The EU: Straight Talking Facts
The European Union (EU), having come into fruition in the early 70s as a trade bloc/customs union in the face of the ever hulking USSR, has now become evermore redundant in modern times, where openness presently discards insularity and the thaw of the Cold War has given rise to a more amicable, diplomatic global stage (not an era where shut-in trade blocs seemed like the future). The EU is thus, no longer bearing the relevancy as a defensive bulwark of economic fortification that it once was.
Unfortunately, the EU has outgrown its initial purpose of just smoothing trade barriers, it is now attributing unwarranted power to the little known, unelected 5 presidents of the EU institutions (that I reckon you cannot name) seated in the Brussels complex, and undemocratically granting these quango figureheads substantially unchallenged political sway over the 28 member states that comprise the union. i.e. holding influential authority over upwards of 50% of UK laws by means of EU regulations.
“Free from EU rules and regulations, Britain could reinvent itself as a Singapore-style supercharged economy.” (Upon Brexit)
So let’s evaluate the pros and cons of remaining or seceding from a Union that has rapidly evolved in recent times without nearly enough audition.
The Pros/Cons of staying in the EU
Pros: Trade and inter-connectivity inside Europe: trade between the member states is admittedly somewhat smoother, the EU delivers in the initial goal of achieving this. The EU is a single market in which no tariffs are imposed on imports and exports between member states. “More than 50 percent of our exports go to EU countries” this is essentially modeled at forgetting individual states, you will see this fluidity becoming so much so that individual states become unrecognizable by approximately 2060, in a Babel-esque move for an absolutist European singularity, distinct cultural ties must be liquidated. To some this is progressive as provides unity in the aftermath of two world wars, however other sources have suggested that it is solely in the interest of certain powers to combat the rise of a Russia-China unification (China is a 800 million hard-working person powerhouse!) by boosting Europe as a Bloc of the front-line against the rising Eastern world, reflected in the exclusion of both Russia and China in EU trade negotiations. To me it seems to be a dichotomy making effort that will only further the rift between the East and the West, and exacerbate the chances of a third world war being initiated.
Cons: Trade and inter-connectivity inside Europe: The EU locks member states into being answerable to the decisions of the presidents of the EU commission at Brussels for the majority of our trade agreements, most of which are heavily regulated and strictly forbid us branching out on our own basis to trade with China, Russia, or India for example (the stat of 50% of exports going to the EU is very variable, for example these exports could go to world markets if we left the EU, or would remain going to Europe, just not under the EU.) The EU solely embraces the concept that will fuse all member states under one unified roof; the need for sovereign parliaments will eventually be wiped away, the EU naturally does not give us free reign over our own trade because honouring individual states is not its ultimate aim or agenda: one massive state ruled by unaccountable, unelected ministers is! Doesn’t seem sensible to me, as most problems of the world have nearly always arisen from big government.
- By 2020 all EU member states must adopt the Euro; including Great Britain. Forget the rhetoric that suggests we retain the pound.
- Further political centralization is expected to be drawn into Brussels once the UK Referendum is over.
- Goldman Sachs and big banks love the EU as it gives them extended control over the economies of Europe via the incredibly centralized Brussels, a single market is much easier to dominate and influence. Check Here for more on that.
- Kalashnikovs and terrorist armaments, not to mention drugs and contraband are easily getting around Europe with the fallible Schengen area, worsening crime and enabling heightened deployability of terrorist operations akin to the recent Brussels bombings.
-
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has come out in favour of Brexit, says we are leaving the “door open” to terrorist attacks by remaining in the EU. “This open border does not allow us to check and control people.”
Pros: Borderless Migration: getting around Europe is made easy, the Schengen area permits free movement of people and their labour, but usually at the cost of depriving weaker countries and reinforcing already economically strong states. The trade-in for this is migrants from within Europe can greatly boost economies and labour-forces, but at the cost of the average wage declining in the host nation. This benefits CEOs mainly, who will inevitably make more money with a more grateful, low-salary workforce. The legislation of the Working Time Directive seems to cover this up, however there is a huge incentive for CEOs to back staying in based on cheaper labour from free movement within the EU that favours low pay workers most (that they want), not the middle-class natives and SME business owners, who are already settled comfortably.
- Case Study: Migrant workers are simply leaving a crumbling Spanish economy and coming to the UK, pushing down our wages, increasing job and property contest here, and crippling the Spanish yet further. it is this economic centralization and the favouring of the flagship states in Europe that is doing an injustice to the weaker states in Europe.
- Without restrictions on who comes here (The UK), the poorer provider countries lose population and their workers (both skilled and unskilled) people flood into richer countries without much audition. There is no limitation. Yet ironically there is discriminant limitation on those who can come here from outside the EU, it all screams a basket case, single population state that is being slowly implemented.
