Brexit, A Different Slant - Short Blog
With a new Government, effectively, and clearly not in any rush to invoke Article 50, with some questions asked and answered about our relationship with Francde and migration, but others being posed unrelated to Europe and thought to be a way of taking this subject away for the centre of everyone's attention, but as far as I am aware, nobody is actually asking why did people vote for Brexit, except for the highly charged migration issue. However, one thing is clear and that the statement "taking back control" had more to it than migration. So here is my views on what Brexit which is actually an erroneous term will be.
Firstly, this will not be the pure form of total divorce. It just does not work. The only problem is that both sides are providing people with polarised egos to sit at the negotiating table. So what if they do not negotiate, does that mean that the real work is done elsewhere, and maybe that is the plan, by both sides.
What does "Taking Back Control" really mean. Probably people relate to the EU as a bloated institution (or sets of institutions) living in the past with regards to "expenses", with power to seemingly impose items which could be important or trivial on nation states (and the United Kingdom has then locally enacted this, sometimes at breakneck speed, and creating errors on the way), with little regard to the reason or reasons that the United Kingdom entered what was then the European Economic Community, and the European Community in the mid 1970s. From an very centralised, bureaucratic institution, more has been added, including a Parliament that meets and validates law but does not institute, where nationalistic interests prevail in verbose debate, but with national expansion into the group (the European Project may we call it) then there has to be a perception that this is leading to a "United States of Europe" - not a new term used. Again, if people look at the United States of America, they probably see it as a failure, and why, well that is because of the difference between rich and poor (and in reality I am referring poor as being with financial and educational poverty). As times change, the affluence of one area can soon become poverty, and the inflexibility of resource planning and resource acquiring is again part of the conumdrum. So take this as also look at the number of levels of governance we have today, and you can wonder about the quality and quantity of public service provision available to you on a need basis.
There is also the question of "brain-washing" and we are being brain-washed. If you go on holiday eleswhere in Europe, or if you have lived for a period over three months, then you come to realise that health provision is different and better in other countries. Cultures are different - attitiude to sport (elite and general participations), smoking in public places, the arts and entertainment provisions, and even personal and family life. This goes even down to living in either rental or mortgaged/purchased accomodation and what level of cost that is relative to disposable income.
So what could be the solution. Probably bringing it back to a European Economic Community is the answer, and that is the movement of goods and services without hindrance. It allows the consumer to have a choice and national differences can continue. Parma Ham is just that, so that all the diffent tastes and things that have become commonplace as a part of the choices people can make can continue. The downside to this is that the need to integrate and expand the "Community" becomes difficult in that a requirement to a western formal of democracy is therefore not in the solution. It would be this that would make countries that are currently highly autocratic need to become pluralistic and if this is no longer a priority then the impact would be the reversal of the project. But is the nationalistic movements of the countries in Europe also indicating this trend already. This is a price to pay, either way.
Firstly, this will not be the pure form of total divorce. It just does not work. The only problem is that both sides are providing people with polarised egos to sit at the negotiating table. So what if they do not negotiate, does that mean that the real work is done elsewhere, and maybe that is the plan, by both sides.
What does "Taking Back Control" really mean. Probably people relate to the EU as a bloated institution (or sets of institutions) living in the past with regards to "expenses", with power to seemingly impose items which could be important or trivial on nation states (and the United Kingdom has then locally enacted this, sometimes at breakneck speed, and creating errors on the way), with little regard to the reason or reasons that the United Kingdom entered what was then the European Economic Community, and the European Community in the mid 1970s. From an very centralised, bureaucratic institution, more has been added, including a Parliament that meets and validates law but does not institute, where nationalistic interests prevail in verbose debate, but with national expansion into the group (the European Project may we call it) then there has to be a perception that this is leading to a "United States of Europe" - not a new term used. Again, if people look at the United States of America, they probably see it as a failure, and why, well that is because of the difference between rich and poor (and in reality I am referring poor as being with financial and educational poverty). As times change, the affluence of one area can soon become poverty, and the inflexibility of resource planning and resource acquiring is again part of the conumdrum. So take this as also look at the number of levels of governance we have today, and you can wonder about the quality and quantity of public service provision available to you on a need basis.
There is also the question of "brain-washing" and we are being brain-washed. If you go on holiday eleswhere in Europe, or if you have lived for a period over three months, then you come to realise that health provision is different and better in other countries. Cultures are different - attitiude to sport (elite and general participations), smoking in public places, the arts and entertainment provisions, and even personal and family life. This goes even down to living in either rental or mortgaged/purchased accomodation and what level of cost that is relative to disposable income.
So what could be the solution. Probably bringing it back to a European Economic Community is the answer, and that is the movement of goods and services without hindrance. It allows the consumer to have a choice and national differences can continue. Parma Ham is just that, so that all the diffent tastes and things that have become commonplace as a part of the choices people can make can continue. The downside to this is that the need to integrate and expand the "Community" becomes difficult in that a requirement to a western formal of democracy is therefore not in the solution. It would be this that would make countries that are currently highly autocratic need to become pluralistic and if this is no longer a priority then the impact would be the reversal of the project. But is the nationalistic movements of the countries in Europe also indicating this trend already. This is a price to pay, either way.
Comments
Post a Comment