18 Reasons Why Remainers Cling To The EU

I always knew that I did not understand why Remainers set such store in the EU. I wondered what were Remainers seeing that I couldn’t. This bothered me. I wanted to understand. By understanding I would be better placed to debate Remainers. As such, shortly after The Referendum I started reading anti-Brexit articles in The Guardian. The articles, being little more than hysterical shrieks, were not useful in themselves. However, the accompanying ‘Comment is Free’ forums provided a much more useful source of information provided by voters. I engaged with many Pro-EU commentators in fierce ideological confrontations. From such engagements I was able to tease out the reasoning adopted by Remainers. Below I list the reasons I have garnered during the course of my investigations together with my own analysis of the credibility of each reason…

1) The Economy: This was the argument used again and again by Remainers in online forums. This argument leveraged the scare stories released by the Treasury – under the direction of George Osborne – prior to the referendum: the UK will be worse off financially if we leave the EU.

RESPONSE: What timescales are Remainers referring to? Are they referring to a short period immediately following departure? Because, we would all probably agree that there will be an economic downside to Brexit, at least in the immediate term but this disruption wouldn’t outweigh all other arguments such as sovereignty, the democratic deficit of the EU; history; political consensus; lack of accountability etc etc. Even a 5 year long economic hit is the blink of an eye in historical terms. To support the EU in the face of a 5 year hit to the UK economy appears to be the height of self-interest and short-termism. Or do Remainers believe that the UK will experience slower growth forever more outside the EU? Such a belief is no more than opinion. As Sir Peter Marshall has written:

‘First, the idea that the economic consequences so far observed are sufficiently clear that we should reverse our decision is patently absurd. We would need a decade before we could make any firm judgement on this aspect of the matter alone.’

My own opinion is that, at some point, UK growth will be consistently higher than that of the EU. This belief is based on the many systematic problems within the EU.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that economics is a strong motive for most Remainers, particularly not for left-wing Remainers. I think they use this argument as a convenient hatstand on which to hang their argument rather than out of genuine conviction. After all, many Remainers would be happy to have Jeremy Corbyn as PM. Clearly, then, they can’t be that concerned about risks to the economy. Rory Sutherland wrote a good description of Leftist Remainers’ sudden obsession with economics in The Spectatator, 28th Sep 2019:

Theirs is an emotional fear disguised as an economic argument; a bit like saying: ‘Please don’t nail my testicles to the table, it’s a very valuable table’

2) It’s good to be part of a free-trade block: This reason leverages the fact that the EU embraces tariff-free trade between members but imposes Common External Tariff (CET) on goods imported from non-members. This means that EU businesses are protected from 2nd and 3rd world countries that can provide products more cheaply than the EU.

RESPONSE: The impact of the CET, coupled with non-tariff barriers imposed by the EU, is that agricultural and manufactured goods prices are around 20 per cent above world prices. Supporters overlook the fact that this means the EU is Protectionist.

3) UK has more global influence inside the EU.

RESPONSE: I suspect that Remainers have used this argument more out of a desperate attempt to rationalise their position than out of genuine conviction. I would point out that the EU is dominated by France and Germany. Those 2 countries set the agenda for the future direction of the EU. Those 2 countries provide most of the senior positions in the EU. Which begs the question: how will the UK have a high profile in the world when we don’t even have a high profile within the EU? However, I would say that the UK will have a higher profile – if that’s really important to you – on the global stage as the biggest European economy outside the EU. The UK timezone, language, universities and legal system will always ensure we have a high profile.

4) It is better to be part of a bigger group.

RESPONSE: Yes, trading-wise, it is better to be part of a group of countries. However, it is demonstrably untrue that it is better to be part of a bigger political group or that it is better to be part of a bigger fiscal union. Countries like Greece; Italy and Spain are adequate evidence of that. This comment shows that Remainers are ‘Big Statists’ at heart. They love Big Governnent and they love lots of layers of Government.

5) If the UK doesn’t integrate with the EU, we will end up integrating with the US instead.

RESPONSE: A lot of people hugely dislike the US style of government and the free-market capitalism at the heart of the US economic model. But no-one is saying this is a binary choice: The EU or the US. Signing a trade deal with the US is not the same as creating a single market with them! The UK can be independent of both EU and US.

6) Dislike of nationalism.

RESPONSE: I realise that many Remainers – particularly middle-class Remainers – are embarrassed about British nationalism and are not proud of British history. They feel they have more in common with the middle-classes of other EU countries than with the working class in their own country. Anti-nationalism is a growing movement across the elites of the Western world. This view forgets all of the great things that nationalism can achieve: Only nationalism – the shared history and high levels of social trust that existed after WW2 – could have created the NHS. The NHS could never be created now with the lack of social trust that exists in the country. Anti-nationalism is a very negative reason to support the EU.

7) National Security: We will be safer from Russian attack within EU. Plus the EU has prevented European wars.

RESPONSE: A number of people listed this to me without realising that NATO provides the UK’s national security, not the EU. Also, intelligence sharing across European governments is managed via bilateral agreements and has nothing to do with the EU. NATO has also prevented European wars.

8) Racism: Leavers are racist.

RESPONSE: The number of times the Racism insult was used by middle-class Remainers towards Leavers convinced me that, in a lot of cases, they voted ‘Remain’ simply to avoid being thought of as racist themselves. Racism is such a poor argument since all European peoples are of the same race: Caucasians. ‘Racist’ is the accusation levelled by the person who has lost the argument.

9) Globalism is inevitable

RESPONSE: This is the argument of the pessimist. The intelligentsia tell us that Globalism is the way forward. No borders. A New World Order. Yet, we are free to question this and to ask for the proof of its benefits. I would be much more amenable to the EU if it were democratic, accountable and transparent. I’m not going to suppress my belief in democracy just for the sake of trying something new. If you want Globalism, put it to the people to vote on. Don’t try to implement it by stealth.

10) The EU Govt will be better than UK Govt.

RESPONSE: This argument suggests that everything that is wrong with UK – tax regimes; inequality; insufficient welfare; social justice etc etc – will be better under the EU. This is rose-tinted thinking on an industrial scale! These muppets have clearly not considered all the ways that supranational government could be worse than national government.

11) EU funding: The EU invests lots of money in Britain.

RESPONSE: Remainers often cite the funds that the EU invests in Britain as a prime example of what we will miss out on once Britain leaves. Remainers don’t like to be reminded that the EU is effectively returning some of the money that Britain pays to the EU in the first place. Remainers have a mindset that EU investments are only made because of the altruism of the EU. They like to suggest that, if Britain were to keep hold of this money, the funds would not be invested in the kind of infrastructure projects for which the EU likes to take responsibility. Remainers seem able to maintain a bizarre belief that the EU cares more about the well-being of the UK than the UK’s own government. The fact is that once the UK has responsibility for the £350m per week that is currently paid to the EU, the UK government will be able to decide how to spend that money. The UK spending priorities may overlap, to a certain extent, with EU priorities. In many cases, the UK will make different investment choices. That is what sovereignty is all about: the smaller region making its own decisions as to where to spend its own money in order to reap the highest benefit.

12) 40 years of glory: Many Remainers maintain that everything good that has been achieved in the UK since 1973 has been as a result of the EEC/EU.

RESPONSE: Remainers manage to convince themselves that, left to our own devices, the UK would not have made any progress in the areas of legislation for which the EU has taken control (eg employment legislation). I accept that Remainers are forced to adopt such simplistic positions in order to accentuate the benefits of EU membership. As long as they are prepared to accept the derision that accompanies such childish logic.

13) Big Business: Many Remainers think the EU exists to protect them from rapacious big business and to be generally nice and fluffy.

RESPONSE: Remainers don’t understand that big business lobby in Brussels drafts a large proportion of EU legislation. That’s why ALL Big Business supports the EU. The EU facilitates their ability to reduce their labour costs and minimise their tax payments. You are NOT sticking it to Big Business by supporting the EU: they work hand-in-glove. That’s why there are 30,000 corporate lobbyists working in Brussels.

14) Reform: There are many Remainers for whom the idea of the EU is more important than the reality. For them, the idea is so important, that any and all downsides must be tolerated. Some Remainers argue that the UK should stay in the EU and bring about reforms from within.

RESPONSE: The idea of reform is so naive and idealistic as to be beyond belief: the EU does not want to reform. Plus, there are not any mechanisms to force the EU to reform. The EU is an unaccountable, undemocratic organisation dedicated to the unification of Europe into a single superstate. A few tweaks to process here and there are not going to change that. In fact, the EU would not even entertain the idea of ‘tweaks’ when Cameron tried a renegotiation in 2016. It comes down to a binary decision: do you want to be part of a unaccountable EU superstate where the politicians at the top have more power than ever to force their political aims on those at the bottom? Personally, I don’t.

