The Swamp is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
Why the European Union should be broken up.
The existing EU organisation is a failure, if viewed only from the perspective of the majority of indigenous people. It is a success to those who are, or have been, employed by it, those making money from the various reported frauds, which extract money from it and it is a success, to those politicians who have gained power from it.
The original concept, which was mooted around the 1950s, was that of mutual cooperation and tariff free trading between all the nations of Europe. The sheer horror and waste of the second world war was still vivid in everyone's mind. Britain and Germany were both in financial melt down, because of the war; populations had been reduced, especially male younger men, by the conflict. The idea of peacefully working together was, and still is, so very desirable.
The problems we have today came about because the organisation of the “mechanics” of how to achieve this mutual interest, was left to bureaucrats. The politicians made lofty speeches about intentions, then left the details to people who deal in growing their own power bases. A vast and very expensive administration has grown up and this entity knows that in order to expand and perpetuate itself, and its bureaucratic power, it needs firm control of the activities of all the people. Formulating regulations for every conceivable facet of life and trade, accomplishes both the need to expand the bureaucracy, and its power over everyone else.
The socialists have realised they can never honestly win the popular support of the majority of Europeans, unless they impoverish these people, and so make socialism seem desirable, but they could achieve socialist control of the population by creating ever more detailed regulation. Simple free trade between nations and mutual defense treaties could have been achieved by all the national governments, without any need for a separate pan Europe administration.
Claiming that trade between states would be enabled by creating a common currency was simply a way of forcing control, by the administration, on the separate nations ability to govern their own people. Claiming that free movement of people between nations was going to help all the nations employment and coexistence was another confidence trick. Remove any countries right to control its own borders, and its own finances, and you have effectively disenfranchised all the people in that country. Disguising all this with the charade of the European Parliament was simple. Each nation elects members to this incredibly expensive, but powerless organisation, and so creates a pretense that the whole structure is democratic. During the early stages, the various governments could meet and formulate policy, but these meetings soon became submerged in the bureaucratic swamp of procedures and endless committees.
Allowing unrestricted economic migration into the EU brought vast problems to the indigenous people of every nation. Forcing one set of economic strictures onto areas with differing economic needs creates hardship. The social experimentation of multiculturalism is an example of attempts by a small group with socialist ideals, onto every other person in the whole of Europe. If the separate nations had asked for a popular vote on this issue before it was imposed, it would never have been done and those who created it knew that, only by having an “ever closer union,” controlled by a labyrinth of inaccessible administrative departments, could they impose such experiments on people without their agreement. With the growth of artificial intelligence and automation, and the ever increasing dominance of global commerce, these problems will get worse. Unemployment will rise, economic success will become more limited, the nations trapped into the Euro zone economic management will be the worst affected, but all will be damaged.
So why does it continue, and why does it appear to be supported by political groups?
From what information I read, it seems the British parliamentary opposition to leaving the EU (and so opposition to the referendum result) is made up of those Labour members who wish to see socialism imposed on British people, and Tory members who are deluding themselves (possibly through their own ego-led self belief) that if we stay in it, we can change it, and Liberals who believe, against all evidence, that European unity stops wars. There is also a possibility of “payroll” vote since a surprising number of politicians get some form of financial support from the EU.
The Socialists who support the EU do so because they know they will never win an election in Britain if they publish an honest manifesto, and so they want rule by EU as way of imposing socialism on Britain without a public vote. The Tory supporters are so high on self belief that they think if we stay in the EU they can persuade the rest of Europe to become British, and the Liberals choose to ignore all the conflicts and warfare in the world, and choose to ignore the formation of an EU army, and expect the EU to bring peace, love, and harmony to the whole world, and they are willing to subjugate the British people to that belief.
We seem to be in the classic position that if in a hole that you can not escape from, keep digging.
Europe will not survive unless it draws a line under this whole experiment, and goes back to being independent nations who have mutually beneficial trade and defense treaties. Each nation controls its own economy, and its own borders, but has agreements with all other European nations not to put custom tariffs on goods or service, and never to indulge in armed conflict between each other. Keep it simple.