Originally this was going to be a patriotic blood and guts rebuttal of the EU's temerity in even proposing this; however, the Military Historian in me, after a week of lots of work and lots of set backs on a professional level, still managed to triumph, so that instead of a Churchillian Fire and Brimstone preaching no surrender to unelected European bureaucrats and technocrats, I have chosen to use my knowledge, use my academic skills, use my ability to analyse evidence to produce an argument which makes sense, an argument which builds on logic not just emotion, an argument which is worthy of the debate it enjoins.
Well it seems fair to start off with by saying that my objections to the European Union are not just it is Europe; frankly that kind of thinking just seems wrong to me, I object to the Europe Union on the grounds I am about to outlay below:
- The people of the United Kingdom’s of Great Britain are being drawn into a Federalised super state without ever getting a vote on it; I believe that in the case of a nation which claims to be the longest running continuous democracy in the world its citizens should get to vote on whether or not they sacrifice their nations sovereignty to a super state.
- I object to the European Union because it has not been declared a federalised state; but is instead being built by stealth through a combination of smoke and mirror politics, and, unfortunately journalism as well as academia. This is wrong, the people of all the nations of Europe need to be allowed to make an informed decision, and whilst they do not have all the information delivered to them on a factual basis how can they do this? It seems just wrong in my humble opinion that when 70% of a nations laws are either made or highly influenced by a still amorphic state which has no clear or direct link to those whom its laws pass.
- The European Union still has no proper checks and balances; if you are going to build a federal system, you need a Supreme Court, you need a Popularly elected leader, you need a clearly defined division of power between states and nation; you need a leadership which is not elected just by casting a vote as in a PR system (as the current is), but also another house which is elected by a First Past the Post system to give the voters a direct link to their leadership - to know who they are voting for, to be able to question and examine these people by their individual qualities not just by their party allegiance.
So here is the argument; therefore how can, before all the above is settled and agreed upon, Britain and France, and all the other nations in Europe unilaterally give up all their overseas territory and bases to the European Union
...and why do they need to?
What does affect my judgement on the European Union is my belief that before anything is done a vote should be taken on the state of membership within the union (a vote in which more than 80% of the population should be in agreement, it cannot be a 50%+1 vote, it has to be an overwhelming majority in order to give it legitimacy); then a proper constitution should be written with checks and balances as well as enough contact with the electorate that the electorate is connected to it; this constitution should then be voted on by the people of Europe (under similar circumstances to those mentioned above).
Finally I would also like to add that such a constitution, in my humble opinion, would also make the Queen of the United Kingdom’s of Great Britain & the Commonwealth, Queen of European Union and the Commonwealth - if it does not have that proviso then no matter how balanced it is, it will never get my vote.