15) Lunatic Theories: If we upset the status quo, bad things will happen.

RESPONSE: Many Remainers claim to believe that all manner of horrendous tragedies will befall the UK upon departure from the EU: Planes will be grounded; Expats will be thrown out of the EU countries; the NHS will collapse or be privatised; the UK will become an authoritarian, isolationist country (comparisons with North Korea have been made); Brexit was the intention of a secret cabal of neo-conservatives that intend to divide UK assets between themselves and force everyone else into indentured servitude etc etc.. These are inexplicable claims from theorists in search of conspiracies. It is shameful that there are significant numbers of Remainers that have so little understanding of the arguments put forward by Leavers that they are prepared to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with crackpot conspiracies. Significantly, a number of the theories listed above are based on the premise that politicians cannot be trusted. Yet, the very same people are willing to put all of their trust in EU politicians. Classic Leftist ‘Double-think’.

16) Lack of confidence: There is a lack of confidence within certain sections of British society as to whether Britain can thrive outside of the EU. The belief is that the UK is in terminal decline. The term by which this pessimism is known is ‘declinism’. It is the same syndrome that appeared in Britain immediately after WW2. For the next 34 years UK politicians followed a policy of ‘managed decline’ the aim of which was to allow the UK to decline slowly in such a manner that avoided social collapse.

RESPONSE: Thatcher pushed back against the mindset of declinism when she came to power. Since then, however, this syndrome has, once again, infected our political elites: there is a highly exaggerated belief in the UK weakness. ‘Leavers’ do not endorse this philosophy. This leads me to the following conclusion: largely speaking, pessimists voted to Remain in the EU whereas optimists voted to Leave the EU. For some reason, Remainers are angered by Leavers’ optimism that Britain can cope with the challenges outside of the EU. A cynic might suggest that Remainers are angered by the thought they might have to work a bit harder.

17) Only the EU is powerful enough to take on the free market trickery of Big Tech: this argument was made in an article by Giles Fraser. In essence, he pointed out that firms like Amazon move production and profits to wherever is cheapest. Giles points out that the EU is best placed to stop such behaviour.

RESPONSE: The only problem is, and Giles admits this himself, the EU doesn’t do anything to stop Big Tech indulging in this behaviour. In fact, the EU facilitates such behaviour. In Giles’ own words: the EU is a Davos run business club that, by weakening the democratic mandate held by nation-states, allows international finance an increasingly unrestricted playing field.

18) I want my children to have the right to work in Europe

RESPONSE: British people worked in EU countries long before the existence of the EU. No one is saying that we won’t still be able to. You might need to fill out a form. Don’t overthrow democracy to avoid bureaucracy.

All 18 of the above reasons play some part in the thinking of Remainers. As I have shown in my responses, these arguments collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Ultimately, however, I believe that many Remainers are motivated less by logic and facts than by a ‘feeling’ that the EU is the way to go. Most Remainers have positive feelings about the EU that they are not quite able to articulate. Remainers are working at an emotional level. I think this explains why they have been so bad at putting together an argument in favour of the EU: any rational argument for the EU can easily be destroyed. Yet, an emotional argument will not hold any sway on those who don’t already feel that way about the EU. However, Remainers have this feeling and no amount of information on the benefits of Leaving is going to convince them otherwise.

Quotes on Nationhood

Pat Buchanan

‘Islam’s Conquest of Europe’ The Unz Review, Sep 8th 2015

“Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide,” wrote James Burnham in his 1964 “Suicide of the West.”

Burnham predicted that the mindless magnanimity of liberals, who subordinate the interests of their own people and nations to utopian and altruistic impulses, would bring about an end to Western civilization.

http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/islams-conquest-of-europe/

Linh Dinh

‘Postcard from the End of America: Callowhill, Philadelphia’

3rd June 2016

The Unz Review

Nations that stress linguistic, cultural and/or ethnic unity will outlast those that don’t. Further, nations that shun their own heritage are as good as dead

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/postcard-from-the-end-of-america-callowhill-philadelphia/

Christopher DeGroot

‘Duty To Others In An Age Of Individuals’

June 8th 2018

Takimag

There is a striking passage in Edith Hamilton’s study The Echo of Greece (1957) that reads like a description of America in 2018. Reflecting on the decline of democracy in ancient Athens, the great classicist tells us that:

“What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them, and with this as the foremost object ideas of freedom and self-reliance and serviceto the community were obscured to the point of disappearing. Athens was more and more looked on as a co-operative business, possessed of great wealth, in which all citizens had a right to share…. Athens had reached the point of rejecting independence, and the freedom she now wanted was freedom from responsibility. There could be only one result…. If men insisted on being free from the burden of a life that was self-dependent and also responsible for the common good, they would cease to be free at all. Responsibility was the price every man must pay for freedom. It was to be had on no other terms.”

https://www.takimag.com/article/duty_to_others_in_an_age_of_individuals_christopher_degroot/

Steve Sailer

‘Identity Stalinism’

23rd January 2019

Takimag

… the Democrats’ grand strategy, which is to assemble a coalition of the margins of American society: immigrants, welfare mothers, tech billionaires, transgenders, hedge-fund guys, black church ladies, gays, Jews, the unmarried, movie stars, felons, and so forth and so on.

In contrast, the more similar you are to a Minuteman of 1776, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP [Republicanism] appeals to Core Americans, the Democrats to Fringe Americans. Mass immigration offers the Democrats good reason to hope to overwhelm their foes in the long run. But merely listing the Democrats’ constituent interest groups points out the main problem with their master plan: Their various fringes can’t stand one another……

….the only way the Democratic Party can hold together is by constantly ginning up excuses for Fringe Americans to hate Core Americans even more than they hate each other.

https://www.takimag.com/article/identity-stalinism/

F. Roger Devlin

Review “At Our Wit’s End” by Edward Dutton and Michael A. Woodley of Menie

February 12th 2019

The Unz Review

Early societies

“are religious, have a deep reverence for the past and for older generations, are prepared to engage in noble acts of self-sacrifice, and follow clear moral rules. These qualities ensure that they have a sense of superiority, a sense of their own destiny, that they are a cohesive community, and that they can be motivated to defend their society, even unto death.”

These qualities make for success, but the resulting power and prosperity lead to religious skepticism, loss of reverence for the past, individual self-seeking, moral corruption and a tendency for the leading members of the society to stop having children. Decline sets in precisely as a consequence of previous success.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-rise-and-decline-of-the-west/

Quotes on Diversity

Stefan Molyneux podcast

It’s possible that mass immigration might work if there wasn’t this constant leftist drumbeat of ‘white privilege’ and “you’re being treated differently because you’re black or you’re brown and the whites hate you”. It’s one thing to say were going to bring a whole bunch of other races and cultures. It’s another thing to say ‘and there’s going to be this constant leftist drumbeat to turn them against the whites in the countries they are coming to. That makes it functionally impossible. And that is basically the design.’

Gavin Mortimer

‘Emmanuel Macron’s Challenge For French Lesbians’

6th June 2018

Spectator Coffee House

Herein lies the paradox at the heart of the secular, progressive West: they champion multiculturalism but are intolerant of the traditional family values and religious beliefs inherent in many of the cultures they welcome into their communities. This, in turn, has created a moral disjunction that has been exploited by Islamic extremists, who pump out propaganda that contrasts the piety of their ideology with that of the permissive West.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/emmanuel-macrons-challenge-for-french-lesbians/

Christopher DeGroot

‘Diversity Comes For Science’

May 25th 2018

Takimag

Ironically, the diversity crowd cannot stand diversity itself. For doing so would require leaving others alone, letting them be what they are: endlessly different, unequal, diverse….Their [the diversity crowd] goal is power, and that they are motivated by status envy is evident from the fact that nobody cares about “racial parity” and “gender parity” when it comes to blue-collar jobs. Indeed, we never find feminists waxing indignant about why there are not enough women getting up at 3 a.m. to repair broken electrical wires in rainy weather. When a pathetically inept figure such as Michael Eric Dyson—a star academic only because he is black—complains of “white privilege” while masochistic white leftists look on in rapture, he does not do so because he wants more blacks to get jobs in construction and in landscaping.

https://www.takimag.com/article/diversity_comes_for_science_christopher_degroot/

Ed West

‘Christmas Markets Without Armed Police are Now A Thing of The Past ‘

7th Dec 2017

Spectator Coffee House

I’ve noticed these ‘diversity bollards’ popping up everywhere, without a word spoken about it… Does anyone in a position of power believe this is going to get better and these security measures will ever be taken down? If not, perhaps they should explain to us why, how they led us down this route, and what they intend to do about it…No free society can maintain its liberal traditions with that sort of internal [terrorist] threat, so as the problem deteriorates the surveillance state will expand. We will be faced with the decision about whether to allow the government to monitor people’s internet activity, because the alternative would be asking serious questions about immigration and multiculturalism.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/christmas-markets-without-armed-police-are-now-a-thing-of-the-past/

Mark Steyn:

The deal we seem to have come to in Europe is that, on the minus side, we’ve got a bit more gang rape and beheading than we used to have, but on the plus side, there’s a much wider range of cuisine. So it’s all swings and roundabouts.

