I support and believe it is good for the UK to leave the EU. I have even had someone say to me "you are the first person I have spoken to that thinks this is a good idea". I question who they have spoken to and how well they know people who live in the UK. So let me lay out WHY I think it is good; your opinion may vary with milage.
I do not think all of the EU is a bad thing but I also do not think all of the EU is a good thing either.
First, lets start with some history. Do you know about what the history of the EU is? I suggest you start here and read up on it and how it started as a trade group, the EEC, and if you had any interaction with international business in the late 1970's and early 1980's the term Benelux might be a familiar term.
I do think that the EEC was a good idea and the data does support this. Up until recently the members of the EEC grew economically.
Then the EEC evolved and the creation of the EU happened:
"The EU has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market, enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, and regional development. Within the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished. A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the eurocurrency.."
Presently the citizens of a sovereign country are represented, in what is a super government, by non-elected officials who enact laws, rules and regulations that impact their individual countries - for good, for bad and for indifference. Yes, I know these member countries did agree to this to begin with but I believe and my friends, who live in the EU, believe that in many cases what the EU does now is too costly and goes to far and to those in control of the EU, it is now about POWER and what they the EU representative feels is "right" vs. what is right for THEIR individual country and that countries citizens.
Some would call it LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY (of their country) and too much scope creep on the part of the EU government.
There is nothing wrong with improving trade, goods and services for the region nor is there anything wrong with allowing the free movement of people.
Here is an example of what I consider to be early EU stupidity, yes stupidity.
An EU law/regulation was passed standardized units of measurements. This resulted in fines for groceries that had old scales that have imperial units of measurement (pounds and ounces) vs. metric vs. both; is that really to the benefit of the citizens? If you want to know more start here and here. YES, the EU was fining people for having scales that did not meet the law that "standardized" a unit of measure despite a law of the nation that allowed them to use what they wanted. Before the EU (during the time of the EEC) if a company in the UK shipped their widgets to another country, the weight was probably marked on the box in kilograms. Could the box have also been marked in pounds, probably since why would you have two different boxes for your widgets - one for sale/use in the UK and another for use/sale outside the UK.
Think about it. Even in the good ol' USofA if a company ships their widgets internationally the metric weight is listed as well as the Imperial weight. Does the EU fine us? So why fine a company within its region. Does the USA fine a company base here for only have a metric weight on the box of widgets and not having the Imperial units?
There are also the standardized banana curvature laws and the pippin apple size laws. Why not let the people decide decide for themselves if a banana has too much curvature or an apple is too small. In the USA we would call this restriction of fair trade.
Yes this is simple example but I am using to point out that this happened early in the EU era and IMHO the bureaucracy has only gotten worse.
There was the Common Fisheries Policy that resulted in Scotland loosing their fishing industry. The policy was in theory was a nice idea because it took into account over fishing but what also happened is that land locked countries that did not have ocean ports were given fishing rights - read that as quotas, for fishing fleets that did not exist and where did those rights come from? Yes, they came (read that as taken away) from countries that had long established harbors, fleets, and fishing businesses. The Scottish fishing industry was devastated. Here is an article about how some fishermen feel about the EU and the exit vote. (Note: Peterhead is not far from where Elisa of Scotland lives and I have been to Peterhead many times and seen the results of this policy.)
I could go on and on about this and those on the other side of the debate can also go on and on. But let me put it to you this way. The USA is a nation of states and there are clear dividing lines between what the states can do and what our federal government can do - even if some of those lines do get blurred but don't go there right now, stay with me, ok??! What if we now has an "American Union" that consisted of Canada, the USA, all the Central American countries: Mexico, Belize, etc. and all of South American countries. Now, imagine if there were non-elected officials in this union who enacted regulations that
Would you, as a citizen of the USA want this?
I do not think all of the EU is a bad thing but I also do not think all of the EU is a good thing either.
First, lets start with some history. Do you know about what the history of the EU is? I suggest you start here and read up on it and how it started as a trade group, the EEC, and if you had any interaction with international business in the late 1970's and early 1980's the term Benelux might be a familiar term.
I do think that the EEC was a good idea and the data does support this. Up until recently the members of the EEC grew economically.
