

I personally see the ‘European Union’ as an attempt to ‘standardise’ The People. You can be nationalistic as regards football and other sports, and are encouraged to be so, so as to distract attention from the denationalisation of almost everything else.

What I detest is the ‘hidden agenda’ – the rendering of whole populations, with their different attitudes to religion, family, culture, etc, into a lump of sloppy clay, to be manipulated into a beautiful object. It will not happen – not least because the object is very unlikely to be beautiful.

So what did we vote to leave? I wish that I could define it, but I cannot. The only idea that comes into my mind is to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty. But I must admit that I have no idea what that means and what the effects are.

In effect, what I am saying is that we remove ourselves from the propaganda non-entity and stop paying for propaganda. Stop paying is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

Finally, would it not be wonderful if the USA, UK, and possibly Russia, reformed the UN and got rid of its massively wasteful blatherings? To say nothing of its magnificent physical edifices which we all pay for.

So I see our vote to mean that we absent ourselves from the massively expensive politics and associated institutions, and that we do not pay a penny towards their continuity.

But I would like to see easy movement of Europeans. Note that I do not say ‘free’ movement. The word ‘free’ no longer has any real meaning. ‘Easy’ movement means having a passport which is not ‘freely’ gained. You have to earn the passport. ‘Easy’ movement applies to tourists and settlers, but absolutely not to health tourists and spongers. The problem is distinguishing between the two groups.

But those later considerations are paltry. The main thing is to exit the quagmire and to reverse anything that was horse-traded. The ban on snus is an obvious example, but there are many others.



8 Responses to “Does Brexit Have to be Complicated?”

  1. TheBlockedDwarf Says:

    “The economy will tank”, said the Remainers.

    “The economy will thrive”, said the Leavers.

    and both camps thereby royally missing the point. ‘the economy’ is an even more nebulous thing than ‘the EU’. Personally I find regarding the ‘the economy’ as a ‘belief’, a ‘faith’, as a theology works well. Forget the analogies with water, flows and streams. It is all about litany, about catechisms, incense and candles, signs and wonders.

    If Hammond had stood up and said ‘Dudes, we are going to have sooo much money after Brexit it’s embarrassing…anyways as of midnight tonight I am doubling the state pension’ he would have performed an Act Of Faith on a par with the loaves and fishes. Every single business leader globally would have looked up from their spreadsheets and gone ‘Huh? What does this guy know that we don’t? We need a slice of this.’ Every UK voter, be they Brexiteur or Remainer or like myself, simply, a Smoker, would have looked up from their twitter feeds and thought “WTF?!”. Every OAP in the land would be charging up their mobility scooter to go on a shopping spree. Faith moves mountains, she’s a big girl.

    That’s all expressed horribly simply I know but we do tend to make things more complicated than they are.

    But Hammond did the complete opposite and it amazes me people still think Brexit is going to be painless. A tory Chancellor breaks a manifesto pledge for one reason and one reason alone, and it ain’t anything to do with ‘fairness’. It is because he needs the money, a lot of money. Hammond basically told the entire world that
    Brexit is going to be a world of hurt for every man, woman and child in the UK.

    • junican Says:

      I think that what you are saying, BD, is that the economy is chaotic. Throw a grenade over here and an atomic bomb goes off over there, which was unanticipated. Witness the catastrophe of Greece.
      But the USA also has been becoming catastrophic over several years or even decades.
      But is it not true that a chaotic system rights itself? How can it be otherwise?

  2. Rose Says:

    “This page contains the text of the Government produce pamphlet advocating a vote to stay in the “European Community (Common Market)” in the 1975 British Referendum on continuing British membership.”

    Edited highlights


    ‘Her Majesty’s Government have decided to recommend to the British people to vote for staying in the Community’



    This pamphlet is being sent by the Government to every household in Britain. We hope that it will help you to decide how to cast your vote in the coming Referendum on the European Community (Common Market).
    Please read it. Please discuss it with your family and your friends.
    We have tried here to answer some of the important questions you may be asking, with natural anxiety, about the historic choice that now faces all of us.
    We explain why the Government, after long, hard negotiations, are recommending to the British people that we should remain a member of the European Community.

    We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.

    We confidently believe that these better terms can give Britain a New Deal in Europe. A Deal that will help us, help the Commonwealth, and help our partners in Europe.
    That is why we are asking you to vote in favour of remaining in the Community.”


    It has been said that the Commonwealth countries would like to see us come out.
    This is not so. The reverse is true.

    Commonwealth Governments want Britain to stay in the Community.

    The new Market terms include a better deal for our Commonwealth partners as well as for Britain. Twenty-two members of the Commonwealth are among the 46 countries who signed a new trade and aid agreement with the Market earlier this year.”


    “Another anxiety expressed about Britain’s membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected ‘faceless bureaucrats’ sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.

    What are the facts?

    Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our own.”

    IF WE SAY ‘NO’

    “What would be the effect on Britain if we gave up membership of the Common Market? In the Government’s view, the effect could only be damaging.
    Inevitably, there would be a period of uncertainty.

    Businessmen who had made plans for investment and development on the basis of membership would have to start afresh.
    Foreign firms might hesitate to continue investment in Britain. Foreign loans to help finance our trade deficit might be harder to get.”


    “When the Government came to power in February 1974 they promised that you, the British voter, should have the right to decide – FOR continued membership of the European Community (Common Market) or AGAINST.
    It is possibly the most important choice that the British people have ever been asked to make.

    Your vote will not only affect you life and you neighbours’ lives. It will affect your children’s lives. It will chart – for better or for worse – Britain’s future.

    We are only at the start of our relationship with the Community. If we stay inside we can play a full part in helping it to develop the way we want it to develop. Already Britain’s influence has produced changes for the better. That process can go on.”

  3. Max Says:

    Ever been to Dick Norths eurederendum blog,
    Strange place with strange people religious zeal writ large.
    Hell is coming and it is named hard brexit, according to north and son.

    • TheBlockedDwarf Says:

      @Max, religious zeal is , unfortunately, not confided to the wacko wing of the Remain camp. I’ve encountered enough Zealots burning with righteous Godly Zeal and fervour for Brexit. A brexit so hard it might be a procession of the Flagellants. Add to that religious fervour a dose of exaggerated patriotism and a sprinkle not of holy water but Xenophobia and you have as heady a mix as anything St. Ignatius of Loyola might have brewed up.

    • junican Says:

      I have read quite a lot of North’s stuff. Am I right in thinking that he advocated ‘the Norway Option’ (or some wording similar)? As I recall, he advocated using the ‘Norway Option’ as a template for establishing a relationship with the EU. I would sympathise with that idea if it cut a massive number of corners, by which I mean rendering it easy to agree which treaties or parts of treaties can be abrogated. The idea of plodding through every clause of every treaty, and every directive and every regulation, is horrendous. So what would happen in that case? We would carry on as we are, but gradually disentangle those matters which do not suit the people of the UK. It might take years to do so, but one would assume that some matters would be prioritised in order to conform to the ‘Norway Option’.
      Principles have to be established.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: