Despite the unsolicited commentary and thinly veiled threats from President Obama, the British governance from both sides of the aisle have always endeavored to keep open the financial freedom of the British Isles to depart from the European Union (EU) by retaining the Pound Sterling as their independent Coin of the Realm and merely recognized the Euros as legitimate for use within its boundaries giving it a right above that of any normative foreign currency. One cannot use the Dollar, or other foreign currency, without changing them for Euros or Pounds to pay for items in the United Kingdom (UK). Further, the British were late entries into the European exclusive club which itself had their doubts about allowing the British into the EU as the British were seen to have too close and almost personal relations with the United States (US), especially in trade relations as there existed independent of the EU a free trade agreement between the US and the UK. This agreement between the two Anglo nations was all part of the Anglophile and the relationships of its members. This was seen by the EU as an economic threat which by permitting the UK membership into the EU was tantamount to granting the US membership in the EU, something fought against by presumed friendly nations of France and Germany. Now, all of a sudden President Obama speaks of sending the British to the back of the line for receiving a trade agreement which they retained independent from the EU with the United States as a member of the Anglophile.
So why might President Obama issue such a veiled threat to London over their coming vote for independence from the EU and its potential harnessing of the UK economic health as a source for propping up the less productive members of the EU who are experiencing serious economic downturns which they are feigning an inability to reverse. This was a problem which was obvious in its eventuality of the less productive states of southern Europe would have difficulties if forced to use the Euros as their coinage as the value of the Euro was set often in conjunction of German industrial strength and not upon the lesser nations utilizing the Euro as their coinage of preference. The UK likely saw the inevitability of economic uproar and eventual disintegration of the EU and especially this exact division where the wealthier nations would demand a higher setting of the Euros’ value, a value not supported by the economic doldrums many EU member states are currently facing and the lack of monetary policy freedom these states faced. The weaker economies within the EU, such as Greece, Spain, Italy and many of the former East European nations, to sustain an economic growth equivalent to the strength and economic growth by the Euro due to the main productive nations such as Germany, Britain and France, with potentially former Warsaw Pact nations more recently added to the EU such as Poland, have economic growth which often does not equal the valuations of the Euro.
The British by retaining their Pound were free to establish an acceptable level for the value of the Euro compared to the pound upon which the UK established their financial policies. Had Greece, Italy, Spain and the other weaker economic nations retained their original coinage and simply permitted a relative limit to its adjustment against the Euros would have provided for some level of independence which over time would permit for the lowering the value of their independent national coinage which would provide a greater latitude for the value of each countries’ economic jumpstart policies thus permitting that level of economic independence they so desperately require in order to retain their financial independence. The current system originally set these national economic standards to mitigate the different economic indicators by making for allowances between the less industrial and less growth oriented nations and the engines driving the EU economy. The system used basically allowed for a limited form of welfare for the lesser productive nations which grew to the point where the less productive member states inability to match German growth in wealth driving their unemployment higher as they found themselves often incapable of matching the economic expectations of the EU through its presumed common economic policies dictated most often from German economic strength, or at the worst the French economic growth, neither of which were matched by the southern European states.
Much of the difference was a result of the completely disparate driver of economic indicators between the industrial EU states and their more agricultural nations whose prices were often dictated by the EU for their crops where a single bad year’s yield would decimate their economic indicators setting standards unfathomably high. Had these lesser nations retained their own separate but equally acceptable coinage their economic indicators would have also grown though not so much as had the Euro which was more attuned to the German economic strength. By retaining a modicum of economic independence their currencies would have reflected their slower growth rate and adjusted against the Euro thus setting the economic indicators somewhat independent of the Euro though retaining their strong bindings both to the EU and to its economic viability. Their newly found elasticity would allow for the continued strong relations which set the overall relationship between the independent nations as a whole when making deals with the rest of the world. This would extend the strength of German, French and British industrial economic indicators as a backing for any deals made with the outside world while permitting some level of independence for the individual nations allowing for the disparate economies to grow in relations to each other in a far healthier environment.