Dr Taj Hargey, Imam, Oxford Islamic Congregation, Letter in The Times

9th August 2018:

“Sir, Boris Johnson should not apologise for telling the truth. His evocative analogy is unfortunate but he is justified in reminding everyone that the Wahhabi/Salafi-inspired fad of female facial masking has no Koranic legitimacy. It is, however, a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam.

The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion.

The retrogressive Islamic clergy has succeeded in persuading ill-informed Muslims through suspect secondary sources that God wants women to cover their faces, when in reality it is a toxic patriarchy controlling women. Is it any wonder that many younger women have internalised this poisonous chauvinism by asserting that it is their human right to hide their faces? Johnson did not go far enough. If Britain is to become a fully integrated society then it is incumbent that cultural practices, personal preferences and communal customs that aggravate social division should be firmly resisted. For this reason Britain must emulate France, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria and Denmark in banning the burka.”

Salman Rushdie:

“Islamophobia,” a term that, as Salman Rushdie commented, “was created to help the blind remain blind.”

David Mikics

A Review of ‘Islamophobia and post-colonial guilt’ by Pascal Bruckner

5th September 2018

Tabletmag.com

The usual response to Cologne, and not just from hard leftists, was, Bruckner writes, “to drown the events … in the deep waters of equivalence”: We were supposed to remember that violence against women occurs everywhere, and that non-Muslims do it too. Bruckner reminds us that this kind of argument stems from the Cold War era: If you pointed out the lack of freedom in the Eastern Bloc, you were frequently told how much the countries of Latin America suffered from U.S. imperialism.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/269389/islamophobia-pascal-bruckner

Comment posted by ‘wisestreligion’ on ConservativeWoman “Where Tories Fear to Tread”

Jan 3, 2019

The test of whether multiculturalism is really a good principle would be to hear from its Progressivist enthusiasts a list of the non-Western countries where they would prescribe it for its wonderful benefits: the dilution of the local culture and importing of foreign customs? I suspect a very short or non-existent list.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/where-tories-fear-to-tread/

Tim Newman’s Blog

“Strangers on a Plane”

Oct 23rd 2018

I’ve lived in functional societies, and I’ve lived in dysfunctional societies. I believe the difference between the two is a culture in which people make dozens of small sacrifices on a daily basis which act as a lubricant for the society as a whole to get along. So you stand aside for people pushing prams, you let people out into traffic, you conduct yourself in a way which minimises the aggregate level of inconvenience and difficulty for everyone involved in a given situation. Annecy works a lot like this. For example, everyone stops at zebra crossings, and those crossing always give a little wave to the driver. People also hold doors open for one another and stand aside if someone is carrying something heavy. By contrast, drivers in Lagos will move two metres forward and block an entire highway because it means they have gained two metres. The fact a hundred cars are now blocked in because of their actions doesn’t matter one whit: the important thing is they have advanced two metres, and to hell with everyone else. This is why Lagos is the most dysfunctional place I’ve ever been to.

Strangers on a Plane

Samuel Goldman

‘Home is where you don’t have to explain yourself’

The American Conservative

June 27th 2016

Residential sorting by wealth, education, and age makes it increasingly possible to live only among people who agree with you on every significant question. That is why so many Remainers were sincerely shocked by the result.

The much praised diversity of the New Britain, then, is vertical rather than horizontal. In other words, it tends to produce enclosed, unconnected communities rather than widening the scope of social experience (excursions to exotic restaurants don’t count).

‘Home is where you don’t have to explain yourself‘

Tucker Carlson

“How is Diversity Our Strength”

Fox News, 2018

How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?

Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.

And if diversity is our strength, why is it okay for the rest of us to surrender one of our central rights, freedom of speech, to just a handful of tech monopolies? And by the way, if your ideas are so obviously true, why does anyone who question them need to be shamed, silenced and fired?

Text here

Videoclip here

Christopher De Groot

‘Life Without Intellectual Principle: Part One’

It is a corollary of GMVI [Greater Male Variability of Intelligence] that there are both more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. If we consider GMVI, the differences in interests between the sexes, and the fact that men are higher (on average) in motivation than women (more willing and able, that is, to rise through dominance hierarchies), then the ongoing lack of “gender parity” in math, science, and elsewhere is only to be expected.

Still, we aren’t supposed to talk about these factors when it comes to explaining unequal outcomes between the sexes. For feminists are prone to reading their own anxieties and insecurities into empirical, value-neutral subjects. Their reactions and judgments imply that truth is determined by their feelings: If something upsets them, it can’t be true, or publishable. Hence feminists, in an amusing irony, live up to the most negative stereotypes about women: that they are too emotional, irrational, and illogical. It’s as if feminists wanted to confirm stereotype accuracy.

Text here

My argument for Brexit

I had a wobble during the weekend after the referendum result was known. I appeared to be on the wrong side of my demographic group. I’m a young (a-hem!), middle class (a-hem!), good-looking (a-hem!) university graduate. The demographic analysis suggests I should have voted Remain. Yet I was adamant that, right from the start, I was going to vote Leave. I have seen enough of EU behaviour over the years to appreciate the many downsides.

The more I read during the campaign the more confident of my decision I became. I could not understand why anyone with any intelligence would vote Remain. I knew that many would be convinced by the economic scare stories put out by the Treasury and many others would feel it was easier to stick with the status quo. But, I also knew there were many intelligent people – people in my demographic – who were convinced that the EU was the right future for the UK. I wondered what had I missed? What were they seeing that I couldn’t? I was convinced that I was a freedom fighter who had helped secure freedom for the UK from an undemocratic, unaccountable political body whose tentacles of control were, little by little, gaining full ownership of the future of the UK. But, somehow, I was not on the ‘cool’ side of the argument. The Leave side are not seen as Freedom Fighters. We are seen as xenophobes and racists and Little Englanders. So I decided to write down my views. I felt that documenting my views would help me better understand my thinking.

At heart, I believe in small government: I believe that people should have the freedom to get on with their lives with only minimal interference from local, national and supranational governments. And that is the first reason why I have an issue with the EU. The EU is a classic example of big government at work: the EU wants to regulate everything. The EU prides itself on creating lots of rules and lots of regulations. Those regulations stifle competition and innovation. But, more than that, the EU is very unaccountable for the laws that it brings into existence. I view the EU as a ‘matrix’ like structure: a system of control.

Another fundamental reason why I distrust the EU is that it has no mandate from the people of the EU28 to continue in the direction it is going: EU is being driven from the top down, not from the bottom up. I will describe this in more detail later in the document.

Let’s start off with a brief review of how the EU works: The unelected EU Commissioners are responsible for setting the strategy for the EU and for formulating the laws that will allow the strategy to be met. The Commissioners work closely with EU multinational firms to agree on the most suitable strategies to follow and then propose new laws that are designed to deliver the strategies. The MEPs simply vote on the laws that are presented to them by the unelected EU Commission. As Perry Anderson says when referring to the lack of democracy within the European Parliament:

‘It does not possess the rights to elect a government, to initiate legislation, to levy taxes, to shape welfare or determine a foreign policy… In short, it is the semblance of a parliament, as ordinarily understood, that falls far short of the reality of one.’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/05/a-very-european-coup/

Every so often the EU decides it wants more powers and the leaders of the 28 countries give the go ahead for those new powers (eg Maastricht Treaty and Lisbon Treaty). Very few countries allow their citizens to vote on the proposals via a referendum (and in those countries that do, the result is usually ignored. More on this later). The objectives and policies of the EU do not form part of the national political debate. Nothing that the EU introduces comes from the will of the people. Everything is decided by a group of professional bureaucrats and unelected Commissioners and then rubber-stamped by national governments and / or MEPs. Got that? OK, let’s continue…

In England, if the government brings in a proposal for a change in the law, we can protest: Every person has a single MP representing the constituents’ interests in parliament. We can write to that MP expressing our dissatisfaction. We can meet that MP at a constituency surgery. We can hold peaceful demonstrations in public places to raise the profile of our dissatisfaction. And, if those measures still do not deliver a review of government policy, we can choose to riot (but only if absolutely necessary). There is a huge amount of transparency in the British parliament: we know
who is responsible for the legislation that we don’t like and we know what we can do to try to force the government to reconsider. We saw the power of the British people to change the government’s mind recently when the government were proposing to remove tax credits: There was a very immediate and very huge uproar directed at the government. The uproar was enough to force the government to shelve its plans very quickly. This was a perfect example of the accountability of the UK government at work.

