The essence of the pro-EU argument is that we are all better off living in harmony, that Globalization is inevitable and that we need the protection of a large organization like the EU. We need to be part of a large state as fellow citizens because the whole world is becoming more uniform, we should not only accept this but work actively to achieve it.
Harmony comes in many forms. The best approach to harmony is to find methods of resolving differences so that we can live diverse lives in harmony with each other. This EU PR film clip shows the EU's view:
Sadly it appears that what the EU imagines to be harmony is racism. Really think about this. Their racism is what old people who were influenced by John Lennon's "Imagine" and other 20th century fallacies imagined to be "harmony". Old people were so afraid of diversity that they wanted everyone to be the same. Few people realize that it was this idea of "harmony" that caused havoc in the 20th century, if you are not convinced then take a look at:. Repeating the Mistakes of History.
The EU Referendum is in danger of disintegrating into racist working class yobs versus a racist middle class and media Establishment. Lets cut racism out of the debate.
The Nation States of Europe were places where people with different ideas about the best way to lead their lives could find sanctuary. The solution to the friction caused by this diversity cannot be to make them all the same! Anti-racism is respect for your fellow human beings no matter what their colour or origin and treating them with equal empathy. On the other hand the desire to remove all difference out of fear of conflict, to make a coffee coloured world, is naked racism: black and white, German and English deserve respect as individuals, not homogenization. As a pro-EU supporter do you invent a story in which you imagine that union is as diverse as separation or do you face the truth that union means union? Is the EU really about everyone living in harmony or just a twenty first century impulse towards empire, a desire for the apparent safety of uniformity?
Diversity is simply a good idea. If you have a garden with one type of flower then eventually there will come a bug that kills them all. If your garden is diverse there will always be something pleasing in it. If you have a single, global banking system it can all collapse at the same time, a single, global economy will not be vibrant and will not grow and develop or be robust. Removing all barriers between economies, cultures and countries is a terrible mistake, it will create a monoculture.
Globalization will only be inevitable if we continue working actively to achieve it through the WTO, EU etc. Without this activity globalization would be far from inevitable and it might stabilize as moderate trade between sustainable nations. We can protect ourselves against conflict by being friendly and cooperative with our neighbours, as we did in the days of the EEC, we do not need central EU government for protection, however, central government is useful for being belligerent - how else would we threaten Russia?
The next argument that is used in support of the EU is that there should always be a free market in goods and people: it is proposed that goods and people should be able to move freely across Europe and the globe. This argument is supported by both Corporations and some Socialists.
Obviously trade and movement of people is necessary, the only issue is the scale of trade and movement. Everyone agrees that National Parks are a good idea so total, complete, free trade and movement of people cannot be supported everywhere. So where is the boundary between total free trade and movement and the good of the land and people? I would propose that making this judgement is the responsibility of National Governments, Nations are generally composed of defined areas of land and of people with similar cultures so their Governments know best what needs to be protected and nurtured.
Another argument is that by being fully united in Europe we will all be more prosperous because of free trade, free movement and central policy making.
The only way to assess this argument is to examine the prosperity and growth of the Eurozone and that of other countries. The EEC appears to have improved the prosperity of Europe (although the whole world got richer during the lifetime of the EEC) but the Eurozone looks like a disaster, the South is becoming poor and the North rich. Furthermore the growth rate of the whole Eurozone is lagging behind that of other developed countries. In terms of economics the EEC may have been effective but the EU looks like a step too far and using the growth achieved by the EEC to justify the EU is unwarranted. The EU is not a panacea for prosperity.
Then there are the detailed economic arguments. Usually they revolve around the ability of Nissan in Sunderland to undercut Nissan in Japan because there are no tariffs.
These arguments are out of date. A Free Trade Treaty is about to be signed by the EU with Japan that will remove the tariff advantage. Furthermore much of the world has negotiated deals with the EU that reduce or remove tariffs. It is, somewhat amazingly, also the case that non-EU countries find it easier to trade with the EU than does the UK: there is no insider advantage to being in the EU.
There is no reason at all why Europe cannot be a zone of cooperating, independent states and indeed, the EEC was greatly admired for how independent nations learnt how to share and cooperate. The EU has changed this into central control from Brussels, which brings us to the last argument used by the pro-EU supporters: the EU Treaties are not real, they have no effect. Member States can do as they wish. This argument scarcely deserves an answer, it is simply a desperate, barefaced lie. You can tell it is a lie because with the next breath the pro-EU supporter will be extolling the virtues of EU legislation on employment etc.
The EU was a mistake. The lawyers, academics and corporations who float above the People have gained control. If the "REMAIN" vote wins the referendum and the UK becomes committed to full Union it will be a turning point in human history that will mark the beginning of the ordinary people being marginalised from Government and the whole world becoming uniform.
The diversity of Nation States arose because people had different beliefs, natural environments and cultures and wished to protect these. The deep motivation behind those who want to end a diversity of States is to ensure that there is no place for those who wish to be different to hide. It is the psychology of a new sort of extremist, the Western secular extremist, who is convinced that their ideas are the only possible ideas. They attempt to dress up their ideas in talk of "human rights"** etc. but truly don't know right from wrong (See Postmodern thought). This "Union" mentality will, if not stopped, lead to global government that will eventually fall into the hands of the corrupt. It will create a tyranny from which there will be no external escape or intervention. It is only the diversity of the Nation States that has prevented this disaster overcoming mankind.
Of course, if the EU swings violently to the Right there will be no Britain outside this time to stop it after a "REMAIN" vote in the referendum.
** The Human Rights argument for the EU is an interesting conflict between British Common Law and EU Regulatory Law. The British abolished slavery and introduced many of the freedoms that are embodied in the European Charter of Human Rights decades or even centuries before some of these were introduced in some European countries. After WWII an attempt was made by the victorious allies to introduce Human Rights in a form that would be compatible with European legal systems in the form of the ECHR.
The English Common Law approach is superior to a simple list of Rights because it embodies centuries of case law and Rights can be protected from multiple angles and absurd claims to "Rights" can be dismissed by a jury trial. Most European legal systems do not have juries and the state controlled judges can simply ignore Rights if so instructed.
7/8/2015
 |
| EU PR Photo |
The EU Referendum is in danger of disintegrating into racist working class yobs versus a racist middle class and media Establishment. Lets cut racism out of the debate.
The Nation States of Europe were places where people with different ideas about the best way to lead their lives could find sanctuary. The solution to the friction caused by this diversity cannot be to make them all the same! Anti-racism is respect for your fellow human beings no matter what their colour or origin and treating them with equal empathy. On the other hand the desire to remove all difference out of fear of conflict, to make a coffee coloured world, is naked racism: black and white, German and English deserve respect as individuals, not homogenization. As a pro-EU supporter do you invent a story in which you imagine that union is as diverse as separation or do you face the truth that union means union? Is the EU really about everyone living in harmony or just a twenty first century impulse towards empire, a desire for the apparent safety of uniformity?
Diversity is simply a good idea. If you have a garden with one type of flower then eventually there will come a bug that kills them all. If your garden is diverse there will always be something pleasing in it. If you have a single, global banking system it can all collapse at the same time, a single, global economy will not be vibrant and will not grow and develop or be robust. Removing all barriers between economies, cultures and countries is a terrible mistake, it will create a monoculture.
Globalization will only be inevitable if we continue working actively to achieve it through the WTO, EU etc. Without this activity globalization would be far from inevitable and it might stabilize as moderate trade between sustainable nations. We can protect ourselves against conflict by being friendly and cooperative with our neighbours, as we did in the days of the EEC, we do not need central EU government for protection, however, central government is useful for being belligerent - how else would we threaten Russia?
