It would do us the world of good, we would be at the table having a say, unlike at the moment we have someone from ‘Luxembourg/Poland/Hungary/Czech Rep( put appropriate member of the Commissions country here)’

It would amplify our influence and give us greater control over our own affairs. It disgusts me the way that some remainians are perfectly happy to relinquish control of the law-making, financial operations and policy control that affects our country so much. They have no pride whatsoever. The EU has proven itself time and time again to be a completely farcical operation. Unable to deal with the Ukraine situation, the refugee crisis or the financial crisis that primarily affects Greece, but also continues to negatively impact all this poor countries tied into the dreadful EU currency. One of the main reasons the remain campaign gives for staying is the importance of trading of goods and services. The EU is a declining trade bloc with declining influence throughout the world, and Britain has a huge trade deficit with the EU. The EU would have no choice but to do a trade deal with Britain if we left, too many of their jobs, goods and services rely on it, and being spiteful to us would only cripple their dreadfully undemocratic organisation even further. Leaving the EU would also enable us, finally, to sort out our countries dreadful immigration mess, so that we can remove discriminative barriers that have been erected to non-EU countries in favour of EU member states, and so that we can choose the people who come here, correspondent with the skills and abilities that the services and industries in our country require, rather than having to allow continued, uncontrolled EU migration, which floods the employment market with cheap labour, causing uncertainty in employment for workers, and a drastic drive-down of wages.

Seeking asserted & affirmative influence or fair & honest partnerships? Fear nobody! Although without voting right in the UK/Brexit- a fellow member’s opinion:

It is of no long term consequence- (except for those who’s political livelihood depends mainly on their pro EU bet)- because the whole EU concept will sooner or later require a thorough “EU panel beating”; to be re-engineered and rebuild in stages with the democratic consent of the involved communities & voters, not the EUSSR elites who pretend to know better! Yes to OUT!

A much brighter future can be achieved based on the well proven principles of a greater common trading market- bigger than the present (restrictive & soon by US/TTIP dominated) EU 500mio one.

Its aim should rather be to enlarge & include all 47 Members of the Council of Europe- practicing & utilizing fair “TRADE only” between all 800 mio Europeans! A social union can emerge later, separate, in parallel and lead by a core of a small advanced group, who combine similar visions & interests, are deserving equals and share a close cultural inherited history- without a complex bureaucratic “Bully EXTRAORDINARY” as conductor.

A Brexit opens the way to initiate a reform process- to unwind from all the unnecessary baggage of social & political constraints, dangers, the ceasing up & divided relations, introduced by the Neocon globalists and undo all unworkable regulations, treaties & laws contained in “Brussels Jungle Book”.

what global influence? :D

The UK will ARGUABLY suffer a bit of a dip c1% of GDP BUT it will soon recover that in spades within a few years!

BTW, the EU will become increasingly unstable whether the UK stays in or out of the EU, because:

Greece will have another crisis soon.
Italian banks’ bad loans will come home to roost.
Portugal’s economy is dead in the water.
Spain’s economy is on the crest of an abyss.
Several German banks (according to Max Keiser) are bankrupt.
France can no longer abuse its position in the EU to siphon funds from the EU to support its ailing economy.
Sweden’s suicidal immigration policy is about to bear its fruits.

As the renowned flatulent Joseph Petomane once recanted:

‘Better out than in!”

@Rémi Martin
Anglophobic comments from a Francophilic drunk!

I don’t believe anyone can accurately predict what will happen either way. That said, weighing up the opinions stated here I would have to side with Dr Yu Jie. Outside of the EU, Britain would lack the economic influence it currently has and would become a small fish in a very large sea.

Peter Brown…my reference was to the opposing quotes at the heart of this debate. I believe the idea of this site is to gain the views of the experts in order to weigh up the argument. Comments from Joe public can be thought provoking but I certainly wouldn’t base a decision on them, particularly when they’ve not actually read the article.

Hopefully it will not be rigged. Time will pay.

They are not the empire anymore they used to be. Even within their national borders they almost lost 1/3 th of their territory. And with a Brexit the call for indepence for this pro-EU country will further increase. If that should happen, well thant it’s over and out for their global influence.