We do not have the same ability to influence the EU. Firstly, we don’t have a single MEP. MEP’s are allocated to a region of the UK based on proportional representation of the votes cast in that region. I live in the region of ‘Eastern England’. There are 7 MEPs allocated to Eastern England. Which one should I contact? All of them? Would it make a difference? There does not appear to be much in the way of accountability. Every single EU regulation is presented as a fait accompli. There are no options to change the EU’s mind. Plus, whose fault is it? To whom do we protest? And where? Do we protest to the EU commissioners? Or to one of the 5 EU presidents? Or to the European parliament? In Brussels or in Strasbourg? Or to our MEPs? Or is it our own government’s fault for not lobbying effectively against the measure when they had the chance? If we protest in the UK, is anyone in the EU going to know about it? Or care about it? There is not the same transparency as to who is to blame for unpopular legislation. The UK government blames the EU and we all have to just get on with it. Instead, EU legislation comes, thick and fast and there’s nothing we can do about it: there are just too many layers of responsibility for anyone to know how to direct a protest effectively. This means the EU is not accountable. And because it is unaccountable, it is undemocratic. You can tell me that the EU is democratic because of this and that voting system and the fact that certain decisions have to be unanimous etc etc. But these are all processes within the European Parliament. There are not processes available at grass-roots level to reflect public opinion or public disapproval. Furthermore, the EU will not retain unanimous voting systems for ever. There are already signs that national interests are being overruled at EU level. More on this later.

Democracy has to be experienced. The EU is not democratic if people don’t share the experience that it is democratic. If the EU is ignoring swathes of people, it is, by definition, not democratic. It is a meta-parliament: It is, therefore, removed and remote from the people it serves. This creates a tangible disconnect between the EU and the European electorate. Various EU ‘experts’ – eg Prof. Michael Duggan – talk about the ‘’entire bookshelf of analysis’’ that prove the benefits provided by the EU. I’m sure this is the case: there are lots of benefits to being part of a protectionist bloc like the EU with the amount of money it has at its disposal. However, I’m fairly confident that the self-same analysis overlooks the lack of engagement that people have with the EU. People believe that nothing they say or do or feel counts at the EU level: the EU is a remorseless steam-roller that will bring its plans into being, come what may. Democracy and accountability are difficult concepts to quantify but that doesn’t mean they should be ignored.

Let’s highlight some points about transparency, borrowed from here:

The European Commission is the bureaucratic, legislative head, ruling with, well, the rule book – the wilfully impenetrable 90,000-page aquis communitaire, ‘the longest and most formidable written monument of bureaucratic expansion in human history’. The European Central Bank, established in 1999, is as secretive and as without scrutiny as the ECJ. And the European Council, comprising the elected heads of the member states, again operates entirely behind closed doors. This is not a council of equals, but a hierarchy, headed by the powerful duoply of France and Germany

Turnout for the EU elections are very low. This is further evidence that people feel that their voice does not count at a European level. And turnouts have been falling in UK General Elections. These are further indicators of voter disenfranchisement fuelled, in part, by the influence of the EU on UK politics.

So the EU is big, inefficient – refer to monthly migration of EU Parliament to Strasbourg for evidence of just one EU inefficiency – non-transparent, unaccountable and undemocratic. It is also a force that stifles competition and innovation. The EU is the natural bed-fellow of big business. The regulations that the EU imposes are no problem for big business: Big business can afford to comply with the regulations. But small business can’t. New businesses can’t. For example, why are SMEs having to follow ‘Harmonising maximum working hours regulations’? Or ‘Directives on collective redundancies’? Why is the EU even getting involved in things like this? What have these got to do with free trade? Shouldn’t aspects like these lie with national governments?

Only six per cent of British companies do any business at all with the rest of the EU; yet 100 per cent of our firms must apply 100 per cent of EU regulations (representing 85% of the economy). How can small businesses with great ideas and people become the big businesses of the future when there is such a regulatory overhead? In the EU, I would say it is impossible. The next ‘Apple Computers’ won’t come out of the EU: if there’s a new Steve Jobs in the EU now, we will likely never hear of him because his company would be very unlikely to grow that big. The small business with a great idea will be bought by the big business. So big business is propped up. Big business becomes more of a monopoly than ever with fewer, bigger players dictating the market. That’s not going to be good for consumers in the long run. However, it certainly explains why big businesses are such firm supporters of the EU.

Big businesses keen to protect themselves from disruption certainly find a sympathetic ear in Brussels:

Vast vested interests are ranged against innovation, especially in Brussels, where big business and big pressure groups swarm all over the Commission and parliament. For example, the green movement raised a lot of money by opposing agricultural bio-technology and fracking; big pharma tried hard to kill vaping to protect its nicotine patches and gums through an EU directive.

I’ll talk more about the lobbying of the EU by large corporations later in the document.

Remainers believe that the EU is of itself a ‘good thing’. This seems to be based on a feeling that we are “stronger in” or we are “building bridges”. The aim of a United Europe is seen as such a noble ambition that the EU cannot be anything but a force for good, right? But being part of a larger group is not inherently a good thing. It is not a good thing if that grouping is undemocratic or non-transparent or unaccountable. I know lots of people who are hyper-critical of UK governments but are prepared to ignore what is happening at the EU level. They suspend critical analysis because they inherently trust that the EU motives are noble and pure and that the EU can only ever be considered a ‘good thing’. I don’t believe that you can ever rely on ‘trust’ when it comes to political organisations and certainly not when it comes to an organisation with the power and remit of the EU.

We must not take democracy for granted. Democracy is easy to lose but very hard to gain. We must apply the same levels of scepticism and mistrust at the EU level as we do at the national level, even though this is difficult given the lack of transparency within the EU. So, I find myself in the position where I am the anti-establishment voice and the traditional anti-establishment voices are supporting the establishment. Wow! I didn’t see that coming.

The vote to Leave the EU has served the sort of blow to the global elites that left-wingers are always claiming to crave. And yet Labour party members – including Momentum and hardcore Corbynistas – hate Brexit with every fibre of their being.
Why do people place more trust in a huge, unknowable, bureaucratic organisation like the EU than in the UK’s own politicians? Is it that familiarity breeds contempt? Do we hold our own politicians in contempt because we are too exposed to them? Conversely, are EU politicians brushed with the noblest of intentions because we don’t know them? I dont know. Perhaps, it’s just that the more layers of Government there are, the more secure the Big Statists feel? The EU is seen as a Utopia. It is seen as a vision of an idealised future state when the petty jealousies of nations are removed and we all live in one big, happy society. I don’t believe in this version of the future at all. Humans are petty and arbitrary and jealous and ambitious and make bad decisions. We have seen that with Tony Blair (Re Chilcot Report. In fact, the Chilcot Report is another great example of UK Democracy. Would such an enquiry happen at the EU level?). The fewer the number of people in power there are, the greater the chance of bad decisions being made: the more chance of ‘group-think’ or the cult of personality coming into play. This will happen when 28 parliaments are replaced by one. If you don’t trust politicians, you should not be handing unknown EU politicians ever more power. Are you confident that there are suitable checks and balances within the EU to prevent domination by a single person? There is no reason that you should be: the EU is a recent, man-made construct that has not evolved over hundreds of years to be fit-for-purpose.

I appreciate that the EU government offers a level of consistency that it not available at the national level. At the national level, governments switch from left to right and back again on a regular basis. Each switch is accompanied by a change of focus as the direction of the previous government is abandoned and a new approach implemented. This compares unfavourably to the EU: The EU does not have to undergo the shocks of elections causing about-turns in policy and direction. The EU is designed in such a way that changes to the constituent MEPs does not impact on the business of meeting EU objectives. In this way, the EU can pursue a long-term strategy that is not subject to the de-railing effects of elections. Good, huh? Of course, the downside to this calm consistency is that the EU is not answerable to the changing moods of public opinion. National governments change because the electorate changes its mind as to what the priorities of the government should be. Or the voters are not satisfied with the performance of the previous government. Either way, the electorate has the privilege of replacing the government at certain intervals. This is further evidence of the accountability of the national government: if the government performs poorly, or fails to reflect the public mood, it can expect to be toppled from power. The fact that such a change is not possible at the EU level is further proof that the EU is immune from accountability: the EU has its long term strategy and it has its order book of laws needed to meet its strategy. The EU is not deflected by popular opinion. EU business can carry on regardless. The replacememt of MEPs in European elections does not make any difference to the direction of the EU. The EU commissioners are not elected. The components of the EU parliament may change but the government of the EU parliament does not change. The EU is designed to be like this. It’s undemocratic.