- Case Study: Turkey is set to be fast-tracked to join the EU, using its efforts at siphoning migrant flow through its borders as a reason for its accelerated inclusion. This will be opening the gates to 75 million Turks to have free travel across the board, putting more stress on the UK and other EU flagship states. David Cameron has lied concerning this issue claiming it would take ‘decades’ for the Turks to get in, but that disregards the reality the EU parliament can override legal processes and the general consensus favours Turkey getting in early.
- 8% of Turks are ISIS sympathizers! That’s roughly around 6000,000 people.
Defence minister Penny Mordaunt said the migrant crisis would hasten talks over Turkey’s EU bid and the UK was powerless to stop it.
Cons: Borderless Migration: We have little control over who comes into the country, because the EU has overextended itself so much, and independent states can no longer act independently with their own borders. Illegal migrants from outside the EU are quite easily physically gaining access by crossing narrow straits and passing into the continent without scrutiny via Schengen, gaining visas with less and less requirements. These migrants often have no interest in benefiting the EU in many cases, flocking to the welfare states such as the UK or Germany for the freebie financial incentives and establishing themselves, utterly unconcerned with meaningfully integrating themselves; giving way to ethnic enclaves and the transformation of the entire political landscape, it is a replacement, not an integration.
The social impacts are severe, Islamic people now form majorities in a few European capitals, and ethnic enclaves are on the rise. This is not about race, because massed, unlimited migration shifts the entire political and social structure of a country to accommodate eastern principles, legal standpoints such as the oppressive Shariah law are now being encouraged and enabled due to the largely Islamic, unintegrated majority populaces voting in leaders that favour Islamic, non-western ideologies over progressive, western ones. It’s a natural consequence of mass-migration, and a lack of successful migrant integration.
Cameron claims in the video below that he’s using standards for the citizenship of migrants to curb overall migration, yet migrant unemployment is at 70% or at least high, with them not being deported despite Cameron claiming that deportation would be imposed on unemployed, welfare sapping migrants. Again, he lies, and he’s very good at lying. Migration is not going to be reduced, do not kid yourself. Cameron wants to appease the voter to get his way now, then just continue this devastating trend unhindered after the referendum.
Support for Socialist parties, and the favouring of big government with these migrants gaining the majority vote perpetuates the issue further. An inside-out transformation of political opinion is occurring, the migrant crisis is effectively a political Trojan Horse for converting public opinion which favours growing the EU further. The longer the EU is intact, the more majoritarian democracy is bent to the unelected EU kingpins by mass importing the opinion they want.
- Social Impacts, conversion/replacement of western culture to regressive eastern ways due to sheer lack of integration. ‘White Flight‘, the rise of segregationist groups such as Britain First, and the election of Muslim London Mayor Sadiq Khan prove that there is an unaddressed, growing cultural divergence in the UK.
- Stress on services and housing from dramatic migration could push the NHS to collapse & go private, and national housing prices to skyrocket considerably, this level of migration is simply unsustainable.
- Stress on jobs from migration will drive down our wages, and generate more competition, making the entire climate more difficult for everyone financially, and with their employability – CEOs love the large pool of candidates, but the common people just suffer as a result.
- Migrants favour their own gain (welfare state) and do not prioritize liberties and constitutional values nearly as much as the western people do (The EU has no active constitution suppressing authoritarianism or enforcing the democratic rights of the people) largely ignored in mainstream debates about the EU. They (Migrants) are used as voting fodder to bolster socialism, and consolidating larger, more controlling governmental entities (Favours EU). And of course, to ultimately forget the western culture that had originally kindled democracy, liberty, progressive Christian values, and the vital, ever-important constitutional documents such as the Magna Carta that ensure democratic liberties remain intact. The EU is the utter antithesis of this and uses penchant bribes; i.e. cheaper landline costs and cheaper flights to win over less politically knowledgeable people to vote for it!
Pros: Favours Poorer Migrants & Refugees: to them, this is positive as it gives these people from greatly poorer states an opportunity to come and work in 1st world welfare states such as the UK, Sweden and Germany. They get accommodated, they get pension guarantees, they get housing – the EU is grooming them and enticing them, and they do not care about their impact on the natives, the notion of Kafirs (non-believers) is prominent throughout Islamic culture (A predominant faith of migrants), a discriminatory ideology in the Qu’ran that orders Islamic people to disdain all non-believers.
Does this seem conducive to overall successful integration to you? …
The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse.
Here are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of Kafir.
- “Multiculturalism”: It has been argued by many that multiculturalism has ‘enriched’ European cultures; in reality it does not work particularly well and actually causes social divides. It is positive for those of foreign backgrounds as the EU is pushing for prioritizing migrants settlers over natives, introducing quotas providing pole-position for migrants in attaining employment. What it does do is import a more amicable workforce for big companies and bring in people grateful to work for pennies, people who will vote in bigger government, people who will favour the EU.
