View on the news

Support for Brexit similar to angst in U.S.?

By Christopher Curran
Posted 6/30/16

On June 23, 2016, the unthinkable happened in a referendum vote by United Kingdom citizens. The ballot referendum called “British Withdrawal from the European Union” or “Brexit” surprised the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Support for Brexit similar to angst in U.S.?

Posted

On June 23, 2016, the unthinkable happened in a referendum vote by United Kingdom citizens. The ballot referendum called “British Withdrawal from the European Union” or “Brexit” surprised the world when the British citizens, in a slight majority, decided to detach from the governorship and inclusion in the European Union.

The genesis and evolution of the European Union over the past 60 years from a cooperative of basic industries to a governmental body which arguably usurps an individual nation’s decision-making capabilities and regulation of immigrants has been a complicated process. Throughout these six decades, the United Kingdom has been a coy mistress to the advances of what is now the EU by insisting on retaining its monetary unit, the British Pound, while attempting to use the trade advantages of membership in the group.

However, by the nature of its membership in the EU, the UK borders are porous and therefore cannot restrict the entrance of any EU visa holder. As a result, newcomers are an overwhelming burden to Britain’s social services and National Health Service (NHS). Opponents to membership have conducted a campaign of fear mongering which cites the erosion of self-rule, the indignant relegation of the British Parliament in favor of rulings from Brussels, Belgium, the capital of the European Union, and perhaps most onerously Brits lament the insidious diminishment of their British identity.

Also, the UK is required to make weekly payments of several million pounds to Brussels to remain in the EU. The opposition to UK membership in the EU has stated that on balance Britain loses in this benefit/expenditure equation.

This circumstance begs some important questions. Are their parallels between the sentiment of British citizens and Americans who are responding to presumed Republican candidate for president Donald Trump? Does the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have concepts and radical ideas not dissimilar to those Trump and his followers have?

On the face of it, membership in the EU would seem to have more advantages than disadvantages. However, to enjoy the benefits a member nation must allow the governing body of the EU in Brussels to become the ultimate authority on a given nation’s internal decisions. Also, Brussels has become the highest arbiter of disputes between trading nations in the membership. Over the last 60 years since its inception, the EU has evolved into a monument toward globalization.

Following World War II, a beleaguered Europe wanted to form alliances that would prevent another worldwide catastrophe. The notion that economies that are intertwined are unlikely to become opposite combatants is sound geopolitical logic. As a result, a European Union started as a business connection built across borders in the coal and steel industries. First struck in the early 1950s, the European Coal and Steel Commission sought to ensure the free trade of these essential rebuilding facets of the European economy. This successful idea expanded into the European Economic Commission, which originally involved six states and started to dissolve the barriers of trade between European countries.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, more formerly bound nations needed alliances with democratic trading nations to build free economies. So in 1993, with the signing of the “Maastricht Treaty,” the EU offered European citizenship to anyone within the member countries and free unfettered travel between nation states.

Along with this new emancipation came a growing burden. Member nations had to receive anyone from anywhere with an EU-issued visa.

Slowly but surely over the next 16 years, the European Union started to strengthen it’s constitutional dominance over it’s member nations, resulting in the “Treaty of Lisbon” in 2009 which fully established Brussels as the European capital. The elimination of tariffs, the establishment of a duty required to be paid to the EU capital, and a reduction in the power and scope of the legislatures of member countries in favor of EU governance seemed reasonable to some but alienated others. Especially, many Brits felt that their national identity was fading being replaced by a European identity.

An example of this was the UK’s consistent refusal to give up on their monetary unit, the British Pound. And a rebellion against a European passport instead of a British passport came to heated national discourse. Nineteen member countries fell in line and embraced the new standard (the EURO). The English refused more on a basis of heritage and tradition than concerns about the generalization of currency. Before and after Lisbon, many Members of Parliament (MPs) expressed dire concern about relegating their constitutional powers. The EU hierarchy found Britain’s reluctance against assimilation tiresome and a significant impediment in some other nations’ compliance. So, the seeds of discontent that eventually resulted in the recent “leave” vote have been long planted in apprehension about EU dominance.

British notables have a divergence of opinion as to the effects of the vote to leave the union. Prime Minister David Cameron, who has announced his resignation from office effective in October of this year, sees dark skies for England. He believes that the Gross Domestic Product of the UK, the size of the economy, will suffer greatly. He said “leaving will be a hit to the economy and a hit to jobs,” and “the UK is a great trading nation, 50 percent of goods UK sells to EU markets, they will be in jeopardy.” The PM may be correct in his sour outlook as ratings agencies Moody’s and Fitch have already downgraded the UK’s financial status. MP Nicola Sturgeon, from Scotland, stated: “Peace and assured security is a vote to remain.” Former government minister Amber Rudd said: “Vote and take a leap in the dark.”

Those in favor of leaving the EU were not as ominous in their predictions about this drastic change. Boris Johnson, an MP and former mayor of London, appealed to citizens who objected to the usurpation of the British legislature. “In Brussels they are an unelected elite,” he said, and we need to “take back control of our democracy.” Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, has cultivated many to question the advantages of remaining in the EU. First and foremost, he takes umbrage with the 350 million Pound duty that the UK must pay to Brussels on a weekly basis. He believes the trade benefits and European distribution programs result in a net loss for Britain. Also he believes the lessening of the number of migrants, which will definitely occur as a result of the vote, will increase wages and increase job opportunities for Brits.

Specifically, perhaps the winning reason for the slight majority for “Leave” is the deleterious effects of mass migration into Britain. As a EU member, England could not limit the entrance of migrants into the country and the positive correlation of the extraordinary burdens on social and medical services. Eastern European and Middle Eastern newcomers have migrated in droves to the UK, which has had many negative effects.

The NHS has been so overburdened that wait times for routine tests have increased three fold. The immigrants have caused a lower-class housing shortage in which some returning British veterans are on waiting lists for subsidized housing behind newcomers. With a EU visa, migrants can receive welfare benefits and food assistance cards. Crime statistics indicate that newcomer assaults and rapes that prey upon UK citizens are growing significantly. In Germany, which has accepted 800,000 of these migrants, assaults and rapes are at rampage levels.

Although, these aspects of British extraction from the EU have some uniqueness to them, the fear of immigration has also fueled the success of Trump’s campaign in America. The commonalities of unwanted immigrants, in our case mostly from Mexico and Central America, has incited fear and galvanized the rallying cry of “Trumpites” to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out and to commence deportations. The populist movement to “Leave” the EU in the UK is not dissimilar to Trump devotees who want to lessen the burden on our social services, increase the availability of jobs to US citizens, and ensure that everyone complies with our laws when they are in our country.

The Brexit vote is a populist message to globalists that the British are proud of their heritage and wish to preserve it. In the same way, Trump supporters wish to convey a populist message that migrants who are here illegally should first comply with our laws if they wish to be part of our society. Americans want to preserve our heritage, too!

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here