To me, the difference between the UK and EU government models can be described as follows: The UK is driven from the bottom whereas the EU is driven from the top. This is further evidence of the lack of democracy at the heart of the EU: a democratic Government has to be ‘by the people, for the people’. The EU is being driven by a group of professional bureaucrats that want to make significant progress on EU integration during the timescale of their own careers. This top-down approach has undoubtedly inflamed anti-EU sentiment across Europe. What is the EU’s response to such sentiment? Nothing. What was the EU’s response when David Cameron attempted to renegotiate the UK’s relationship? Nothing. The EU is not for turning. I find such arrogance from the EU to be very unnerving. Unsurprisingly, the static unaccountability of the EU has had a direct impact on the growth of populist political parties across Europe, as voters turn to the only parties that are listening. And all because the EU is not accountable to the people it purports to serve.

I can think of another example, at another time, when Europe was dominated by a top-down system of control: an organisation that was all-powerful and totally non-transparent and was
inflexible and unaccountable and forced lots of rules on a membership that had no alternative. That organisation was the Catholic Church. Germany led the Reformation that broke the power of the Catholic Church and lead to Protestantism as an alternative religion for Christians. Maybe the UK voting to leave the EU is the 21st century equivalent of Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door. Time will tell.

The lesson is that people resent top-down control. The EU is very similar to a religion – any religion – in this respect in that religions operate a top-down approach where the word of God is interpreted by those at the top of the church and the tenets – laws! – are passed down to the clergy to pass onto the congregation. The congregation has no influence over the powers at the top of the tree. This is the same with EU voters. It’s not democracy.

I want to tackle this idea, popular amongst Remainers, that the referendum was “unfair” because people didn’t understand the issues. What they mean by this, of course, is that the knuckle-dragging trolls that voted ‘Leave’ didn’t understand the issues! This is a hugely patronising conclusion. Everyone voted based on their own experience of the EU. Leavers mostly voted for reasons associated with Nationalism. The good-looking, middle class, university graduates that we met in my opening paragraph mostly voted for reasons associated with Globalism. These are two ways of looking at the world. Each view is based on the perspective of the holder: the working class have a strong sense of national identity based on strong evolutionary principles whereby your survival is strongly linked to trusting people that are similar to you. The middle classes have, in recent years, adopted a Globalist outlook by way of differentiating themselves from the working classes. They aren’t much more rational than anyone else though. This demographic is terrified of being thought racist or xenophobic in any way. Liberal Globalism is the result of upbringing and education and has nothing to do with any analytical thinking the middle classes may have conducted into the EU. George Orwell summed up this mentality as follows:

“England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God save the King than of stealing from a poor box.”

In supporting the EU, liberals are signalling their status: they are showing off their progressive credentials to other liberals. This is nothing to do with an analysis of the pro’s and con’s of the EU and everything to do with class. The fact that the working classes are largely against the EU has made support of the EU the perfect vehicle for liberals to flag their socio-economic status. EU-philia is like a badge or a secret code. It signals that you are a certain type: a type that is in tune with the liberal orthodoxy that rules supreme over the cultural landscape. As Daniel Hannan, MEP, has said:

“The EU is a high-status idea so it is not surprising that high-status individuals support it”.

As an idea, the EU has merits. However, the reality of the EU includes far more negatives than positives (as this document intends to show). On average, Remainers spent no more time deciding how to vote in the EU referendum than Leavers did. In fact, I would argue that Leavers spent more time on their decision: a positive vote for change always requires more commitment than a negative vote for the status quo. Preserving the status quo doesn’t require thought. It’s habit! I would also say that the ‘Leave’ votes of the working classes are somewhat more valid since these votes were rooted in pragmatic concerns, both economic (salary suppression, house price escalation, access to public services) and quality of life deterioration – whereas the ‘Remain’ votes of liberals were linked to softer ideas around status-signalling and feelings of progressiveness.

There is a category of Remain voter that hugely dislikes the USA and believes – maybe correctly – that the UK is in the pocket of the USA. This demographic wants to be more closely aligned with the EU in order to reduce the influence of the USA on the UK. Does it have to be one or the other ‘controlling’ the UK? I don’t think so. There is no reason why the UK can’t be fully independent (we just need Prime Ministers that won’t write “I will be with you, whatever” when US Presidents want the UK to be involved in their foreign wars):

https://www.channel4.com/news/chilcot-inquiry-blair-i-will-be-with-you-whatever

I would argue that it is not rational to choose to be a vassal state of the EU just because you don’t want to be a vassal state of the USA. This isn’t a binary choice!

I voted Leave because the EU does not engage with the citizens. The EU is not accountable. It is anti-competitive. It is obsessed with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ hegemony. It is not transparent. It does not explain itself. It is not humble. As Steve Hilton says:

“The EU is too big, too bureaucratic and distant from the human scale”.

Its powers are not defined, understood or controlled. The EU started life as a trade agreement. Since then its remit has continued to grow. I find that when Remainers refer to the EU, they picture it as a static entity. Remainers ignore the fact that the EU has never been static: the remit of the EU has grown continuously since its inception, both in terms of membership and powers.
The EU will continue to grow. For example, we hear Merkel stating that the solution to Europe’s problems lie in greater political and economic union. I read of plans to pool the budgets of all member states and create a single central bank that will replace individual central banks. I have read the German Finance minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoting Mitterrand’s famous line “Nationalism means war” (“Nationalisme: c’est la guerre”) and, together with the French Foreign Minister (Jean-Marc Ayrault), producing a statement calling for a new EU “fiscal capacity”, “a permanent civil-military chain of command”, the “harmonisation of criminal law” and an “integrated European asylum, refugee and migration policy”:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-german-minister-warns-britain-is-playing-with-fire-a3290091.html

(Evening Standard, 7th July 2016).

The Belgian commissioner, Marianne Thyssen wants to harmonise welfare systems across the EU28. It’s a deliberate attempt to weaken national identities on order to bring forth a federal superstate. Juncker has also been referring to the need for a European Army.

Do we get a chance to discuss these things? No! There is no published and agreed end to what the EU’s remit will be. There is no EU manifesto published prior to EU elections. At every piece of bad news some powerful European politician will announce that the solution is to have “more Europe”! It is clear that the EU will continue to grab control of more and more areas of remit that currently lie with national governments.

Many Remainers I have engaged with deny that the above comments mean that the EU has any plans to evolve into a Federalist state. This displays a staggering level of wilful ignorance. The introduction of the Euro was a big step towards Federalism. Many of the EU Treaties, such as the ‘Treaty of Rome’ and the Maastricht Treaty explicitly refer to “ever closer union’. Each Treaty moves us ever closer to Federalism. We can all see the direction of travel: each Treaty takes us further from a ‘trading bloc’ and closer towards integration. But we must all pretend this isn’t happening. We are being taken on a journey where we are not allowed to see more than two steps in front of us. We are being shepherded. Like sheep. The Lisbon Treaty was presented as not being a constitution when it is.

I find the EU’s lack of transparency to be very alarming. What is more alarming is that the media and UK politicians don’t hold it to account. Ultimately, EU Supporters want to portray the EU as it exists in their imaginations. They are not so concerned with reality. EU Supporters have already decided that they will support whatever the EU wants to do.

Taking it as a given that a federal superstate is the obscured objective of the EU, let’s not forget the lessons of history: every multi-nation superstate in history – from the Roman Empire to the Hapsburg Empire to the USSR – has ultimately collapsed. The EU will also collapse one day. People do not like being part of a superstate, governed by a remote, unaccountable authority. If small countries like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia can’t stay united, what chance is there for the EU? Even the UK has had trouble remaining united over the last 50 years. Empires fail because they do not have the will of the people. The EU does not have the will of the people. A very small percentage of the EU28 population has had the opportunity to support the EU in a referendum.

There is no open debate taking place as to the final scope of the EU. We are building something that we don’t understand. My fear is that at some point in the future, we could realise that the EU has too much power but by then it could be too late. When the EU becomes self-aware, it will be too late. Someone had to shout “STOP” so that reflection and discussion could take place.