Then the EEC evolved and the creation of the EU happened:
"The EU has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market, enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, and regional development. Within the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished. A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the eurocurrency.."
Presently the citizens of a sovereign country are represented, in what is a super government, by non-elected officials who enact laws, rules and regulations that impact their individual countries - for good, for bad and for indifference. Yes, I know these member countries did agree to this to begin with but I believe and my friends, who live in the EU, believe that in many cases what the EU does now is too costly and goes to far and to those in control of the EU, it is now about POWER and what they the EU representative feels is "right" vs. what is right for THEIR individual country and that countries citizens.
Some would call it LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY (of their country) and too much scope creep on the part of the EU government.
There is nothing wrong with improving trade, goods and services for the region nor is there anything wrong with allowing the free movement of people.
Here is an example of what I consider to be early EU stupidity, yes stupidity.
An EU law/regulation was passed standardized units of measurements. This resulted in fines for groceries that had old scales that have imperial units of measurement (pounds and ounces) vs. metric vs. both; is that really to the benefit of the citizens? If you want to know more start here and here. YES, the EU was fining people for having scales that did not meet the law that "standardized" a unit of measure despite a law of the nation that allowed them to use what they wanted. Before the EU (during the time of the EEC) if a company in the UK shipped their widgets to another country, the weight was probably marked on the box in kilograms. Could the box have also been marked in pounds, probably since why would you have two different boxes for your widgets - one for sale/use in the UK and another for use/sale outside the UK.
Think about it. Even in the good ol' USofA if a company ships their widgets internationally the metric weight is listed as well as the Imperial weight. Does the EU fine us? So why fine a company within its region. Does the USA fine a company base here for only have a metric weight on the box of widgets and not having the Imperial units?
There are also the standardized banana curvature laws and the pippin apple size laws. Why not let the people decide decide for themselves if a banana has too much curvature or an apple is too small. In the USA we would call this restriction of fair trade.
Yes this is simple example but I am using to point out that this happened early in the EU era and IMHO the bureaucracy has only gotten worse.
There was the Common Fisheries Policy that resulted in Scotland loosing their fishing industry. The policy was in theory was a nice idea because it took into account over fishing but what also happened is that land locked countries that did not have ocean ports were given fishing rights - read that as quotas, for fishing fleets that did not exist and where did those rights come from? Yes, they came (read that as taken away) from countries that had long established harbors, fleets, and fishing businesses. The Scottish fishing industry was devastated. Here is an article about how some fishermen feel about the EU and the exit vote. (Note: Peterhead is not far from where Elisa of Scotland lives and I have been to Peterhead many times and seen the results of this policy.)
I could go on and on about this and those on the other side of the debate can also go on and on. But let me put it to you this way. The USA is a nation of states and there are clear dividing lines between what the states can do and what our federal government can do - even if some of those lines do get blurred but don't go there right now, stay with me, ok??! What if we now has an "American Union" that consisted of Canada, the USA, all the Central American countries: Mexico, Belize, etc. and all of South American countries. Now, imagine if there were non-elected officials in this union who enacted regulations that
- Everyone use some new coin as the currency and you get fined if you still use the old currency.
- There was a new system of measurements and you get fined if you don't use it
- You can't produce your widgets cause you make too many and that someone else where in the union could make them cause the AU says they don't make enough. And you get fined if continue to produce your widgets.
- Your region, which has a booming economy and is doing well financially, must raise taxes to generate more income for the AU to give to another region that is not doing as well economically because their local government give all their citizens 110% of their salary upon retirement and that region can't afford to do it anymore but they won't tighten their own belts. Oh, and your regional government gets fined if you don't do it.
- The AU also move from a northern region to a southern region just because the southern region would not join the AU unless the government moved there for half the year. And yes, your regional government pays for the expense of the offices to move, lock, stock and barrel and the non-elected officials maintain permanent residences in both places all year long.
- Every law, regulation, and policy is also printed (yes a hard copy) in 24 of the regions languages vs. using let's say SIX standard languages like the UN does? Note: it use to be THREE and now there are six which are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. This massive printing would then be stored in an archive - why not store it digitally?
Would you, as a citizen of the USA want this?
RSS Feed