Brexit a reality

The UK out of the EU. A momentous decision with implications that few of us, certainly not me, can appreciate. I feel it is a wrong decision, made on the flawed premise that certain recent problems would not have occurred if the UK had not been a memberstate of the EU. In a nutshell, I feel that Europe has made a step backward by 80 years. We are headed back into the bad old days of nationalism from the early 20th century. Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland has as good as announced another independence referendum. Geert Wilders in Holland wants a referendum there to quit the EU. Current polls suggest he could be heading up a government after next March's general elections there. Martin Maguinness wants a referendum on the unification of the island of Ireland. Has he forgotten the Troubles? No, he can't have done, he was a bomber back then.

The far right is in the ascendancy across Europe. Why? A flood of migrants. How come? Wars, poverty. Who brings those people to Europe's shore? No answer. Nobody knows, nobody does anything about it. Certainly David Cameron did nothing. The Europe of 2020 could well see an independent Scotland, a much diminished UK, and the EU in meltdown following exit-referendums across several of its memberstates. That is precisely what our friend in the Kremlin, Vladimir Vladimirovich, wants. Be afraid. Be very afraid. For who will say that it is not at his behest that the civil war in Syria is being propagated and the people smugglers of the Mediterranean encouraged. It is the flood of migrants (not just from Syria, by the way) that has prompted this looming crisis in the European Union. The Union of the 27 now face a real and existential threat. Look east and you'll see from who.

The Dutch referendum

The Netherlands went to the polls in a referendum yesterday, which was to advise the government how the people felt about the EU trade deal with Ukraine. About two out of every three people said 'nee', [no], they didn't like it. This coming from one of the founding members of the European Economic Community of the 1950s is profoundly disturbing. My personal assessment is that this no-vote was brought about on the back of the migrant crisis, currently gripping Europe, as well as the political uncertainty in Ukraine. Don't forget that that is a deeply divided country, where the western part would like to be more integrated with Europe, whereas the eastern part would like to be more integrated with Putin's Russia. The civil war in Ukraine, fomented by Putin, has subsided after our Vlad decided that it wasn't getting him anywhere and it was all backfiring on him - I refer to #MH17.

However, there is more to this issue than just the EU and Ukraine. It is about dissatisfaction with the European bureaucracy, which is held to be undemocratic and not properly held to account. The UK is going to the polls on its membership of the EU on June 23rd, and this result will be viewed with interest this side of the North Sea.

Further analysis is given on the link to the BBC news story.  

EU Referendum

On 23 June 2016, voters in the United Kingdom will go to the polls to decide whether the country should continue to be a member of the European Union. The UK joined the EEC in 1973, and appears to have been a reluctant convert to the cause. Memories of Margaret Thatcher handbagging the Europeans into special deals for Britain remain from the 1980s, and David Cameron has now done much the same. Another deal to make remaining in the EU as palatable as possible for the home front.

My perspective is not a usual one, as (a) I am Dutch and (b) I am blogging this from the Outer Hebrides in Scotland. The Dutch were one of the founding members of the European Economic Community back in 1957 (the others being France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg). The object was to create a free-trade association with open borders and as little impediment to movement of goods and people as was practicable. Criticism of the EU centres on its colossal bureaucracy (centred on three cities which are actually quite far apart, Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg) and creation of at times ridiculous rules. However, the EU has also been beneficial to areas like the Scottish islands, providing funding for (e.g.) infrastructure projects and enterprise. Another criticism is its sheer size. There are now 28 memberstates and a large number of different languages in which all the paperwork has to be translated (I did say bureaucracy). Whether the introduction of the Euro currency was such a success I very much doubt. You only have to look at Greece, which is in a state of economic collapse. As a memberstate of the EU, it has to bow to directives from the European Central Bank as to how to stave off total disaster. And the complaints are that Germany (as the largest and economically most powerful memberstate) is calling the shots.

EU membership has been a major source of divisions within particularly the Conservative party for decades. It brought down the premiership of Margaret Thatcher in November 1990, and it has bedeviled David Cameron since he came into office in May 2010. A No vote will not spell economic disaster for the UK. But it will remove a lot of the perks that the country has enjoyed in its dealings with other European nations, and I very much doubt that the EU will be prepared to give Britain yet another special deal after any No vote. In that instance, the UK will probably find itself in a similar position to Norway, as a member of the EEA (also comprising Iceland and Liechtenstein). The argument that the EU erodes the sovereignty of the UK does not ring true, to my mind. It is in fact disingenuous. When you join a club, you play by its rules. If you don't like the rules, you work to change them. It is for that reasons too that I feel that the United Kingdom should stay in the EU. But, I'm not eligible to vote. I am eligible to express my opinion, though.