What do I mean when I refer to the EU becoming ‘self-aware’? By ‘self-aware’ I am referring to the ability of the EU to impose its will on national governments without reference to the voting systems that are currently in place. I believe the first signs of the EU throwing its weight around are emerging: On 6th September 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that member states would be forced to accept thousands of asylum seekers under a compulsory quota system. Hungary and Slovakia, with the support of other eastern member states, went to the court to block the EU decision to relocate 120,000 Syrian and other asylum seekers. The Eastern States tried to challenge the EU and lost. These are democratically elected governments being forced by an unelected EU-politburo to toe the line. Here we see evidence of the EU making a decision and then forcing that decision on member states through EU courts. This will happen more and more in the future. This stuff needs to be challenged now. The opportunity for challenging the remit of the EU grows ever smaller. Those ‘unanimous’ voting systems that people refer to when highlighting the democracy of the EU are a mirage. We have passed the ‘tipping point’ where the EU has more power than national governments, via the Treaties that have already been signed. The EU will use those powers more and more. It’s worth pointing out the points Perry Anderson made about the ECJ:

‘Secretive and situated high above the political fray, the ECJ is unique among supreme and constitutional courts in any democracy – in that its rulings are entirely resistant to abrogation or alteration on the part of an elected legislature…The truth is it would be difficult to conceive of a judicial institution in the West that, from its tenebrous outset onwards, was purer of any trace of democratic accountability.’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/05/a-very-european-coup/

Politically, the EU can best be summed up by this quote from John O’Sullivan (The Spectator, 27th Jan. 2018):

“In the old left versus right world, both sides essentially accepted that the other would win power occasionally. But now we have a centrist establishment in Europe that does not really accept the right of its challengers to come to power. And when they do, it casts them as being illegitimate, or extremists, and seeks to use supranational legal and political powers to constrain or oust them.”

The powers at the top of the EU are determined to wipe out nationalism. Yet, the paradox is that the EU is gaining all the trappings of a nation: it has a flag and a currency and an anthem and a parliament and a constitution and a President (5 actually). And soon it will have an army. At some point in the not too distant future it will be able to decide who it wants to go war against. To me, a single nation of 500m is much more threatening and wields much more power than 28 separate countries with the same aggregate population. There are more checks and balances against misuse of power if we have 28 countries all trying to get along together than if we replace them with a single superstate.

Do we really want the EU asserting itself on the world stage as a 3rd SuperPower, facing off against China and USA? I don’t want that. I feel that such a position would make Europe a target. And, anyway, isn’t Europe more interesting being made up of different countries with different cultures than being a homogenised block? I certainly believe that the diversity of cultures within Europe drove Europe’s incredible success over the last 2,000 years.

I don’t want to be over-dramatic but I keep thinking of the parallels with George Orwell’s ‘1984’. Is this the way the EU is going? Let’s look at the comparisons: The state of Oceania (North America and Britain) in ‘1984’ is all-powerful, it has no competition and it does not need to consider public opinion. It is undemocratic. The Government of Oceania wants its citizens to think of the other 2 global superstates as the enemy (Eastasia and Eurasia in the book. China and Europe in real life). It’s all coming true, isn’t it? The EU wants to flex its power on the World stage with the US and China being the obvious ‘competition’. We have seen in Russia and China within the last 100 years that new systems of government are often no better than the systems they replaced. If we are going to have a new form of government operating at the continental level, it is in everyone’s interests to ensure that such a government is no worse than what it replaces. I have no confidence that will be the case. I did not like that we were building this ever more powerful body that we had no control over. We have to be on our guard against the EU having too much power. As Sir Richard Aikens, the former Lord Justice of Appeal has stated by way of explaining his decision to vote Leave:

“I was not prepared to swap my democratic birthright for a mess of pottage”

EU supporters claim that the EU has prevented European wars of the kind that have blighted the last 1000 years of European history. I respond that the EU has nothing to do with it: instead, as communication and transportation have made the world smaller, European nations have realised that there are other foes to worry about. There are many dictatorships and totalitarian governments in the world that present much more of a security risk than the democratic governments of fellow European countries. In Europe, far more unites us than divides us. We don’t need the EU to appreciate that.

EU Supporters also claim that the anti-terrorism abilities of our security services will be compromised if we leave the EU. This is nonsense. The UK has bipartisan information sharing agreements with a number of trusted countries. This information sharing has nothing to do with the EU. Plus, the UK is still going to be a member of NATO. It is NATO and not the EU that provides security to the UK from international attack. EU supporters like to paint the picture that everything good that happens is because of the EU. And everything bad could be fixed if only the EU were in charge of it.

Another aspect of the EU that I object to is its eagerness to participate in self-promotional propaganda. For example, the EU funds thousands of ‘Monnet Scholars”. These are University Professors that are sponsored by the EU to promote the EU:

“The programme includes the network of Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence, university-level institutions recognised by the European Commission for high quality research into, and teaching of, topics relating to European integration. The program was originally launched in 1989 and helped to set up 162 Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence, 875 Jean Monnet Chairs and 1001 Jean Monnet Teaching Modules. These projects bring together 1,500 professors, and reach approximatively 500,000 students every year.”

I am uncomfortable with the idea of a political organisation indulging in this this kind of propaganda. I am also uncomfortable that this propaganda is being directed at University students. I am further uncomfortable with the fact that this funding is covert. During the build-up to the referendum, one pro-EU video that went viral was a talk by Professor Michael Duggan at the University of Liverpool. Professor Duggan spent 18 minutes espousing the virtues of the EU without making clear that, as a Monnet Scholar, he receives funding from the EU to promote the EU. Political propaganda is usually undertaken by totalitarian regimes. I don’t find it acceptable that this is going on and most members of the public are completely unaware of it. Are the UK’s universities strongly pro-EU because of the amount of EU funding they receive? And because of the amount of EU propaganda they have been subjected to?

Whilst I have your attention, let me describe the ‘jobs for the boys’ culture in play within the EU: senior EU politicians usually walk into heavily remunerated roles with multi-nationals as soon as they relinquish their EU roles. For example, Jonathan Hill – the UK’s former (unelected) EU commissioner – had taken on 6 lucrative roles with multi-national firms within 2 years of leaving his post: Aviva Insurance; Deloitte; Freshfields; Iberdrola; Times Newspapers and UBS. Is it probable that Mr Hill was offered at least some of these positions whilst still in his role as commissioner? It seems likely. Either way, this represents a huge conflict of interest. The role of a commissioner is to define the laws that will be voted on by the EU parliament. Who was Mr Hill representing during his time at the top of the EU power structure: multi-national firms or the citizens of Europe?

“…the vast multi-nationals, oil majors, investment banks, and others can all outgun the rest with huge budgets. The ability to take on hired guns (like Lord Hill) potentially gives them massive commercial advantage.” (Diane James, City AM, 31st July 2018).

This is by no means an isolated incident: it is the norm, not the exception. The EU must be for the benefit of the EU citizens, not for the benefit of global firms. How can people tolerate this abuse of power and privilege? Well, the main reason is that people are not aware of it because the EU is neither transparent nor accountable. I know that this also happens to national level politicians. However, it is much more visible at a national level. George Osborne, for example, has come in for heavy criticism for the roles he has accepted since he ran away from government. Jonathan Hill, on the other hand, not so much.

And let’s discuss that other EU activity that stinks to high heaven: EU lobbyists. Giant corporations and industry groups employ 30,000 lobbyists that are focused on winning influence and directing EU legislation to suit their clients’ corporate goals. It seems way too cosy: EU politicians are being schmoozed by Global firms whilst in office and then parachuting into well paid jobs with those same firms once their turn at the top is over. Is the law up for sale in Brussels? Those 30,000 lobbyists are delivering results – 75% of EU legislation is the result of lobbying. But don’t take my word for it. Here is confirmation from a 2014 article in The Guardian (written in the days before The Guardian blocked any criticism of the EU):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

And here is a film on YouTube about the EU lobbying industry that everyone should watch:

https://youtu.be/0vgh_vo1Vck

The film explains that EU politicians are working hand-in-hand with multinational firms to ensure that legislation meets the needs of those firms. This film sickened me.

Is there any wonder, then, that prior to the referendum, all CEOs of FTSE100 companies that expressed a preference – 36 out of 100 – wanted Britain to remain in the EU? It’s no surprise: these firms get to set their own rules. Plus, the lack of transparency and accountability within the EU allows them to lobby for their firms’ best interests with no downside; the amount of EU regulation gives multi-nationals an advantage over small firms since their relative size gives them synergies of scale; and the single market suppresses wages which allows multinationals keep their wage costs down.

The EU lobbying system is no better than the cronyism and corporate interests that exists in the US. I never thought I would see left-wingers siding with Big Business, but Brexit has led to some very strange bed-fellows.

Let’s now look at the EU-related referenda that have taken place over the last few years: Between February and July 2005, 4 EU countries (Spain; France; Netherlands & Luxembourg) held referenda on the subject of a ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. Both France and Netherlands voted against the Treaty (May and June, 2005). At this point, the EU pulled the plug on this Treaty and subsequent referenda scheduled to vote on the Treaty in Poland; Portugal and UK were pulled. At the time, Joes Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said in relation to the referanda that rejected the Constitution Treaty:

“They must go on voting until they get it right.”