That economic story is not the reality which the British will be facing as they decide whether or not to remain as a member state subordinate to the economic policies and other arrangements designed to mitigate the different economic realities within the EU. The reality the British will be facing is the growing pressures from the EU for the UK to give up their independent currency and become a full-fledged Eurocentric economy and matching policies. This would free the UK from economic planning and the freedoms related to such planning having their own currency demanded. Instead, the British are facing the same economic trap which Germany is trapped within where their greater wealth and industrial productivity is being siphoned from German economic health in order to prop up nations who have had the audacity to implement as much freedom from their positions in the interim state of affairs. The German government has been touting this all-for-one-and-one-for-all mindset where all of the EU will sink or swim as a single entity, period, end of story. This has allowed the EU to literally steal German economic wealth and gift it as supposed loans guaranteed by the EU banking system and even used the German’s strong economy to guarantee International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans from international banks in ever increasing amounts just to simply allow the now debtor nations to continue to operate though be it at a far lesser economic growth or even health as has Germany. The British economy is equally healthy as is German economic status with one major difference, the UK is not being forced to uphold and pay the debts of these nations and especially so if the funders of the debt are EU banks including but not limited to the European Central Bank (ECB). This has allowed the UK to deal with much of the Irish secondary economic crash which has stalled the economies of the other UK states such as England, Scotland and others within the UK to have all the national economies to fall within the guidelines of the EU. On the other end of the economic scale there are the nations stalled in their production which may not be forthcoming as there may be a split in the EU which can only be the beginning of the end for the EU as other nations see their path to be more advantageous separated from the stifling policies of the Euro.
The controversies in the UK over separation from the EU are splitting even members of the current party leading the British governance with David Cameron as the Prime Minister favoring remaining as a member of the EU while London Mayor Boris Johnson favors leaving the EU which has led to a fight between the two to lead the Conservative Party in the near future. Much of this could be laid at the feet of Boris Johnson’s obvious attempts to lead the Party in the next elections seeking the Prime Minister position for himself. Some have pointed to London Mayor Boris Johnson being for remaining within the EU before he was for the UK-EU Brexit policy. Either way, does it matter as politicians often alter their positions to match the moment and this very well could be Boris Johnson’s eying riding this vote to the top position in all of British politics. Still, this is one controversy which will most likely be resolved before the United States Republican and Democrat presidential national conventions slated for later this summer as the British people will have voted on the referendum slated for June 23, 2016. Finally something which will be decided definitively, unlike the nominees for the American Presidency one of which apparently very likely will not be decided on the first vote in Cleveland. Brexit may or may not be adopted by the June 23, 2016 voting though that vote will be far from the last words and provocations thrown around between the top two politicians of the Conservative Party which will climax before the next election in the UK for Parliament.
If the people vote in favor of Brexit expect for David Cameron to press for the Parliament to overrule the people and lay the groundwork for their remaining and potentially doubling down and at long last resigning their Pound Sterling for their full emersion into the Euro financial disaster now gripping the European continent. This is a test of British complacency or unique and visceral independence from the Continent once and for all having the citizens of the UK loudly proclaiming their independency from the European Continent’s overriding controls. Having ties to the British Isles through my father’s side of the family, he was born and raised in a suburb of London and proudly plied his trade as an English Custom Tailor and Designer in Washington DC where he had many high profile customers from both sides of the political isle in America; my feelings are for the British to remain the British and not just become more European Continentalists. It is my opinion, which agrees with others who observed similar stands, that the Pound Sterling and not forsaking their noble currency has been instrumental in retaining the health and vibrancy of the UK economy as a whole despite certain downturns which if handled by the EU would have dragged the rest of the UK down an economic black hole from which return would have proved miraculously difficult. It is not too difficult to see the difference between the British handling their own internal difficulties between the separate states with the EU handling of such difficult economic challenges as posed to the EU by Greece. The EU has demanded, stolen and misappropriated untold millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of Euros generated within Germany and gifted them to Greece with a loose understanding that the debt be repaid promptly by Greece even to the point of using German wealth and health of economy to undersign loans from the ECB, IMF and even American banking institutions who have invested entire retirement accounts on Greek bailouts just to have these investments barely break even as these banks have already reached the point where trading with Europe may require payment before rather than after any deal signing just for safe keeping of any promise of payment.