The next argument that is used in support of the EU is that there should always be a free market in goods and people: it is proposed that goods and people should be able to move freely across Europe and the globe. This argument is supported by both Corporations and some Socialists.
Obviously trade and movement of people is necessary, the only issue is the scale of trade and movement. Everyone agrees that National Parks are a good idea so total, complete, free trade and movement of people cannot be supported everywhere. So where is the boundary between total free trade and movement and the good of the land and people? I would propose that making this judgement is the responsibility of National Governments, Nations are generally composed of defined areas of land and of people with similar cultures so their Governments know best what needs to be protected and nurtured.
Another argument is that by being fully united in Europe we will all be more prosperous because of free trade, free movement and central policy making.
The only way to assess this argument is to examine the prosperity and growth of the Eurozone and that of other countries. The EEC appears to have improved the prosperity of Europe (although the whole world got richer during the lifetime of the EEC) but the Eurozone looks like a disaster, the South is becoming poor and the North rich. Furthermore the growth rate of the whole Eurozone is lagging behind that of other developed countries. In terms of economics the EEC may have been effective but the EU looks like a step too far and using the growth achieved by the EEC to justify the EU is unwarranted. The EU is not a panacea for prosperity.
Then there are the detailed economic arguments. Usually they revolve around the ability of Nissan in Sunderland to undercut Nissan in Japan because there are no tariffs.
These arguments are out of date. A Free Trade Treaty is about to be signed by the EU with Japan that will remove the tariff advantage. Furthermore much of the world has negotiated deals with the EU that reduce or remove tariffs. It is, somewhat amazingly, also the case that non-EU countries find it easier to trade with the EU than does the UK: there is no insider advantage to being in the EU.
There is no reason at all why Europe cannot be a zone of cooperating, independent states and indeed, the EEC was greatly admired for how independent nations learnt how to share and cooperate. The EU has changed this into central control from Brussels, which brings us to the last argument used by the pro-EU supporters: the EU Treaties are not real, they have no effect. Member States can do as they wish. This argument scarcely deserves an answer, it is simply a desperate, barefaced lie. You can tell it is a lie because with the next breath the pro-EU supporter will be extolling the virtues of EU legislation on employment etc.
The EU was a mistake. The lawyers, academics and corporations who float above the People have gained control. If the "REMAIN" vote wins the referendum and the UK becomes committed to full Union it will be a turning point in human history that will mark the beginning of the ordinary people being marginalised from Government and the whole world becoming uniform.
The diversity of Nation States arose because people had different beliefs, natural environments and cultures and wished to protect these. The deep motivation behind those who want to end a diversity of States is to ensure that there is no place for those who wish to be different to hide. It is the psychology of a new sort of extremist, the Western secular extremist, who is convinced that their ideas are the only possible ideas. They attempt to dress up their ideas in talk of "human rights"** etc. but truly don't know right from wrong (See Postmodern thought). This "Union" mentality will, if not stopped, lead to global government that will eventually fall into the hands of the corrupt. It will create a tyranny from which there will be no external escape or intervention. It is only the diversity of the Nation States that has prevented this disaster overcoming mankind.
Of course, if the EU swings violently to the Right there will be no Britain outside this time to stop it after a "REMAIN" vote in the referendum.
** The Human Rights argument for the EU is an interesting conflict between British Common Law and EU Regulatory Law. The British abolished slavery and introduced many of the freedoms that are embodied in the European Charter of Human Rights decades or even centuries before some of these were introduced in some European countries. After WWII an attempt was made by the victorious allies to introduce Human Rights in a form that would be compatible with European legal systems in the form of the ECHR.
The English Common Law approach is superior to a simple list of Rights because it embodies centuries of case law and Rights can be protected from multiple angles and absurd claims to "Rights" can be dismissed by a jury trial. Most European legal systems do not have juries and the state controlled judges can simply ignore Rights if so instructed.
7/8/2015
Comments