Unfortunately, the countries in question were not even given a second chance to “get it right”. The EU re-branded the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ and called it the Lisbon Treaty (2007). Commentators recognise that the Lisbon Treaty is an EU Constitution in all but name. However, this time around none of the countries – with the exception of Ireland – that were offered a referendum previously repeated the offer. The Lisbon Treaty was signed by all EU nations – including France and Netherlands, where referenda had previously rejected the Treaty – with little or no national debate. The only exception was Ireland (see below). This shameless abjection of democracy sickens me and deepens my distrust of the EU. A cynic may well be heard to say that referenda were no longer offered because the EU – and national leaders (let’s not forget their culpability in this) – did not want to take the risk on what the result might be. The EU treats public opinion as an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction.

Ireland, however, was offered a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This is because Irish Law insists that referenda must be offered on issues of national sovereignty. Basically, Ireland had no choice but to offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland duly rejected the Lisbon Treaty in June 2008. But the EU did not give up. Ireland was given another chance to “get it right” in October 2009 – just as the credit crunch was biting – and this time voted in favour of an unchanged Treaty. This was a repeat of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty: In 2001, Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty. Ireland was made to vote again in 2002 – this time accompanied by huge campaign in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote. Ireland duly voted ‘Yes’ in 2002 and this was the result that was accepted as being the ‘correct’ result. Wherefore art thou, Democracy?

The lack of debate on EU Treaties means that the UK Government has not had any meaningful way of determining popular opinion on the EU: All EU treaties are signed by the Prime Minster of the day with as little fanfare as possible. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) was signed by John Major; The Nice Treaty (2001) was signed by Tony Blair; The Lisbon Treaty (2007) was signed by Gordon Brown. There was no apparatus put in place to establish public opinion on these abjections of UK sovereignty. There were no referenda. The treaties also did not form part of the dialogue of a General Election. Instead, there was a political consensus in the UK, across the political parties, that these Treaties were good and that the UK should sign them. As a result, British people realise that future treaties, taking the UK deeper into the EU, would also be signed by the PM of the day without reference to the will of the populace. People realised that the EU Referendum in 2016 was going to be the last chance they would have to voice an opinion of the EU. That goes a long way to explaining the ‘Leave’ vote.

Finally, I did not like the sound of the Financial Transaction Tax that has been proposed by Juncker. I believe it would have been implemented and I believe it would be been to the massive detriment of the UK financial sector. I believe that the UK government will be outvoted on this measure. My experience is that the UK government mostly loses when it tries to protect its interests at the EU level (refer to UK fishing industry). Other examples in the EU pipeline – as of 2016 – are licensing rules that would decimate the London art market and the ‘Ports Service Directive’ which was opposed by every commercial port in Britain, every trade union and every British MEP and yet was set to become EU law just prior to the referendum. Regulations like these should be set at a local level, not by a remote centralised bureaucracy aiming at hegemony.

In fact, I believe that any EU country with a strong vested interest in something will tend to lose out on things that are important to them because they will always be outnumbered by the other 27 countries. You could say that a single county – or country! – in the UK faces similar odds at the national level. That’s true. But it doesn’t make it a good thing. I did not want to take the chance that the UK could be turned over by the EU in the same way that parts of the UK have been turned over by the UK government. We must not ‘hope’ that the EU will protect the UK’s special interests.

Shortly after the referendum, I read a comment in the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ online forum that struck a chord with me. The subject was on the breakdown of the vote along class lines. The comment was as follows:

“… people that do well from high property values, relatively low personal taxation and low costs of labour supported membership of the neo liberal EU. People that were adversely affected by low stagnant wages, overcrowded schools, poor access to GPs, were less likely to be convinced of the benefits of freewheeling globalisation.”

Having just read through what I have written above, I am convinced that I voted the right way. The EU does not fit with human psychology and it does not fit with history. I voted the way that is better suited to how humans are: humans want accountability and transparency and democracy and choice and a feeling that their voice counts. The 40 year political consensus that existed within the UK with respect to the EU – where every political party has the same pro-EU view – had to end: it was increasingly disconnected from the wishes of the electorate – 95% of Labour MPs voted ‘Remain’ in 2016! The Establishment desperately wanted the UK to stay in the EU: most of the MPs; most of the Aristocracy; most of the media; most of the celebrities; most of the multinational corporations etc etc. That should be a big enough clue that leaving the EU is the right thing to do: when all of the Establishment wants something, you can guarantee that it is not going to be for the benefit of the British working class. Unless you want the rich to get richer, perhaps?

With a small government completely at our control we can act in our best interests and have full accountability. I hope we can also build strong bridges with other nations. Britain is an innovative, competitive pro-market economy and I want it to stay like that. I accept that there is an upfront cost to Brexit . But I would rather pay the cost to back out of a mistake than continue on what is undoubtedly a descent into a sluggish, federal European superstate the accountability of which appears to be highly dubious. I firmly believe that, in the medium term, the UK will be better off outside the EU. We will be better off in terms of living in an innovative, competitive economy supported by a legal system that is the envy of the world.

I believe that a curtailed EU will make the world a safer place by not having a concentrated centre of power. I believe that the UK will be better off financially once we are free of the over-zealous rules and regulations that have been applied across every strata of national life.

The EU is a political experiment that does not consider the natures of the peoples it is meant to be serving. The EU has tried to do too much, too soon. And it will fail. One potential fault-line within the EU lies between the Globalist EU core (France / Germany / Belgium / Holland) and the Nationalist European newcomers (Poland / Hungary / Bulgaria / Slovakia etc). The newcomers have joined the EU not only for the economic benefits but also as a protection from Russia. These countries are very nationalistic in nature. I expect this difference in ideology to become a source of increased tension in coming years. Not to mention the economic fault-line between northern and southern EU countries.

Brexit will remove power from the EU and place it back in the hands of UK citizens. As William Wallace once shouted in a famous film: “FREEDOM”!

What is Intersectionality?

People often say to me “Atticus, I don’t really understand this groovy new thing called ‘intersectionality’ that all of the professional agitators are banging on about these days. Can you explain it to me?”

As such, I thought it worth adding a page to my blog so that everyone can appreciate the wonder of this powerful new tool of victimhood politics.

Basically, intersectionality is like a totem pole of victimhood. The people who are not victims – ie the ‘oppressors’ – sit at the bottom of the totem pole. The more susceptible to being oppressed your own identity group is, the higher up the intersectionality pole you will be. Therefore, the most oppressed groups in our society sit at the top of the pole and the oppressors sit at the bottom. Nasty bullies at the bottom, brave survivors of victimisation at the top. Got it?

So, we have established that different identity groups occupy different rungs on the Intersectionality totem pole depending on the consensus of their claims to victimhood. Now, I will explain another very important aspect of Intersectionality that truly reveals the Orwellian genius behind the concept: identity groups on the pole can say whatever they want about other identity groups on the pole but only if the group they are attacking are LOWER down the pole than their own group. As such, white women can attack white men with impunity and no one will pull them up on it. They get a free pass because, historically, white men have oppressed white women for millennia but now, in the last 2 weeks, the tables have turned. It’s women’s chance to get their own back. And there’s nothing white men can do about it. The government are not going to introduce any laws to protect white men from hate speech! Similarly, black people can say what they like about white people because 200 years ago there was slavery. Can you feel the power? On the Intersectionality totem there is only punching down. Punching up is not allowed. That is why Corbyn gets into hot water every time he has a pop at the Jews: he is breaking the first rule of Intersectionality Club.

Now the final bit is the bit that makes intersectionality so brilliant (and gives it its name): if you can claim to be a member of multiple oppressed victim groups you will gain thousands of extra victimhood points and unlock hidden levels higher up the Intersectionality pole. If you sit at the crossroads of multiple victimhood ‘intersections’ you will receive multiple invitations to appear on BBC shows so you can let people know how you feel society needs to be reorganised so that never again will a Lesbian, Transgender Muslim have to go through what you have been through.

I have described the fundamental building blocks of Intersectionality. Now, let’s start placing identity groups on the Intersectionality pole, starting from the bottom of the pole and working upwards. In doing so I will also explain the reasons why one identity group may be rated more highly than another group.