To me Brexit is like jumping off a big old ship out of panic that it is sinking, and believing that you will be saved by a luxury cruise liner. In reality, what happens is you become obsessed with fear and jump off the ship, even though it is not yet sinking, but is just damaged and in need of repair, and find yourself in a small life boat, all on your own, in the vast ocean. What is better? To stay on the ship and try to repair it together with the rest of the crew (even though you are not much of a team worker and don’t like doing anything with those people because you think they are too stupid and stubborn), or take the plunge, go on your own and try to save yourself on a small life boat taken from the ship, not knowing what will happen to you once you leave?

On the question of global influence, the answer is in this question: which vessel has a larger water displacement – a large ship, or a small life boat?

Britain has global influence??

Some European countries (some more than others) have this annoying trend of saying their achievements and victories are “national only”, while their problems and setbacks are “European” or “Europe/EU is to blame for that”… Britain also does this, maybe more than quite a few others, depending on the subject… it seems to be a “pride” thing, I don’t know…? – anyway, moving forward… a further integrated EU economically/financially separated from Britain might/could be a good idea, everybody stays happy, we all get along as dear friends and neighbours, etc… all good… But there’s still the issue of border controls, immigration into Europe from all parts of the world, legal/regular and illegal/irregular, and all the disruptions and economic/social distortions it causes in our societies on so many levels, etc… One cannot forget that, even if a country is out of the Schengen area, by being inside the EU, the EU’s free movement rule somehow “overwrites” the Non-Schengen status, and that country has to allow in a significant number of people from outside the EU, born somewhere else in the world, as long as they have EU passports, nationalities/double-nationalities, and/or specific EU-country-issued documents, or even some specific nationality/status they might have inherited from the past, since European countries used to be colonial powers (in a past long gone!!)… The big question is: Do you (Britain) trust all other EU member countries in terms of border controls, issued documents and travel/migration rules on a national level, that afterwards extends throughout all the EU/Europe?? – I don’t… and unfortunately, my own native country is not a good example… You have to bear in mind that some European countries were colonial powerhouses in the past, and have/had already Visa-free travel arrangements with “half the planet” or so… Others, are simply corrupt… So, when Britain signs a deal with a bunch of countries considering they have a population of aprox X million people, they’re not taking into account that many XXXXXX millions more will come, via that country, or via that country’s prior arrangements somehow… it’s just plain dishonest and disruptive… One example? Well… if you only speak English, sometimes you won’t be able to tell the difference between foreign languages or regional accents… But I can tell you this much: judging by the number of people I see and hear, claiming they are from Southern European countries… wow… places like Italy, Spain, Portugal, or even Greece, should all be completely empty by now, a big desert there… and they’re not… Which makes me believe that large migration numbers within Europe is more of a big overrated myth!… but on the other hand, immigration from the rest of the world INTO Europe, into different European countries, and into Britain and Northern Europe via Southern and Eastern European countries will be the real issue… and the British are just scared because, unfortunately, they can’t see the difference at so many levels!! It’s understandable… but wrong. Note: this is not racist, etc etc bla bla bla… I don’t care about race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, or whatever… this has to do with SUSTAINABILITY AND NUMBERS ONLY.

All this exit discussion sounds quite weird to me. Vote leave if you really think that would improve your lives. After that you could start a referendum on leaving the earth or maybe just the city you live in… Maybe some not so educated Brits read too much tabloid propaganda of some certain Australian guy, and in the end UK has to follow the exit example of Algeria. Good luck and cheerio. A little bit sad for the other Europeans, though, and also cut their own throat for the British people.

hat is exactly the Utopia I am speaking of. The original aims of the Iron and Steel treaty was to ensure that European nations were too interested in commerce to go to war again. Others like our Anthony Eden and Edward Heath saw it together with monnet as a prelude to World Government. Neither succeeded because the whole scheme has been morphed into a gigantic Corporate Oligarchy. Anyone that can see that if they have eyes to see. There is no control over the EU simply because there is no electoral check on them.