The other item of equal importance the future of Europe may be riding on with the Brexit vote is the influx of tens and hundreds of millions of Islamic refugees and a tap left open for too long and now cones the payment for such a deal of trust and opportunity. The concept was that the Islamic refugees and other Islamic immigrants would make up for the lower than required population growth figures. What have happened thus far have been the swelling of the welfare rolls as many Islamic immigrants prefer to collect welfare and remaining unassimilated and demanding that their new homes change their rules and the very fabric of their societies to match the nations they fled. This is preferable to them as they view Europe as their latest conquest and expect the Europeans t work and assume the rolls of Dhimmi supporting their Muslim betters in the lifestyle they wish to become accustomed to. This will not end well for either party as there will be a growing resentment and eventual revolt against these immigrants who are gaming the system and demanding that Islam replace both the remaining Christian and new ranks of the secular societies which the European touted as being so advanced that they could be accepting of all and respect their new arrivals. Respect has to be a two way street or one side will eventually revolt and there begins the problem.
Once European workers realize that their new countrymen are using them as their ticket out of the horrors and squalor of their former homelands and are assuming the role of exalted ones who need not produce but are to be treated to lives free from work or any obligation to the society beyond complete rejection of the underpinnings and instead demanding to have their religious demands and rulings become the bedrock of the new reality where the European slaves toil to support their Islamic betters. Should the British not approve the Brexit proposition then the EU will remain intact and more and more policy and powers will gravitate to Brussels and come under the mastery and control by the unelected EU leaders and even more so its bureaucracy which recently sought an agreement which would permit free entrance for any Turkish citizen. This would lead to a problem as Turkey would then only need to grant citizenship identification cards and paperwork to any and all Arab and Islamic refugees, both due to war or economic, and then pass these refugees unfiltered and without any background checks or terror watches observed eventually crashing the European economies due to their being overrun by unable to be assimilated refugees who would swell the populations of the Muslim communities until something would give, or worse, snap. Already there have been numerous rightist nationalist rallies held unofficially, often without permits and always under the radar as these groups would rather remain anonymous, where the main line of agreement was that something need be done to end this unrestricted inflow of refugees. These groups do not see these refugees as potential additions to the workforce but as foreign invaders in Europe to completely subjugate their societies and destroy secular Europe. These are socialists but not international socialists who believe in the unity of mankind but of the all too familiar fiercely Eurocentric vision socialists. They view the recent refugees flooding into Europe as an invasive disease; an influx of parasitic beasts which must be destroyed before they consume all that these right wing nationalists believe is holy and righteous about Europe. In some ways these are the people who if they had had children instead of living self-serving lives where they lived for the moment and the future be damned the problem of insufficient workforce to generate an economically vibrant functioning society would never have arisen. It was to some extent the old Europe’s own fault that their civilization now lies on the verge of extinction and it may actually be too late to salvage even a remnant of their past. Should Brexit vote succeed then there may be movements throughout Europe starting with France or Germany after which it will be a rush for the exits as the economic heart of the EU will have left the body making it everyone for themselves. This will inevitably lead to a renewed sense of nationalism which will have both a good side and an unavoidable bad side. The good side is there may be birthed a new hope for a future worth having children to enjoy and assure that future and the bad side is the refugees may be sent packing back to their former homelands unless they show signs of cooperating in the building of an assimilated society where everyone is respected and all beliefs or lack thereof are treated equally and respected with no one belief being more equal than others. This will require some adjustments on all sides but through such a situation there may be birthed a new universalism, just one where national pride is valued as a driving force for good and cooperation. The really bad side would be a violent conflict between the two civilizations now occupying the continent which would lead to a bloodbath of unequalled proportions as such a conflict could and likely would lead to yet another generational war, this one being World War III, the war that proves there is no upper limit to carnage. Let’s hope it does not end with such a conflict as the killing weapons of today are beyond imagination compared to just a century ago or even half a century. Mankind cannot afford to go there but also they might not be capable of avoiding such, how sorry.
Beyond the Cusp