The Case For Withdrawal: Seven Economic Myths

Barroso and Van Rompuy

Our EU leaders are committed to ‘jobs and growth,’ they say. This comes as a suprising choice of words, knowing that the bulk of the EU government’s achievements, be them industry, environmental and labour market regulations, agricultural and fishing policies, subsidies and aid, and proposals for tax harmonisation, each serve to reduce competitiveness and entrepreneurship, and  stifle jobs and growth.

But they are not unintelligent people; just disillusioned. They have a genuine belief that political union between European nations will bring us prosperity, and have far too much invested in the project to see otherwise.

Here in the UK, there are also those that share this belief in progressivism, that the future will shun small unattached nations, and that by leaving the EU we would be economically disadvantaged. This post attempts to explain briefly why we should leave the EU, purely in economic terms, by dispelling some commonly held myths.

Localism 4: The End Of The United Kingdom?

Now that the question of Scottish independence has reared its head, it seems apt to once again make the case for the dispersal of power.

As per usual this blog supports referendums, particularly on constitutional issues and the devolution of decision making. This post builds on the a series of previous posts about the concept of localism, that power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level, so that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.

A greater degree of autonomy, and a more direct link between both citizens and their representatives and between taxation and expenditure, will revitalise Scottish democracy and give local people a greater sense of control and responsibility over their lives. If the Scottish people feel that their way of life differs significantly enough from the rest of the UK and that they would be freer as an independent state, they should go for it.

High Treason

A total of five national parliaments have recently been shaken up as a result of the ongoing crisis in the European Union. Most legislation from the EU is voted on in Brussels and presented directly to governments for implemention, thereby bypassing national parliaments. On numerous occasions however, and increasingly so during this period of crisis, the interests of national governments can conflict with the core EU agenda. When the stakes are high and measures must be executed swiftly and decisively, this creates a problem. 

The Emperor Of Europe And The Future Of Nations

The sovereign countries that exist today have not been around forever. In fact only very recently in the history of mankind, have we finally come to embrace the concept of the nation state; where political rule coincides geographically with ethnic or cultural identity. Before the nationalist uprisings of the 19th century, multi-ethnic Empires, and Kingdoms, were the norm on the continent of Europe. We have come a long way, and waged many wars, to achieve this common belief in nationhood, where people live in countries, side by side with other countries, and people chose to live with their own people and be ruled by their own people, whatever their definition of ‘their people’ may be. In some parts of the world, the struggle is not over, and it is quite possible that there are new countries still to emerge in the future. However, even when some peoples are still fighting for the basic freedoms that many of us have enjoyed our whole lives, there are some that think that it is time for change. These people believe that now we have achieved nationhood and cooperation, the way forward, or the next step from here, is to join our nations together again, but this time in a way where everyone is equal instead of one country ruling over many others. They may be right. But are we ready for this? - to expand our definition of ‘we,’ and alter our perception of who we call ‘our people?’