It is composed almost entirely by politicians that have previously been rejected from electoral Office. The People of Europe did not want them in National Governments but the EU was happy to take because there was no such electoral control. The EU politicians have come from being rejected by National Governments into an edifice that is not in the least concerned with public opinion. The previous ‘High Representative’, Catherine Ashton was not ever an elected politician. Her most prominent role previously was to be involved in the British Campaign for Nuclear Diaarmement. So many of the others are dyed-in-the-wool communists/Mayoists. Perhaps that is why the structure of the EU is exactly the same as the old Soviet Union. If you do not believe that, then you would be advised go to my website, theunituk.org.uk and download an ebook that I have compiled. It is called ‘Democracy in a Federalised Europe’. the first page shows a diagram comparing the structure of the EU with the USSR. If you should download the PC executable file, you will see a very interesting video on the opposite page. I do not deal with conspiracy theory, all of the information is from official EU documents and respected think tanks. I have not added to it since January and so it is al little out of date, but what is there shews how insidious the EU is becoming.

The fiscal corruption of the EU is legendary. It has not had its accounts signed off by Auditors for 20 years, and the only Auditor that complained was sacked. Virtually every Treaty or edict since Lisbon and every department in the EU has in its charter has a clause for legal immunity for life for any wrong doing that they may do whilst in Office. They may not have their offices raided by the Authorities, nor any of their files investigated. All Europol operatives carry ‘Diplomatic’ passports that protect them from any wrongdoing outside of the EU. Not even National Heads of State get this level of protection.

It has been decided by the ECJ that it is illegal for anyone to critisize the workings of the EU (look up the recent ruling of the EU v Connolly). Does this remind you of other totalitarian States previously mentioned?

To get back to your suggestion that Europe needs a ‘Magna Carta’. You are living in fantasy land should you believe that the EU is capable of such a show of democracy. It has been definitively shewn that the EU, once it seizes a power, will never relinquish it.

In many ways, I have sympathy for the German People. I spent 2.5 years there back in the 1960’s as a soldier and found the German People to be genuinely friendly with the exception of some older People that lived as adults in the Nazi era. I made some great friends there and was often invited back to meet their families. The dilemna for many of the ordinary German is to try and alleviate the problems of the last Century and the martial inclination. The trouble for Germany, and now for the rest of Europe, there is still some people, especially from the previously totalitarian East that still wish to dominate. Frau Merkel is one of them. In her pursuit of personal power under the auspices of the multi-national Corporations, she is endeavoring to achieve the total dominance of Europe. That is megalomaniacal.

In the pursuit of this, she declared that Germany would accept 800,000 migrrants to overcome the lack of birth rate in Germany. She ostensibly suggested that it was an humanitarian gesture to allevieate the problems of Syrian refugees. This coould have been acheved by a programme of airlifts from the Refugee camps which could have provided for reasonable security checks of those immigrants and directed them straight at Germany. Instead, she manipulated the EU to extend the Geneva Convention to allow ANYONE regardless of status to come to Europe by whatever means they could.

The result has been total forment in many EU states that find themselves overwhelmed by migrants of a totally different culture of behaviou to European Law. That very much includes Germany who in there initial innocence, invite the migrants but soon found that it was to their social detriment. In not only Germany, but so many Coutries in Europe, immigrants bring with them a total disrespect for the law that governs us as civilised people.

I am happy to debate with all ‘thinking’ people. I will not do so with pedants who will not listen to a counter argument and not give it its proper import. Participants in a debate requires that they do not rely on pedantry but make an hones endeavour to try to see the argument from the other side.

I have spent the last 4 years trying to understand the psyche of those that advocate the EU but I find it impossible given an in=depth desire to find the truth. Will you step outside of your emotinal attachment to the EU and honestly evaluate it with all the information available if your really wish to try?

2 of my comments here are still ‘awaiting moderation’. Later comments are accepted. Interesting. Is it mentioning a NATO membership referendum in the UK? Or the reduction of military in a smaller European army?

Alright, here’s the second part:

Britain managed to grow (economically) since 2008 while Euro-states did not (that’s what you imply). That is not correct. The economy in countries with the Euro as their currency only contracted in 2012 and 2013 as a whole. Much of that is influenced if not caused by the too strict austerity policies following the massive tax-paid bail-out for the European banks. Today, there are it least rules that instead owners and savers (above 100 TEUR) will be liable for future losses, and there are the rescue fonds working. State depts are still not back on the pre-crises level (around 90% today against 60% of GDP in 2007), though they did not rise in recent years. Why care about the state dept? Because much tax money is lost for interest and repayment that could be used to invest in infrastructure otherwise. I think there will be some bail-out for the Greek and maybe the Portugese debts, but todays politics sadly is: ‘discipline’ before bail-out. Let’s see what will happen the next months.

