Responding to an Invitation to Comment on the Proposed EU ‘Deal’

‘Velvet Glove Iron Fist’ proposed that the Brexit negotiations started from the wrong place. He suggested that the ‘wrong place’ was an obsession with immigration. He said that PM May was distracted by the issue of immigration:

https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2018/12/deal-or-no-deal.html

It may be true that some surveys placed immigration at the top of the list of objections to the EU, but ‘free movement of people within the EU States’ does not mean ‘immigration’. What ‘immigration’ means to most of us is what is happening in Italy – boat-loads of impoverished young men, women and children landing on your shores shouting ‘National Assistance’. People have travelled and cooperated with others throughout Europe since ancient times. No doubt a modicum of ‘others’, whatever their skin colour, have also moved around the world from distant lands.

There is a difference between ‘free movement’, which has always taken place, and ‘invasion’.

But what is important is that every single person who voted for Brexit had his own reason/s for doing so. ‘Surveys’ of perhaps 1000 people can only show what those people said that their motivations were. Such surveys are useless.

Some commenters at VGIF are respected and clever, and have read the short form of the Brexit Agreement, but, as I gather, very few have read the whole thing. Who can blame them? 600 hundred pages of legalese blather are not for interested people to read. They are for people who are being paid to do so to read.

I have made my contribution. This is what I wrote:

I am a bit late to this discussion, but it is heartening that few insults have been thrown about!
My ‘take’ on this debate depends upon the original question posed in the referendum:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Apart from the words ‘remain’ and ‘leave’, the only important words are ‘the European Union’. I suppose that all voters had their own ideas of what those words meant, and what was important to them.
I am 79 years old, but not yet quite senile. I am too young to remember anything about the foundation of the ‘Iron and Steel Community’, which I understand was one of the founding principles of cooperation rather than conflict.
When I became old enough to know better, I was fully in favour of the ‘European Community’, even to the extent of supporting the Euro! What could be better than to be able to buy a loaf of bread anywhere in the ‘community’ using the same currency, even if the prices were different?

My attitude changed very gradually. I gradually became aware that ‘integration’ was proceeding far too quickly; that an Empire was being created without the specific consent of The People. I also became aware that the ‘Elite’ who ‘governed’ were very much linked to the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc. I also became aware that there were very few top politicians anywhere in Europe who gave a toss about those links, and their effect upon EU ‘Elite’ proposals, such as Climate Change.
I further became aware of the massive corruption, the back-scratching, the horse-trading, the profligacy, the ‘grants’ which depend upon reciprocal favours.

So when I voted ‘Leave’, it was not to create mayhem in trade arrangements which have built up over 40 years. It was to end the UK involvement in wholesale corruption, funding the same, and enabling not only EU aristocrats but also UN aristocrats. My vote was most certainly not intended to enable bureaucrats to bugger up trade between European countries.
In fact, my vote was not about trade at all. It was about the imposition of ‘rules’ which limit our freedom, both as individuals and as shareholders in companies. Controlling individuals is hard, but controlling companies and industries is easy.
It ought not to be so. Shareholders should be more belligerent.

There is a war being waged. Who controls commerce and wealth and the spread of ‘utility’? Does that control need an Empire, or can it be achieved by cooperation?

My decision to leave the EU was based upon the EU’s lack of authority. The EU Parliament is a joke. Its approval of this or that is irrelevant. Only servile compliance with directives, and the gold-plating of such directives by our politicians, sustains the Empire and its works.
Has any State ever said, “NO!! WE WILL NOT COMPLY!!” Perhaps they have, but the refusal to comply is ‘negotiated’ into an ‘opt out’.

As the author said, “I would not start from here”. I believe that our political negotiators were misled into believing that Trade was what Brexit was about, or they were stupid. It has always been about POLITICS and not trade.
Put as simply as possible, we do not want Ministers in Parliament saying, “There is nothing that we can do. It is an EU directive”.

I am looking forward to the Dec 11th debate in Parliament. I shall make it my business to access the Parliament channel and listen verbatim. It should be fun.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: