From the EU website-
"The European Union is a group of 28 countries in Europe.
These countries came together
to make things better, easier and safer for people.
They agreed to work together and help each other."
I'm all for peace and making things safer for all, but by "making things easier and helping each other it means that some will do less and still be on a similar level as the ones who do and pay more. What about the countries that, so far, haven't done as much helping others as holding their hands out for aid? This model, by design, means that those with more will be forced to help those with less, just because they signed up. Where is the incentive for the countries with less, to improve themselves?
All countries that are part of the European Union work together
to make sure that:
- there is peace in Europe
- people have good lives
- things are fair for all people and nobody is left out
- the languages and cultures of all people
are respected
- there is a strong European economy
and countries use the same coin
to do business together.
The countries of the European Union
share some important values.
For example, they work to make sure that all people are equal
and their rights are respected."
I see Europe hitting some brick walls when people demand more without accepting the fact that they have already gotten enough from others and it's time to contribute something of their own.
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
I think the real issues are much more deep seated at a fundamental psychological and social level than that.
Profound changes occurred in England from the 12 th century on. Under Henry Plantagenet the Great Council was established. Under his rule the foundations of British Common law were established, for both criminal and civil proceedings. The Jury system dates from about that time. This was the foundation of British common Law, the basis of jurisprudence though out the English speaking world including the US. The continental European justice systems are based on Roman Law. The two do not coexist well. So the EU insistence on the supremacy of the European Court of Justice does not fit well in the UK and is a serious point of conflict.
In fact under UK law, civil and especially financial cases can be heard in any jurisdiction. In financial cases in particular there is heavy preference for financial cases to be tried in the UK. So actually the UK legal profession probably stand to loose the most in a post Brexit world.
During the thirteenth century Parliaments become more organized and by 1295 Parliament met at Westminster and was called the 'Commons" for the first time.
Of course there were stresses and strains, with the Oxford provisions having to wrung out of King John and later Magna Carta.
By 1668 the supremacy of Parliament was established.
By contrast the rule on continental Europe was in large degree despotic. So it is no wonder that the UK populace are restive as what they see as a very inferior system of governance and jurisprudence the other side of the channel.
The EU have been relentingly successful at keeping senior leadership positions out of the hands of anyone from the UK. I suspect they fear the light of more democratic voices.
I think it is fair to say that a lot of the UK populace feel highly disenfranchised by the EU systems of governance. In my view with good reason. This is a major point of conflict not well covered in the US press.
I spoke with my brother a couple or so hours ago. He has been leader of the Kent County Council now for many years. I don't think he will run next time. Anyhow he is a senior conservative politician with easy access to the leavers of power, as the KCC has the largest budget behind the central government in the UK.
He feels there is now the feeling of major change and that the UK will leave the EU without agreement on October 31 with or without an election. He feels that Boris is now barnstorming the country in full election mode, prepared for one at any time
The clock may run out, as Parliament will be in recess until September. Under current rules an election would likely be called with the passing of a no confidence motion, or the agreement of two thirds of the house of commons. That being the case it is hard to see election being held before October 31 and so the clock would run out and the UK exit October 31 with no agreement.
After that an election would very likely follow, that Boris Johnson would most likely win. In any event it would be years before the UK could rejoin the EU.
As far as the union is concerned, Wales is pro leave as is most of England, especially the old industrial heart land of the North and Midlands.
Scotland is strongly remain. However Boris has said he will not allow another independence referendum. In any case Scotland would have to float a new currency as it would take some time to not only get admitted to the EU but more especially the Euro. A UK government would not share Sterling currency, although they could not stop them using it. However they would have to buy sterling reserves and could not run a deficit.
Northern Ireland voted remain. However I don't think the locals on either side will go back to a hard border. So the border will be "run" and illegal profits made shipping goods across the border. Anyone who knows the Irish, can foretell exactly what will happen. Any attempt to impose a foreign army will be strongly resisted on both sides.
The EU will have the choice of tolerating it, or imposing border controls on goods and people entering mainland Europe from and EU country! Interesting times indeed.
