Brexit: World will not collapse if UK leaves EUMegan Kelly ▼ | June 19, 2016
On June 23, the citizens of the United Kingdom will made one of the biggest decisions they've ever made, but the picture is far from being so disastrous as some would like to paint it.
Leave or Remain Unbiased look at June 23 referendum
The EU is not just about economy, it is about politics.
In the EU, things are not so simple. The European Parliament is the only directly-elected EU body. Then, there are the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, and the European Council. Since the EU tries to balance the general interest of the EU with interests of member states, the decision making process differs depending on the subject.
Add to that the fact that the subject may be as serious as a decision to go to war, but also as bureaucratic as curvature of bananas, things can get very complicated and voters' will can easily be lost in Brussels' corridors.
To add even more complications to that, the EU is not just about economy and working together, it is about politicians who want all countries united under one flag. "Tighter integration" and "common banking system" are not some altruistic wishes; they are preparing all member states to gradually let the "Central State" take over all their executive decisions.
And that is a very dangerous situation because such experiments never worked. Two well-known examples are the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Both being formed on a loose idea, compromising radically different cultures, they both collapsed. No matter how good the underlying idea is, you can't force somebody to live with you and that's that fact.
The moment The Big Leader is gone, the whole concept is dead, and the experiment is over: you have a group of countries try to figure out what to do next. That brought some seriously bad times in the short run, but in the long run it all depends on the countries themselves: if their citizens elect good leadership, they will prosper. If not, there will be problems, just like things work in life anyway.
When the USSR collapsed, Russia was in economic problems, but as we can see, things are getting for the better, are nobody can say the breakdown of the USSR created a bunch of countries where people suffer. Every country is seeking for its own way and is more or less successful member of the global community.
So, who wants "one state"? The answer may be just one: politicians in Brussels who are sitting in their offices, being paid for doing purely bureaucratic work. We should recall that there was an economic union in Europe before the EU and it was a good idea and it worked well.
Countries were working together, trade barriers were being lowered and that was good. After the World War II, Europe gradually became an economically and politically very strong continent..
The same stand true for the UK. There were falls here and there, and that's normal, there was a global economic crisis - which nobody predicted! - and recovery again. So, things were working well. There are ups and downs along the way, but that's life, nothing is milk and honey all the time.
Instead of improving economic relations even further, politics stepped in with the idea of unified Europe and made things very complicated. Germany wants to spread its political influence but there you have France - a very strong country that protects its interest on many fields, from the language to GMO food - and Germany needs the UK as a political ally. And that leads us to a situation that dangerously threats democracy.
You know how it goes: there are shadow ministers, speaking what they would do differently if they come to power. If they are elected, citizens know exactly who is responsible for what. An elected official may be good, may be bad, but you know who is responsible. Now, think a bit and try to name the person responsible for, say, agriculture in the EU. If you are not working in Brussels, you'll have hard time.
Yet, those "no-name" persons have very visible influence on lives of all EU citizens. From traveling rules to banking to fishing - they are there to make decisions what should be done and what not. Since they are protecting the interests of the EU, their decision may not be the best for a particular country.
How far you should sail out to find a fish? Who knows better: a local fishery minister or some bureaucrat in Brussels? We think that answer is clear and that's just one example.
Imagine, for example, a creation of the "U.S. Superstate". Imagine that the federal government says "OK, from now on, laws in all U.S. states are not valid, there are no local laws - every rule will come directly from Washington, D.C." What do you think, what would happen?
There are just two scenarios: in first, everybody would laugh and say "You must be kidding me," and the other is establishing a central ruling by force - and that would lead to a total chaos, conflicts, and disintegration of the U.S.
Now, what would happen if the UK leaves the EU? There is just one answer: The UK would create its own rules and economic relations with other countries. Nobody can say it would be bad or it would be good, because nobody really knows.
All economic models are just that, models, educated guesses, and what's even more important, they fail to predict big shifts on a global level. They are trying to predict the future from the past but that works only when things are going smoothly in one direction - every big change breaks economic models just like that.
So, just an example, will the UK households lose 4-something thousand pounds a year if the UK leaves the EU? The answer is: it depends on the UK leadership.
If the government makes good economic agreement with other countries and come up with good laws for their citizens, the UK will prosper. If the government fails, the country will fail. It's as simple as that. The EU is not a big fatherly figure that makes you live safe and well, and without which the UK will collapse just like that.
We should have in mind that the EU is just one union. There are other economic unions in the world, they are cooperating, they are working together, and the UK can negotiate its future relations with them directly instead of going to Brussels to ask - or to fight about - banana quotas. Or the number of cars imported, or computers exported.
In the case of Brexit, the UK may continue to work with The European Free Trade Association and with any other association and country it wants. All countries are connected in today’s global world, and fear that The Island would be an isolated island and that nobody would like to work with the EU - is simply not true. London was a financial center of the world before the EU and it may stay that after the EU.
And pressures from other countries should be rejected because UK citizens should focus on themselves, what they think it’s best for their future - just as all other countries focus on what’s best for them. The UK is voting for its own future, not for someone else’s.
So, the people of the UK are not choosing between "Stay" and "Total disaster," they are choosing between politically dependent and politically-independent country. If they fear to go alone, they will choose to stay within the EU, and if they think they can do better, they will choose open sea.
The question everybody should answer for themselves is "Do I believe I'm capable enough to live on my own?" If the answer is "yes," Brexit will happen. If the answer is "no," they will stay in parents' nest. ■