EU is declining in world trade. True. If you look at German or British trade, for example, they will not return to their dominant role of the 19th and 20th century. But is it not better to pool European trade interests? Do you really think that British interests will be protected better in a trade deal e.g. with the US if it would negotiate separate? I doubt that. There would be almost only US regulations.

You say that there is no control over the EU because there is no electoral check. That is exaggerated. There are several checks but too few. That must change in the next European treaty.

The EU has in your view the same structure as the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a centralized one-party state. EU is very decentralized. Actually, it is basically still an intergovernmental institution not so much different from the UN or WTO with some additional policy coordination, but far away from e.g. the US. In your Soviet picture it would mean that all 15 member states would have had quite some influence in Moscow. That was not at all the case and this also contributed to the dissolution of the S.U. Journalists like to simplify that French and German governments would ‘rule’ the EU. The reality is much more complex. Many policies have veto rights for every single country.

You write that employees of the European institutions would have legal immunity for life for any wrong doing. Could you please cite the regulation(s) that protects them? If that is really so, that is clearly something to stand up against. I know there are several institution against fraud (OLAF, European Court of Auditors, departments in within the directorates of the Commission).

You refer to a 2001 ruling of the European Court of Justice that it is illegal to critisize the workings of the EU (EU vs. Connolly case). I googelt http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp01/aff/cp0107en.htm. He was fired from the EU Commission in 1995 because he published a book about his perceived working experience in the EU. The court ruled that it was legal to fire him because he actively worked on discrediting his employer. That sounds like a poor decision in that single case. But as I have no interest in reading his book at the moment, I cannot say much on that. Only that this case is no general ruling against speaking up against an employer.

You say that Mrs Merkel with her socialisation in Communist Eastern Germany wishes to dominate the EU and cite her immigration policy as an example for that. Do you really think so? Although I do not stand behind most of her politics, I would say that she has quite a democratic spirit in German national politics and truely wants to develop the EU into a democratic federation (in the sense of more cooperation of national ministries but also citizens representation). Merkel is in no way the ‘strong woman’ behind the scenes some media want to see her. Off course, the German government has some influence in Brussels, but an image of Schultz and Juncker and the whole European Council as Merkel puppets is as far from reality as Boris Johnsons Hitler-Napoleon-EU comparison. If you would closer look into the processes of decission-making on the European level you would clearly see that.

The fact the UK is a member of the EU exposes it to the threat of subsidising the failing economies of Italy, Spain, Portugal who’s national debt has surpassed their GDP and perhaps even more seriously France who’s banks are overstretched with Greek debt which if Greece defaults will cause the French economy to crash.
The EU is fixed on a course of political expansionism towards the East, this means absorbing all the former Warsaw pact nations including Georgia, Ukraine and Belorussia, which would mean that the Russian Federation would if this continued be surrounded by the EU from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea which if the EU mandarins have their way would also include an EU army drawn from all EU nations under a central command structure outside of the control of Nationally elected Governments.
The power behind the EU is the industrial and commercial power of Germany who now dominate the lives of everyone living in the EU, names like Bayer AG, AGFA, BASF, RWE, SIEMENS, VAG, Bosch, Krupps-Thysen, Mercedes-Benz, BMW! This then is the driving force of the EU today! They have attempted to achieve this domination on two previous occasions, first in support of imperial Germany and the Kaiser and again in support of the Nazi party, but they are not political or nationalist idealists, just greedy businessmen.

If it’s a good thing to have unelected people making decisions for us to obey, why do those who wish to remain in the European Union still recognise the word ‘democracy’? One thing is all but certain, the United Kingdom would never have entered into a political union with other European states back in 1974. The name ‘European Union’ came along later. Perhaps ‘European Economic Community’ (itself a rather silly name, European Economic Competitors would have been more appropriate) wasn’t flashy enough? ‘Common Market’ (a name that actually meant something) woul never do for them. Way too common.

I’d like to vote for both in and out. However, vote I will. I’ve decided, unequivocally, In… All these arguments or discussions will culminate in the Vote.
Vote and wait and see.

@ Peter

“Peter June 7th, 2016
Peter, that is a step in the right direction. Not all immigrants (not even the majority, but rather a tiny minority) are criminals.”

Peter, please do not patronise me with such self-evident admonitions.

“Certain people refuse to adapt. There are rules for crimes. If an immigrant commits a serious crime, he can be sent to his home country, otherwise there is punishment within our society – if the police catches him. You imply that our system is overchallanged. Partially, I concur”

This may be true in the context of individual migrants though I have considerable reservations. However, in the context of the discussion that we are now having concerning the influx of several hundreds of thousands, the situation is entirely changed. Whereas an individual may be persuaded by the force of the Law, large groups of migrants are not in the least intimidated due to the fact that they are overwhelming the abilities of Law enforcement to contain them. Even should the Police become effective enough to catch these criminals, the cost to prosecute and incarerate them is far too high a burden on any state.

“But this change accelerated in the last decades with deindustrialisation of Western states, IT, rather low travelling costs and huge differences in income.”

I do not understand the point that you are making with this sentence. I fail to see what connection there is with the “pressure that other cultures (within our legal system) exert on the indigenous population and to the ‘woolyheaded liberals’:”. I do understand that travelling costs have been reduced in connection with air travel but that is entirely due to competition between hudget airlines and certainly does not apply to public transport in Britain which increases year on year. As to the “huge differences in income”, you are certainly correct there. British wages are at the same level as they were in 2008, largely due to massive immigration driving down wages.

“There were some very sad murders of immigrants (btw mostly of Turkish origin) commited by nationalist Germans at the start of 1990ies, but eventually the society accepted the immigrants.”

I, in no way will I attempt to justify the actions of Militant Nationalists against the Turkish Migrants but I will make the observation that this relatively high influx of ‘Gast Arbeitern’ from Turkey in the 1990’s was seen as threatening to many low paid workers who saw them as a totally different and unwanted cultural change and threatened their livelihoods which resulted in several murders. Yet the numbers of ‘Gast Arbeitern’ was miniscule in comparison the numbers of migrants being allowed into Europe that you and Frau Merkel seem so keen on. Whilst in no way condoning it, do you not realise that the massively larger migration occurring now runs the potential for much greater violence, not just in Germany but over much of Europe. Especially so as the non-German States did not ask for nor want any part of Merkel’s precipitous actions.

“Now, what about the mid-East immigrants of the last years, in their majority men who could afford the people smugglers’ fees? Is their cultural background so different that adaption is not possible at all? There are illiterates, patriarchic and tribal backgrounds, etc., and among them there are criminals, but there are also very well educated and open people.”

I have no idea of your social status but I would guess from your liberal attitudes that you are either not in much direct contact with the immiggrants or, in fact, you are deliberately in close contact with them. In either case, you have exactly zero chance of changing the way I think on the subject. Your implication appears to be that because so many had money to pay the people traffickers that they must be largely ‘professional’ people who have earned sufficient money. This may indeed be the case for some but the sums demanded are not that high and could easily be raised by shop keepers, from life savings, some may even be criminals themselves who have stolen the money from others, there may be many otherwise poor people who have sold family ‘heirlooms’ that have been in their families for generations. Yet others may have been given the money by interested groups for nefarious purposes. Europol suggest that there are at least 5000 terrorists within the migrant groups and who is to say that there are not considerably more?

In any case, for the British, it is not generally a xenophobic attitude. I live in an area where there are up to 13% immigrant population and strangely we all seem to more or less get along pretty well. Even more strange is that if there is any xenophobic feeling, it appears to come from a few of the migrants towards their hosts and their host’s culture. That aside, the main argument against mass immigration is that in recent years, the annual average is around 300,000 into what is already a densely populated Counnotry, far more so than France or Germany on top of which, the infrastructure is being completely overwhelmed and the threat of Merkel’s action is that many more additional migrants will be able to come to Britain, despite not being part of Schengen, when, in a few short years, will receive documents that will allow them into Britain legally.

There is also grave disquiet that far too many of the migrants are Muslims of whom, by far the greater numbers fail to assimilate into British culture. They turn whole areas of our cities into virtual ghettoes. In fact, greater than 50% of our Nation’s capital is populated by non-British people. The stated intention of many Muslims is to turn Britain into an Islamic State according to the Koranic exhortation for all Muslims to do so. In fact, there are areas in many cities that have gangs of Muslims trying to force their Sharia Law onto non-Muslims. There are over 100 Sharia ‘Courts’ in Britain though the do not supercede British Law. The are registered as ‘Arbitration’ organisations but are run by Islamic Clerics. Due to cultural and family pressure, many Muslim women are denied their rights under British law as they are forced to go to these ‘Courts’ which are, of course, biased towards the man.

This disquiet is justified. Although most do not fully realise the whole situation. Most Islamic migrants come from areas where large families are the cultural norm and far too many continue the practice once in Britain. Official figures tell us that now 8.3% of the people living in England are not British born though ‘Official’ figures have been shewn to be woefully ‘underestimated’ but it is the general belief that the Government has deliberately understated the level of immigration to avoid embarrassment. 26% of all births Nationally in Britain are from parents who are not British born. In London, this number explodes to 75%. At the current level of immigration (excluding the expected massive increase when the current influx to Europe become eligible), it is extrapolated that non-Muslims will be in a minority by 2050 and that is ignoring the fact that by that time, the National infrastructure will no exist due to the massive expansion of the population.

This is further exacerbated by the knowledge that if Turkey should be allowed succession into the EU, apart from severely affecting the workings of the European Parliament by virtue of the fact that a Country that is not only 97% in Asia, its current population of 77 Million will give an increasingly fundamentalist Islamic State disproportionate ‘weighting’ under QMV on par with Germany and France (and Britain should we be foolish enough to vote to stay in the EU). A recent poll carried out in Turkey established that up to 12 million Turks would like to come to Britain.

Peter, you are obviously, despite your protestations, ‘singing from the same songsheet’ as the EU federalists. You may be happy to sublimate your Country’s culture into a federalise Europe under the control of Corporate entities but I am not. My Country, more than any other Country in Europe has been able to develope our culture through over 1000 years. It is far from perfect, especially now that traitorous, self serving politicians have been allowed to hi-jack our Parliamentary system but out of the EU, we can work on that without the intermidable interference of the obscenity that is the EU but, most of all, we have the chance to take our Country back.

I enjoy debate as you appear to do but I am no longer prepared to debate a lost cause. Therefore, I am terminating this part of the debate which is obviously from diametrically opposite views that will achieve nothing.

Postscript:

“Maybe you assume that the BBC is run by some ‘globalists’ or at least by the woolyheaded guys, but maybe just notice this article summing up the present EU policy towards restricting immigration from Asian/African countries: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36469264”

I published a similar story from another source on my website (theunituk.org.uk) but that story was not just a cheap abdication of Merkel’s culpability by intimating that this deal with the African States was the solution to the problem. In fact, it exacerbates it because by inviting immigration from the more ‘professional’ Africans, it will increase migration by legitimizing migration from people that have their qualifications guaranteed by States that are known to be endemically corrupt and do nothing to prevent the less educated Africans from attempting the crossing.

Please do not consider this postscript as an invitation to continue the debate.

Q: How best to reform the present EU- driven by the ever mounting pressures from the owners of vox populi- while preserving stability, fairness & highest standards?

To substantially reform or re-design the EU- top down- is impossible, prohibited by treaties and made illegal by its originators! The only way out of that “democratic misery” is from the bottom up- aka “Brexit” and/or more to come!

Details are to numerous & complex to list or discuss here!

Generally, it is an impossible task to be formulated by one person, one model, one concept, one opinion, one political party or trend, one think tank, one nation, one elite, one owner of capital, the owners of vox populi, the EU, the EC or the EP.
Only through a honest, lengthy, multi layered, driven by several newly constituted consultative bodies & processes by the all willing & the all affected! Nobody arrogantly ruled too radical & excluded or banned- only by self exclusion! That what politicians should get paid for- diplomacy, nation & wealth building for ALL! E.g.:

* an all inclusive European ‘parallel consultative process’ of deliberations with the following aims:

* to plan, reform & build a more equitable, fair, happier but superior Europe for vox populi- (first on economic terms only- as priority) by inclusion of all 47 CoE members- using successful past experiences & considering all “material” grievances by ALL-
* considering the importance of- & cooperating with capital in shared successes-
* roll back state capture by capital and their rule over all, by destructive capitalism-
* Everybody to start on an equal & sovereign footing- assuming Europeans of today will be able to find enough common ground and wisdom- since the old & narrow WWII reasons became obsolete in the meantime!

