The Right to Say No

The right to say no.

This is a big issue with regard to gender respect for personal boundaries, but it is also a big issue with regard to international boundaries.

Every nation has the right to refuse admission to their country. The right to deny access is fundamental to being a sovereign nation. The decision to deny access rests with the government of that nation at that time. It does not rest with anyone else.

If a government does not have the absolute right to deny access to their country, then they no longer have nationality. They are no longer governing a defined self-governing state.

This is both the objective and is also the fundamental flaw in the European Union.

Whilst it was never part of the original proposition made to the British people when they first voted to join an economic free trade area, the undisclosed objective was to have no borders between member states. It is the imposition of a statute refusing member states the right to deny access that had the objective of doing away with separate countries within the EU and have one state. This is when the EU stopped being about free trade and became a political objective.

The flaw comes about because it is not actually all one state, it is an amalgam of various nations, each with its own language and custom's, pretending to be one state. If any one of these nations allows in any non-nationals, then the new entrant automatically has a rights to travel to any other of the member states of the EU. This was controllable when migration to EU states was in manageable numbers, but it was not sustainable once those numbers increased.

It is one of the reasons the British people voted to leave the EU. The various bureaucratic anomalies, such as migration from British commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada appeared to be restricted, but no restrictions seemed to be applied to those from other non European nations. This may not be a true appraisal of the situation, but to British taxpayers and voters, it appears that anyone illegally entering any EU member state has a right to come to Britain and benefit from our economy while a person from say Canada, who attempts to settle in France legally, is denied.

It is this no borders rule that is destroying the cohesion within the EU. It is not just the people of Britain, but in nearly all other members states, the indigenous people do not like the no borders applied to migrants from outside the EU. The politicians and their bureaucratic masters resist all the protests and disagreement from the voters. Maybe because they have no idea at all about how to control the situation. They use every tactic, from labelling all who oppose unlimited economic migration into all EU nations, as racists; to threats to punish any section of any state who tries to obey the will of their own indigenous people. Mostly they seem to be ignoring the situation in the hope it all goes away.

If the commissioners who run the EU were subject to direct election by the indigenous people, they would have been replaced several years ago. This fact alone shows how undemocratic the EU has become. It is unresponsive to the people it claims to govern.

It is an old but true statement that you can not govern the people for unlimited time without the will of those people.

If all the nations of Europe could act collectively to the benefit of all their subjects and nationals, it would be a wonderful thing, not only for all those people, but also as a way the future of the entire world could go. The present EU is a failure, because it does not act for the benefit of all the citizens and nationals who make up the nations. It is failing these people and refusing to even acknowledge that failure.

No resolution to any problem can be found when there is denial of the existence of a problem. To vast numbers of the indigenous people of Europe, the EU is seen to only benefit non-EU migrants, big businesses, and the bureaucracy which pays itself big salaries and huge pension with no responsibility for achieving anything the tax papers want done.

With the changes in climate that are inevitable, with the coming of fully automated production and administration, with global economic power being shifted, with international strengths shifting ever further away from the older nations of Europe, the future is bleak unless there are changes to the basic ways the EU is run and governed.

Direct elections of the commissioners, far greater power to the European parliament, a fundamental shift of power back to local groups and away from centralisation, a massive reduction in the number, the power and the cost of the bureaucracy; these will all help, but may be too little too late. Above all, the borders must be controlled so EU can deny access and restore the right of nations to say NO.