Cons: Favours Poor Migrants & Refugees: most of these alleged ‘refugees’ – a term that has been used in conjunction with guilt-tripping media imagery to push the idea that we must accept mass migration is actually misleading. Most migrants are not refugees from Syria, many gain access to Europe in the guise of these refugees, but are only really interested in the ‘good life’ of welfare & benefits. This ‘refugee’ sham is used by the EU commissioners as an excuse to force EU states to accept these ‘refugees’ in massive, unlimited numbers out of liberal-backed sympathy, an emotional attachment that has silenced voices of reason on many platforms with dismissive buzz words like ‘racist’ that discourage in-depth debate.
- Remainers argue constantly that we need this level of migration to fill in labour gaps and assure the receipt of skilled workers from abroad, however let us not forget that we can easily drop the current unhindered migration system that does not base itself on meritocratic bases, but destructively allows anyone free access – to a better, alternative system that is far more efficient & selective of people that are useful to our economy and have intentions beyond simply settling for the welfare benefits here. i.e. the Australian migration system which is points based and is nondiscriminatory.
Opposing view: The UK already has a points-based system for non-EU migrants and it is not clear why inventing a different system – with less flexibility – would be a good idea. – BBC ‘Reality Check’
Leave EU Response: Yes, we have a points system for non-EU migrants, however the whole Leave argument concerns introducing this points based system for all migrants everywhere, and not being discriminatory by reserving this points system to just migrants that are outside the EU, that is nonsensical.
The EU simply intends to encourage mass-immigration by keeping the union exempt of points-based migration policies. This emphasizes mass-migratory patterns that are unkempt and radical in their demeanor and favour the inducement of an excess of lower class workers for top flight corporations to absorb, it also accelerates the centralization of the EU as these migrants overwhelmingly tend to vote in bigger government.
The Membership Fee
The fee for membership is stated as:
-
The gross contribution in 2015 was £17.8bn but the UK rebate was worth £4.9bn – BBC
This means it cost us £12.9 billion/£350m a week last year to be a member of the EU club, money that could go towards our own national ambitions, and could have utterly eliminated the austerity measures imposed in recent years for example.
A remain argument suggests that:
-
After Brexit, the UK would still have to contribute to the EU budget to retain access to the single market.
While this is true, it would cost less than the current fees, and with Brexit we will have the freedom to trade with other global trade blocs, not just the EU (which is actually the slowest growing trade bloc in the world), the EU has been compared to a dead corpse that we have shackled ourselves to.
There is also a strong argument for the EU collapsing if we exit, other countries have suggested an interest in escaping and following the UK out of the door if Brexit follows through. This renders the misguided analogy of us being ‘outsiders’ void and null, as we can still trade with the EU post-Brexit and we regain our own independence in regards to negotiating trade deals with proven-to-be more prosperous trade blocs, it’s a win for the UK and its interests.
The International Relations Argument
Remainers have argued that we will somehow be cut afloat upon Brexit and be left to fend for ourselves…
It is this inwards, fear-mongering, herd-mentality, caricatured point of view that has garnered the wide support from swathes of the politically apathetic. As the 5th largest economy in the world, a huge global market for all trade blocs, the financial gateway of the world (City of London), and a wholly competent negotiator at the global table of diplomatic affairs, the UK absolutely stands a solid chance of breaking away from a Union that treats us as a mere appendage in its absurd, uncanny ambitions for a single state of Europe, and eventually a world government.
The reality is that the bureaucratic EU folk needs us more than we need them. It’s a classic gesture that is wholly applicable here, we are a key driving force in the EU’s success. The unelected few in Brussels rely largely on our funding, our influence, our active involvement in their failing project. Without us, the chance of the EU remaining intact is narrow, but remainers would love to perpetuate the ill-informed notion that the EU will somehow sustain itself after our departure, (it’s already very unstable) – and that we’re the ones that will fall afoul of some fabricated imaginary benefit if we do leave.
We’re joining the rest of the world
But it’s not that we’re leaving, it’s that we’re joining the rest of the world, the EU is practically a contrived cave of economic exclusivity, keeping the likes of rapidly growing global trade blocs and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) markets at arms length. To leave the EU is not a messy divorce, how can it be when we never agreed to this ‘marriage’ in the first place, the UK public never asked to be undemocratically ruled, there’s absolutely no obligation or guilt-bound sense of duty dictating that we must stay, so why stay?
A vote for Brexit is a vote for Britain, a vote for keeping our cultural roots intact, a vote for reconciling western differences with the rising East, and most importantly; a vote for our eternal right to democracy, liberty and making our own decisions.
Vote Leave on the 23rd of June.
The Spearhead Journal 