Did We Have To Brexit?

As we head for Brexit we have to start asking what went wrong between us and the EU. Who really stands to gain?

 

There is no real argument, the EU is a crazy project but how is it different from the Union of 52 States with Governors that can overrule the Federal Government? Some would say that EU legislation from Brussels cannot be overruled and we have to go along with it. If we take the example of Poland…

The Constitutional Tribunal of Poland ruled that while EU law may override national statutes, it does not override the Constitution. In cases of a conflict between EU law and the Constitution, Poland can make a sovereign decision as to how this conflict should be resolved (i.e. by changing the Constitution, leaving the EU or seeking to change the EU law). (Ref. Wikipedia)

So as stated above a member state can retain sovereignty in decision making. So what was the big idea on Brexit? Various member states have reviewed EU law in accordance with their own constitution and have found it to be compatible. In other words Brexit was unnecessary.

The solution for me was a review of anti-terror laws if they were not strong enough, a review of welfare policy to prevent welfare tourism. On the subject of terrorism, we could exercise stop and search powers more (less on Black kids and more on terror suspects), we could also utilize deportation of hate preachers and anti-terror detention laws more strongly (not forgetting rendition, EU law had no bearing then). On the subject of welfare, well it is clear that welfare systems in other member states are not as good, so there was definitely a legal argument on the basis of unequal availability of welfare means in other states, so if a Briton can’t find equivalent welfare coverage in one member state then the EU cannot possibly claim discrimination, most of Europe is in agreement that Eastern Europeans are poorer thus cannot offer equal welfare opportunity. This could have been successfully negotiated.

The fact remains, Brexit was about trade wars and military control by external actors. The US was under siege from Chinese, Mexican and Japanese imports, they have struggled to compete against European global exports and the one anglophone market, the UK was part of the EU and not able to effectively discuss favorable trade terms with the US. See below EU directive.

In 1981, with Directive 81/602/EEC, the EU prohibited the use of substances having a hormonal action for growth promotion in farm animals. Examples for these kind of growth promoters are oestradiol 17ß, testosterone, progesterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate (MGA). This prohibition applies to Member States and imports from third countries alike. The legal instrument in force is Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC.

The above is one of many European directives that restrict US imports. Russia must also have a vested interest in seeing a weaker Europe, A Brexit means a weaker NATO which gives them more leverage against NATO’s defense of Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Hungary not to mention Latvia and the newer states. Is it a wonder Russia is accused of election meddling? If Europe falls who will gain? The future is impossible to see but the end of the EU could spell the end of environmental protection, global human rights, a resurgence of religious violence and possibly global war. We would all look bar and say the catalyst was Brexit.