Eleditor’s note: elephant journal articles represent the personal opinion, view or experience of the authors. As an independent media outlet, we cannot verify the validity of any claims made on this website.
Britain joined the European Union in 1973. Over 40 years later, a referendum, popularly known as Brexit, will determine whether the British public are to remain a part of, or become separate from the EU—effectively establishing itself as a sovereign nation.
On Thursday, June 23rd 2016, the voting public of British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 years old, who are residents of the UK (United Kingdom) will cast their decision to stay or go.
Reports now suggest that Sweden might follow Britain’s lead if they do indeed part ways with the EU.
What, may I ask is so eerily familiar about all of this and the choice these member states are seeking—to potentially gain their own sovereignty?
If Britain left the EU, they’d be the first member state to do so.
The referendum question will ask voters:
Should Britain remain a member of the European Union or leave it?
Those in favor of remaining, such as Prime Minister David Cameron (UK), would argue that staying will ensure that the EU’s influence and security would further strengthen ties amongst the EU and the Western world.
People against staying, or those in favor of exiting the EU would stress that over these past four decades, Britain’s influence and sovereignty has only diminished in correlation to the EU’s rising bureaucratic power and reach.
Major concerns are being raised, including immigration reform and a lack of confidence in elected officials along with a dissatisfaction in credibility of information that voters can faithfully rely on to cast their votes responsibly.
Refugees fleeing the Middle East are further propelling proponents of Brexit over concerns to seriously consider new immigration policies such as how freely immigrants can travel across the EU.
If this referendum passes and Britain leaves the European Union, reports suggest that PM David Cameron could lose his job, or be forced to resign shortly after.
As growing civil unrest relating to the financial elite’s lack of genuine leadership, concerning pressing Humanitarian efforts continues to lag, it’s no wonder that large businesses or multinational corporations might favor Britain remaining a part of the EU’s dominance and its associated stronghold.
Cameron has commented that if Britain left the Union, they’d not have the opportunity to “be in the room” while other countries make decisions about “us” (Britain). It appears as though once the decision is made, if in favor of leaving, that re-entrance [into the EU] or adoption of the Euro would not be an option. In other words, there’s no going back once tomorrow’s polls are tallied.
Member of Parliament, Michael Gove argues that if Britain remains a part of the EU, there’d be no more chances for any further reform but President of the EU, Jean-Claude Junker has stated otherwise.
Michael Gove: “There is a very clear choice in this referendum. Either you vote to keep on giving the EU more power and more of our money every year or join me in voting leave, to take back control.”
This is monumental in my opinion.
This could shatter western dominance over the rest of the developing world, especially in the financial districts, which the likes of Bernie Sanders has raised serious questions about, for example, about Wall Street.
Records indicate that the EU has already given its maximum (President of the European Union, Jean-Claude Junker) to Britain and that no more can be given, nor will there be any renegotiations following tomorrow’s decision—meaning, once Britain has pledged its independence from the European Union, it’s on its own to decide their own rule.
(Nearly half of PM David Cameron’s senior business advisors have not signed the pro-EU campaign letter, citing that “Britain would thrive if the country votes to leave the EU on Thursday.”)
Is this not what sovereignty means?
Are individual nations not capable of making their own decisions about governance, finance and economic prosperity—absent large-scale dominance of western finance or perpetually warring over resources?
I am for Brexit (exiting the EU).
The decision to leave may rock the western finance world severely, which could serve as a sobering wake-up call—a catalyst for beneficial change that the people, no matter which country or continent they may reside on, will no longer be hostage to elitism or globalization that favors warfare and destructive (profitable) means to perpetuate an economy that’s already to-scale. We are post-modern, industrialized already.
One revolution must end, so a new one can begin.
We could use an economic downturn—not a recession, but rather a slowing-down effect that focuses more on humanitarian efforts rather than resource domination or depletion.
There’s no clear plan of attack to thwart consumerism:
Consumerism is a model based around consumption, with no clear delineation regarding the conservation of resources or its long-term impacts, like what we’re witnessing today in relation to climate change.
If one member state leaves, I wonder how many more states would follow?
In my mind, there’s a good reason the people are choosing to abandon such bureaucratic ties to a European Union. An EU collapse could spell long-term economic stability, which does not necessarily equate to further economic growth.
An unrest like this could lead to further prosperity of the commonwealth in every nation—not just the fraction of a percent of those controlling western finance over the remaining world at-large.
The time to rival the western financial world is now—my vote is to planet, not profits. We could use an economic deceleration.
Author: Thayne Ulschmid
Editors: Sara Kärpänen; Katarina Tavčar