Some reflections from a bewildered Brexiteer

We need to kick Mrs May into touch and demand We leave now and leave the ECHR also

“However, what bewilders me – and no doubt many other leave campaigners – is just why anyone who actually understands what the EU is all about can actually want their country to be a member state and even now would love to stop the Brexit process – neither out of fear nor of concern about economic problems, but because they really believe in the EU project.”

John, that’s the heart of the matter. “….. want their country to be a member state …” Many feel that the UK can be both a ‘country’ and a ‘member state’ of a larger country simultaneously, whereas in fact it’s a contradiction. It’s been a contradiction ever since the term ‘Member State’ was introduced in the Treaty on European Union in 1992. The UK can’t at the same time be a country and also a part of a larger country. And for those who deny that the EU was a nascent country formed in 1992, I say look at the definition of a federal nation-state (country), with examples of the United States, Canada and Australia, among others. People in parts of a federal nation-state are governed by two sets of laws, one set local (provincial or state) and the other set federal. The federal laws govern all of the people in all of the provinces or states, whereas each part passes laws that are specifically suited to the people of that part. Enter the EU in 1992. Laws initiated by the European Commission and rubber-stamped by the European Parliament are then introduced as Directives into each of the parts (read: Member States) and rubber-stamped there into domestic law. The point is that the European Union has always been, from its start, a nascent federal system of government. Thus the UK stopped being a country in 1992 and became INSTEAD a ‘Member State’ of a larger nascent federal country. All types of shine can be put on interpretations of just what the European Union is, but the reality is that it has always been a nascent Superstate. It’s not a matter of the EU becoming a country. It already is a country. The British people should have been given a referendum in 1991 as to whether they wanted their country to change from the United Kingdom to the European Union — but for obvious reasons that had to be avoided. Of all the nonsense that has gone on since Heath and his conniving lies, the worst offender was John Major. That man fully understood that the economic arrangement was being changed to a political arrangement and also understood that, with Brits’ general lack of understanding of constitutional and legal matters, he could just ‘bully it through’. He is the worst of the villains. Anyway, there was never a time when the UK was both a ‘country’ (in the primary sense of that word) and a ‘Member State’. It changed from one to the other in 1992, and subsequently the media and governments used the word ‘country’ in respect of the UK in the secondary (Scottish – common culture and history) sense rather than the universally-accepted full-control-of-borders sense that had been in place prior to 1992. Successive UK governments fully understood what the Treaty on European Union represented (in effect an EU Constitution) but still continued to use the word ‘country’ — but it was being used from 1992 in the secondary sense of the word rather its primary sense. And the media simply played along because it would be too much effort to try and explain to those without the background for legal and constitutional niceties what had actually happened to the UK system of government in 1992. This has to be understood if one is to fully appreciate just how magnificent was the decision on 23 June 2016 to return the UK to being a country (in the primary sense of that word) from being one of 28 parts of a nascent EU federal country.

Phil,

The European project always was political, anti democratic and top-down.. In 1947 Peter Thorneycroft (later chairman of the Conservative Party & Chancellor of the Exchequer) wrote in “Design for Europe”
“No government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan must involve. The British people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their economic defences”.

If you look at Hansard back to the Fifties, points like this were raised in debate but they never got much media publicity. We were then entirely dependent on the BBC and national press for reporting.. It was also the early part of the Cold War. America certainly saw the European project as contributing to European stability in the face of massive communist-led agitation in European countries and a huge Soviet army in East Germany.
We didn’t have much of a communist party here but we did have very Soviet-inclined trade union leaders and shop stewards who used the freedom of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act to disrupt society and destroy export potential – rather like that perpetual protester, Jeremy Corbyn, believing that they were hastening the revolution thereby. Harold MacMillan was not the man Margaret Thatcher later was. He could not pluck up his courage to grasp the legal nettle of union legislation and thought the country was “ungovernable”. He thought that by opening our economy up to unfettered European competition, he might bring the trade unions to their senses.

The fault is not so much with the European project, which always was on its way to a “Country called Europe” ,but with British politicians who concealed the facts – from themselves to some extent as well as from us.

William Hague probably convinced himself that we could be “in Europe but not run by Europe”.
Back in 2000, the Europhile Lord Hattersley came very close to an apology in a Radio 4 programme “A Letter to the TImes” “Not only was it wrong for us to deal superficially with what EUrope involved, but we have paid the price for it ever since. Because every time there is a crisis in Europe, people say with some justification “Well, we would not have been part of this if we had really known the implications”.”

Many people who are presently strong independence campaigners started out in favour of European togetherness because they thought it was INTERnational not SUPRAnational . The whole process has been so subtle that it is easy to miss that – and many ,many people still haven’t really grasped the difference – mostly (I think) because they don’t want to. It does not fit their ideology – what the Germans call their “Weltanschauung” (Way of looking at the world).

I agree with everything John, Phil, and Edward have written. Our politicians knew where The EU was heading, and chose to lie at every step of the process. It was made more difficult in the early stages of The EU’s infancy, by the fact that America was driving the birth of a United States of Europe, through the Marshall Plan and CIA pressure. Monnet, Kohl and others made no secret of how they intended Europe to be one country, which the people would never accept if they knew what was happening so, “it would have to be done in small steps so that they didn’t notice.”
It was interesting to find out in the Mail today, that Juncker’s father in law was one of Hitler’s chief propagandists.
But, why are so many of the chief remainers so upset, and so keen for Britain to remain a Vassal State? I would suggest money and naked self interest. For the past 40 years, Brussels has used our money which they send back to Britain, to set up Quangos, bribe Regions, bribe Universities, bribe landowners via the CAP, and bribe politicians who have been Commissioners with fear of losing their pensions and, I suspect, with “soft loans,” from the ECB. People like Branson would never have been able to buy up lucrative Railway Franchises or NHS Contracts had the TFEU Treaty Competition Article not demanded the sale of Britain’s infrastructure. We knew that Germany, France and Spain owned the bulk of our Utilities, but last week I discovered that Germany, France, Spain and Holland own the bulk of our Railway Franchises.
They all stand to lose an awful lot of money.

Whenever I ask a REMAINER If they agree that EU Law should have primacy over National law I am met with a blank stare. I then suggest they should read the Treaty of Rome before trying to debate a subject about which thet seem to know akmost nothing.

[…] on this blog, I have compared Brexit to a cancer operation. It will be painful at the time and a period of convalescence  may be required afterwards, but […]