by John Brian Shannon | June 21, 2016
Many non-British commentators have strongly suggested to British voters that they should vote to remain (‘Bremain’) in the EU, in the June 23 referendum.
Yet, some of those commentators have told other non-British citizens with opposing views on the issue (‘Brexit’) that they should refrain from expressing their strong suggestions.
Which I find odd, and troubling at some level.
I’m glad they’re worried about British voters being unduly influenced by the opinions of others in faraway lands.
But I’m not worried at all.
I think British voters are educated enough to be able to discern between the opinions of foreigners, and the opinions of present-day British citizens who are eligible to vote in the referendum.
By and large, Britons are a pretty educated lot and there are many nuances to British society that demonstrate they have plenty of 21st century sophistication.
British voters aren’t likely to get the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes by commentators from around the world. If they’re susceptible to that, they’ve got bigger problems than staying in, or leaving the EU.
I do agree that people shouldn’t be stirring up trouble. After all, it is illegal to run into a crowded theatre and yell, “Fire!” in a convincing way. And for good reason.
But a person can contribute their thoughts about a democratic vote in another country in a way that is designed to not inflame people to untoward behavior.
In fact, freedom of speech goes directly to the heart of the Western democracies which is exactly why it must be practiced often.
And whether we’re commenting about the goings-on in our own country or in our fellow Commonwealth nations, fair comment ought to be encouraged — as long as the commentator refrains from unduly inciting the voters of that nation.
Some commentators have made the case for, or against, the economic angle. It’s true that UK GDP has risen since it joined the EU.
Even euro-skeptics admit that United Kingdom GDP has risen — as compared to not joining the European Union.
Read: You can’t feed a family on GDP (New York Times)
How could it not? The EU is the largest single economic unit on the planet, slightly larger in total economic output than the United States and larger than other great economic powers such as the rising tiger in China.
Not that the bottom two economic quintiles in the UK have seen it!
The economic question, then, becomes; Will voting to ‘Stay’ or ‘Leave’ the EU result in higher income for the bottom two quintiles?
They’re certainly not seeing it now while still part of the EU, therefore, what would make their cohort expect to see higher incomes by staying in the European Union?
In fact, people in the UK’s bottom two quintiles say that recent and high immigration levels have ‘stolen’ many low-paying jobs from the two bottom quintiles and UK unemployment statistics seem to bear that out.
One can therefore empathize with very large numbers of people who’ve at the end of the day ‘lost’ more than they’ve gained via EU membership.
It will be interesting to see how many vote in the referendum and to look at their voting patterns, post-referendum.
Henry Ford used to say; “Don’t tell me what you can do. Show me what you’ve done.”
Many Bremainers are quick to point out that governance in the UK could be improved by staying within the European Union. And it goes without saying that the UK would be a force for good within the European Union as it relates to EU reform.
No doubt there has already been some of that. For one example, some labour standards have improved in the United Kingdom as a direct result of EU labour directives.
It’s too bad that recent (and high) immigration levels took huge numbers of low-paying jobs away from British-born workers, otherwise Britons would be able to witness those labour law improvements instead of reading about it in the broadsheets — while (not) enjoying life on unemployment insurance.
EU ‘Mission Creep’
Separate from labour law improvements and lower employment levels for British-born workers, is what could be termed the ‘bureaucratic mission-creep’ of the EU governance structure.
We all know what mission creep means in the military sense, it typically happens during long military campaigns where the fight has been long and hard, and the progress uneven.
Military commanders begin expanding the definitions of engagement and troop commitment on their own volition in order to more quickly or more fully attain their standing orders.
With the exceptionally clear lines of command found in military units, such liberties taken by commanders are almost always caught and rectified.
I don’t know that is always the case with regards to faceless, nameless bureaucrats who are in the business of running the EU’s governmental architecture. Many of whom may not be under the direct authority of duly elected politicians it must be said.
Instead of following the instructions of their elected leaders, such bureaucrats could easily engage in their own ‘mission creep’ and elected EU politicians wouldn’t know about it unless a whistleblower made it public.
For ambitious (unelected) EU bureaucrats with few checks and balances to worry about: Why bother to go through all the trouble of staging a coup (in a single EU country) in order to get the life they want, when by playing it coy and telling the politicians exactly what they want to hear over a period of years, the bureaucrats could eventually do whatever they wanted throughout the entire European Union, using the levers of power available to them in the existing governance architecture? Maybe with some help from other ambitious (unelected) EU bureaucrats?
Q: What are the chances of that, exactly?
A: About 100% — given enough time.
Who would know until it was already too late? How can you see hidden crime? How to stop them?
Eventually, the unelected functionaries in Brussels will be telling the elected politicians what to do, where to go, and at what time to do it. Some suspect they already are…
It’s bad enough that segments of the EU governance architecture are maintained by powerful and unelected individuals. When you factor-in bureaucratic mission creep it quickly scales-up to terrifying dimensions.
Some highly educated and respected commentators have spoken to the lack of democratic legitimacy for EU Apparatchiks and their masters the EU Nomenklatura — even at this early stage. I guarantee they’re not taking into account the bureaucratic ‘mission creep’ that is guaranteed to occur within the EU governance architecture over time.
It is likely to be cumulative and significant.
Windows of Opportunity
Quite separate from ‘Stay’ or ‘Leave’ debate is the future the British people could attain outside of the European Union political structure.
Some of us think that opportunities as big as the sky would be missed by the United Kingdom permanently joined to the EU.
While some ideas seem fanciful until someone crunches the numbers, a different plan could allow the United Kingdom to excel as never-before.
As there’s no precedent for the Brexit situation it could now become anything the UK government wants it to become.
Every day, we teach others how to treat us. At a personal level, how we interact with others shows them how to treat us.
Even the political relationship between nation-states are directed by human beings (not artificial intelligence bots) therefore:
As human nature is the foundation of all human relationships;
If we make people feel afraid, they will act defensively toward us.
If we solve their problems, we’re teaching them to become dependent on us.
If we act as their genuine partner, we are teaching them to trust us.
If we act as a team-player, they will either become part of our team or we will become part of theirs — either way, it works.
If we teach half of the UK population that their concerns aren’t a priority for us right now, we’re teaching them to withdraw from us.
In the end, we reap what we sow.
EU membership isn’t working for Britain’s bottom two quintiles and bureaucratic ‘mission creep’ will eventually bring a complete end to democracy within the EU, and Britain might miss windows of opportunity larger than the sky for as long as it stays in the EU.
If those reasons (and more that I haven’t touched on) aren’t enough for British voters to exercise their vote carefully, I don’t know what might qualify.
Whatever the results on June 23rd, I support the right of Britons to choose their future. It’s my goal however, to do my part to ensure that they go into the future (whichever way the vote goes) with ‘eyes wide open’ as opposed to ‘ears stopped shut’.
No matter the outcome of the referendum, the people of Europe have created an astonishing success story out of the rubble of World War II, and I salute their sacrifice, their dedication, and their ingenuity, and I very sincerely wish every one of them eternal peace, prosperity, and good governance.
Present Brexit/Bremain discussions aside, Europe is one of the brightest lights of our civilization. But we must always remember: “To whom much is given, much is expected.”
And some in the UK expected better.
Isn’t that everything?
- Brexit in Context (Project Syndicate)
- With two days to go, Britain’s EU referendum vote still on knife edge (Reuters)