Some links to (dirty in-out) current politics:

“The European Parliament has very limited powers, virtually zero”:
http://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/18201-why-anti-capitalists-should-be-anti-eu

“Real internationalism comes from below”:

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/18296-12-left-wing-reasons-for-remaining-in-the-european-union

If a top down reform is prevented & remains an illusion- than a “bottom up” will eventually correct it! A well deserved and “democratic” Brexit inspired chain reaction revolution throughout- by vox populi- “The End”!

They will let a weak EU and so they will influence also China, USA, Russia etc. and, just to survive, they will become the slaves of the USA.

Just to remind you, you are also a union of nations. Don’t blame anyone if -let’s say- Scotland leaves the UK to be part of the EU instead.

l’Unione europea è il più terribile mostro di un piano criminale creato da menti criminali e l’euro è una moneta sporca di omicidi ogni popolo europeo che la UE tocca ,lo uccide . Forse non sarà l’Inghilterra , forse non sarà la nostra generazione ma la storia insegna che i mostri vengono sconfitti . Non ho mai creduto a questo referendum ma l’assasinio di Jo Cox , povera donna mi dispiace, mostra che la tensione è alta e i criminali cercano di pilotare l’opinione pubblica inglese. In bocca al lupo agli inglesi e a tutti noi che abbiamo in comune questo lutto

In this global era, when problems and issues are growing global, when nations are growing interconnected and interdependent, when enterprises can only survive the turbulence of the era through merging and going global, when government autonomy and state sovereignty are compromising for economic growth, I do not see it a right way for the British people to leave the EU.

Instead, Dr Yu Jie (Cherry) can see the role of UK in the international and regional system more clearly. It is the EU membership which makes the UK the entry-point to EU member states. Same as HK, which served as the window of China before Deng Xiaoping’s open door policy. When China’s economy is fully integrated with the global system, HK’s importance has reduced. The decision of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank to keep its HQs in London but open branches in big cities of China.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/15/uk-a-great-investment-if-brexit-wins-says-world-leading-bank/

Britain’s global influence would be nothing after Brexit unless it submits itself again to US leadership like Japan. This problem is US leadership is a negative asset for many governments. Political leaders do not see taking a photo in the White House shaking hand with the US president is a must now!

The vast network of tax havens in overseas British territories will continue to enable poverty, public cuts and corporate welfare globally so the mega-rich can avoid and evade tax free from EU regulation.

“Leaving the EU”
RESEARCH PAPER 13/42 1 July 2013

“Were the UK to withdraw from the EU, its new relationship with the organization could take several forms. A research paper presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom: https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp13-42.pdf

proposed a number of alternatives to EU membership which would continue to allow it access to the EU’s internal market, including continuing EEA membership as an EFTA member state, or the Swiss model of a number of bilateral treaties covering the provisions of the single market.”

There’s always more than one way to skin a cat- even an UK cat!

Brexit will increase UK’s global influence.

Inglés de brexit sentado sobre un león flamenco… o del Athletic Bilbao?😀

If you have a good friend and you see that he is going to hurd himself and others badly by trying to proof that he is right. He was mislead by the Murdoch press and so you clearly see that he is wrong. What would you do to bring him to rethink? Would you let him run into the knife that is waiting for him?

As Hollande has expressed, UK must leave EU immediately, otherwise, EU would bear the cost of UK’s departure. This is to isolate the chaotic situation the UK itself has created.

Why small states of East Asia fail to prosper? Why regional powers Japan and South Korea become pawns of the US? It is because the US has been using a spoke and hub policy, which has been working like a wheel of a bicycle with the US as the hub, spinning each spoke to advance its national interest, while spoke are required to be divided and rule. UK has been traditionally isolated. It has been playing a “hit the mole” game, playing a balance of power in the European continent so as to prevent the rise of one single power, which would threaten its own survival. When UK joined the EU, it has eliminated its threat from European continent. Its “hit the mole” game is no longer relevant. As the UK left the EU, EU is no small separated states. UK has isolated itself at the very northern corner of the European continent and its old game cannot be played again because the small states have formed themselves a EU and it is a super mole now!

Steve Bannon is helping the UK. What we can see after BREXIT is that UK has to follow US led. Trump support BREXIT and disintegration of the EU. When the UK has struggled to be free from EU, it appears to have put on another chain:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/bannon-london-trump/565118/
This is why I consider that by leaving the EU, Britain’s global influence would be affected adversely.