Should ill-informed voters be able to choose who governs? Do the EU’s intentions justify its means? What did they who voted to leave the EU really want? Have our Commissioners merited their roles? Why do youngsters think only they should decide Europe’s future? Why does the EU treat the UK like an escaped prisoner?
Since when?
Since the Great Reform Act of 1832 Parliament has fiddled with the franchise, extending it to more men, then even more men, then all men and some women, then all women, and finally in 1969 to 18-year-old men and women. In less than 150 years any ignorant riff-raff can now vote and Parliament realises it must “take back control”.
The Rotten Boroughs that existed before were given a bad name but they allowed people with powerful interests in the country to run things properly. It’s a wonder that the Right Honourable Member for the 18th Century (Jacob Rees-Mogg) doesn’t appear to understand this; he’s happy that we, the riff-raff, can decide things.
Are Remainers democrats?
For all the outrage shown by many Remain campaigners at the stupidity of those who voted to leave and for believing the lies they were told, Remainers should admit the deep unhappiness of “the many” about the nature of the EU. And perhaps they should recognise that they have swallowed the lies told by the EU propagandists, including those in their own Parliament who promised to implement what voters decided. 
To be a Remainer you must support the EU’s ends and be able to justify its means, or you’re afraid of the consequences of leaving, or both. We think these are major errors: the supposed ends (that we all live in peace, harmony and prosperity) will never be achieved by the means employed (the centralisation of power, regardless of the benefit to citizens).
“The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.” (Aldous Huxley)
We think the EU will ultimately fail, having harmed the situation of many citizens; it is unlikely to survive the next global economic downturn in one piece. Perhaps some Remainers understand this but believe it unwise to give up the UK’s seat, as though there were some chance of preventing or minimising the consequential damage to this country. Here’s what The Economist says about this:
“Leavers are right that the EU is an increasingly unappealing place, with its Italian populists, French gilets jaunes, a stuttering German economy … and doddery, claret-swilling uber-bureaucrats in Brussels. But they could not be more wrong in their judgement that the EU’s ominous direction of travel makes it wise for Britain to abandon its seat there.”
These seem like very good reasons to leave, especially when added to the EU’s relative economic decline and the risk of an Italian debt crisis with massive consequences. [1]
Devious in Davos
At the current World Economic Forum in Davos Chancellor Philip Hammond said, “People didn’t vote for no deal”. It’s annoying that people like him keep telling people like us what we didn’t vote for. We voted to leave the EU; we didn’t vote to be poorer or for no deal, those questions weren’t on the ballot paper, it was a simple In or Out choice and most of us wanted Out. If asked the same question again many of us would still make the same decision but this is where the devious plotting comes in. Asking the question in a different way or structuring it to divide the leave preferences into smaller pockets could influence the result.
Professor John Curtice, an ‘expert’ in polling, shows how misleading polls can be. Ask Leavers a ‘populist’ question – Should the people be in charge of the Brexit process? – and they say yes, but ask them whether they want another vote and they mainly say no. Remainers of course are united on getting another chance to overturn the first vote. The research paper can be downloaded here [2] but there’s a brief summary in the Daily Telegraph, “Campaigners claim ‘the people’ want a second referendum, but that’s not what the polls say” [3].
Kicked upstairs
The UK’s Commissioners have mostly been appointees that the public have scarcely heard of, may have resigned from government in disgrace or been rejected by voters, yet they have great power [4]:
Catherine Ashton, Leon Brittan, Baron Clinton-Davis, Baron Arthur Cockfield, Baron Hill of Oareford, Roy Jenkins, Julian King, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Bruce Millan, Chris Patten, Baron Richard, Christopher Soames, Baron Thomson of Monifieth, Baron Christopher Tugendhat, …
The Young Ones
In a recent TV documentary sixth formers were asked for their views on Brexit. One said it was their future that was being decided, implying that older folk should not be taking them out of the EU. There’s a simple solution to this. Since a person in their twenties can expect to live about four times as long as someone in their seventies the youngster should have four votes to the oldie’s one and so on, on a sliding scale. Those already in an old persons’ home should elect a representative (who can still walk to the polling booth) to cast a single collective vote. This wouldn’t work in America because there “All men are created equal” but it would fit with our new ‘European values’ in which anything is legitimate if it furthers the Project’s goals.
It is odd that young people in the main want to stay in the Union, given that it’s the young in many countries who suffer the consequences of bad policy inflicted by the Union’s autocracy. The youngsters in Britain seem not to have noticed but Italian youth has – they’ve left in droves, they’re still leaving.
Maybe it’s because youngsters are excited by theories of how to build a better future, whereas oldies have had more chances to experience the outcomes. Also, young people in the UK have never lived in an independent country where all laws are made by its elected governments, and both laws and governments can be changed. The UK’s youth had never experienced their country outside the ‘secure’ embrace of the EU whereas over 65s will remember when they didn’t feel this was essential to our survival. We were mostly eurosceptics until the hard times of the 70s and the apparent economic success of the Common Market suggested we were missing out, but we have never been keen on the political agenda. EU youth mostly hasn’t experienced separateness either but their prior histories were not always freer. But we should remember that only 64% of 18-24 year-olds voted in the 2016 Referendum compared with 90% of over 65s.
In the clink
How can anyone love a union that treats its members as if they are prisoners, afraid that if any of them escape and find better lives outside its walls others will want to join them? This tells us that the Union has another purpose than the well-being of its ‘inmates’ (otherwise known as ‘citizens’), which we know anyway from the way some are suffering.
But let’s try to look at this from the jailors’ viewpoint: the EU doesn’t want to keep any prisoners, it just doesn’t want any free-riders (or competitors). However, the UK has never had a free ride, it pays more than any other country except Germany and gains a huge trade deficit in return because prison (sorry, EU) regulations favour other countries more. Germany earns a huge (and illegal) trade surplus so it suits them but the uniform doesn’t fit us well. Mind, the Germans may prove to be emperors with no clothes if others default on payment for their goods.
______________________________________________
[1] See our series on the euro: The State of the Euro, The Future of the Euro-1, The Future of the Euro-2
[2] http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/public-opinion/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_European_Commissioners
This EU Won't Work 