It shouldn’t be too hard to guess that white men are at the foot of the pole. This is because white men have been running the show since, like, forever and have made a right mess of everything. White men CANNOT be a victim EVER because they are the oppressors. They are always the oppressors and always will be the oppressors. With no claims to victimhood, they are at the bottom of the pole where they can be attacked by anyone else higher up the pole. However, attacking white men for how horrible and patriarchal they are still not make white men victims. White men can NEVER be victims because they are ALWAYS the oppressor even when they are being oppressed. See? It may take a while to fully appreciate the purity of this approach. If you are still having trouble I recommend you spend 2 minutes with any Social Justice Warrior who will make it crystal clear. In Intersectionality, you see, the oppressor becomes the oppressed. And vice verse. Marvelous.

But all is not lost if you are a white man: it is possible to rise ever so slightly higher up the pole if you are prepared to denounce all other white men. One of the ways this can be done is to announce that you are a feminist. Another way would be to declare that all white people are racist. The more you show your contempt and hate for your fellow white man, the more you can move slightly above them in terms of Intersectionality. The white men that are prepared to attack other men of their own race will still score less intersectionality points than any other group but at least they are higher placed than non-‘woke’ white men. That trade-off seems to be worth the accusations of ‘soyboy’, ‘traitor’ and ‘wanker’ for a certain type of emasculated man. These men are luxuriating in the fact that, at long last, mainstream culture places these Beta Males higher than Alpha Males. They have yet to realise that they are simply useful idiots that are not seen as a threat by anyone. Alpha Males are a known threat and must be treated as such. No one actually gives a damn about these soyboys. They are a joke, held in contempt by all. When full societal breakdown arrives, they will be the first to run as they know they are weak and despised by everyone for the traitorous running dogs that they are.

The next position on the intersectionality totem may be considered controversial: Jews. No one seems to like the Jews. They have slid down the ranking of oppressed groups in record time. In terms of victimhood you may have thought that events during WW2 would have given the Jews a pass for at least a couple of hundred years. But, no: here we are just over 70 years later and brave individuals on both left and right – but mainly left – are putting out feelers to determine what they can say in public about the Jews and get away with. The Labour party are bravely leading the way on this. Jews are no longer victims. Because of Israel. Or Harvey Weinstein. I have also seen some right wing pages posting some fairly unsavoury comments. This shows that if your identity group are economically successful you must be an oppressor and treated accordingly. End of. At this rate, Jews could be rock bottom of the totem in the near future – even beneath white men. That is certainly what Corbyn expects to happen which is why, every so often, he tests the water by making another anti-semitic ‘blunder’ or two to check if he gets in trouble for it. Not long now, Jeremy!

White women come next. Yes, they are near the bottom because they are white but they are women – who are definitely oppressed by men – so they rise above men on the totem. We all know that women have long been oppressed by men, forced to look after the children and the home while the men went out to war and did jobs they loathed in order to provide for their families. Luckily, women have now won the right to also work at jobs they loathe. Equality! Yaaay! But, when all is said and done, they are still white and are complicit in allowing the white patriarchy to exist for as long as it did. For that they can be hated on with impunity by anyone with more intersectional points than them. And let’s not forget that only white people are racist so that’s another reason to subject all white people to a daily ‘2 minutes hate’.

Beyond white people, the intersectional totem becomes less predictable and more volatile. Identity politics is a fast moving game and the various identity groups all loathe each other so they are all jostling for position on the totem. The interesting point to note, however, is that the groups themselves do not get to decide the placement of their own identity group on the Intersectionality totem. Not at all. They can agitate biblically in an effort to drum up support but the ultimate decision on intersectional relativity is made by white people in the media. The media reserves the right to promote and demote identity groups on the pole guided by both a desire to keep identity politics fresh and to promote new and interesting groups that will outrage traditionalists.

There are also Intersectionality differences from country to country. In the UK, black people come next – men first (natch) and then black women just above them. Black people in the UK are not agitating for more rights – i.e. power – in the UK in the same way that they are in the US. I put this down to the fact that there is not the prevalence of ‘Race Studies’ courses at Universities in the UK in the same way as there is in the US where such courses inflame an identity group’s sense of victimhood leading them to agitate for laws that will protect their group. Such laws enshrine the rules of intersectionality in ….well, law! For example, victim groups can retreat behind Hate Laws once they have finished their attacks on groups lower down the totem. Quotas are another good one so that your success as an identity group is no longer about meritocracy but merely a numbers game: The more there are of you, the more quotas will work in your favour. UK blacks are not agitating like this to any large degree. Black people have been in UK for a long time and have assimilated into British culture. As such, friction between the races has largely dissipated. Blacks are not taking advantage of their history of white oppression like they could do. For that reason, blacks score relatively few Intersectionality points in this round.

Muslims come next. A combination of well educated professional agitators, extreme sensitivity to criticism plus widespread condemnation for terrorist atrocities, female oppression, anti-gay bigotry; failure to assimilate; no-go zones; paedophile rape gangs and imposition of sharia law has seen the Muslim community run up huge numbers of victimhood points in a short space of time. Pleas to help this victimised group from further hurty words have reached the ears of the uppermost levels of government who have rapidly gone to work to put in place laws to stop people from ever mentioning any negative aspects of Islam ever again. When the government bends over backwards to do whatever it is you want them to do, that’s when you know you are high up the intersectional pole. Full respect.

Homosexuals are next. I assume homosexuals must sit above muslims in terms of victimhood points because we have yet to see widespread condemnation of homosexuals from muslims. The integrity of Intersectionality shines through. Homosexuals have come a long way in a short space of time and were top of the Intersectionality charts as recently as last Tuesday. However, we now have a new zhe in town…Transgenders!

Yes, transgenders are toppermost of the poppermost in Intersectionality land. Their meteoric rise over the last quarter of an hour has surprised many people. Not me, though. Transgenders are just men, basically, and I am well aware of what men can achieve when they put their minds to it. I have separated Transgenders from Homosexuals in the Interesection charts because Transgenders are the servants who have now superceded their masters. Transgenders are 5th in the LGBQT acronym. 5th! They were just an afterthought! They sheltered under that acronym while they gathered their strength and worked out how they could possibly takeover the cultural landscape. One day they realised that cutting off their johnsons was actually cutting off the very essence of who they were. They were losing the source of their power: testosterone. Once they realised that they could hold onto their dicks and still be women and still have sex with women they were ready to make their move. And they haven’t looked back. Using aggression as their weapon and hate speech laws as their shield they have revealed to the West the purity of their victimhood. No one can say anything detrimental about transgenders. No one can even ‘like’ anything that anyone says about transgenders. They are truly the victim’s victim. One victim to rule them all. Soon they will have the numbers to cement their place at the top of the totem for ever more as thousands of white men realise that merely by announcing themselves to be women they can leap from the very bottom to the very top of the Intersectionality totem in a single bound.

These are the victim building blocks of Intersectionality. I haven’t given every identity group their intersectional ranking for reasons of brevity. However, feel free to play at home: pick an identity group and use your knowledge of the cultural landscape to work out the relative Intersectionality using these two handy guides:

1. How the media – both mainstream and social – portrays that group relative to other groups

2 Which IGs are free to attack that group (and which cannot).

And don’t forget that if you belong to more than one of these groups your victim status will grow exponentially.

That, in a nutshell, is Intersectionality explained. It is fun for your whole dysfunctional family.

UPDATE: Here’s an article that references the divisiveness of Intersectionality

White Women Gonna White

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

I started this blog principally so that I could publish my argument for leaving the EU.

After setting up this account, I started thinking of other things I wanted to write about. I mainly write about The Left (criticisms), or Government incompetence or tales of hypocrisy. The culture wars are also something that cannot be avoided. Quotes are good, also and I use them regularly: either quotes from articles that make a useful point far better than I could, or else famous quotes from history that show there is nothing new under the sun.

The main reason I write these pieces is to marshall my thoughts. Writing my thoughts on a subject also leads me to other, related thoughts. I find its a good way to think more deeply about an issue and consider the strengths and weaknesses in my position. It also helps me in debates with people as I will almost certainly have considered something in more detail, thanks to this blog, than the person I am engaging. Plus, the blog will include links that I can pull up to ram my case home.

A blog gives me the liberty to strengthen any weaknesses. For that reason, these blogs are works-in-progress. I often return to a blog piece and enhance it if i have received inspiration from somewhere. For example, sometimes I re-write something that was clumsily written. Or I will add a link to a related article. Sometimes, I will think of a point that I didn’t include initially. Mostly, these changes are invisible to the reader.

Thanks for looking.

Feedback is appreciated.

Regards,

Atticus Fox

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton

post

Bailiwick News Archives

The Libertarian Alliance

For Life, Liberty and Property

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

True Masculine Value

Being a man of value in a world increasingly hostile to authentic masculinity: Redpill, Marriage, Fatherhood, Counter-Feminism.

Adam Piggott

Atticus Fox

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

PJ O'Rourke meets Bill Hicks

Longreads

Longreads : The best longform stories on the web

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started