Brexit: Save the Marriage or get a Divorce?


Should Britain leave the Union?

We all know that in recent years a certain degeneration has become evident in the West. We can see that there is some very serious corruption in a number of areas. In general it is this corruption that is leading many to question whether they want to be part of any large unions. It has led Britain to question whether it wants to be part of the European Union, and a number of Americans to question whether they want to be members of the American Union.

For more than seventy years Europe has enjoyed a good deal of growth and freedom under the wing of the United States. After the war it was clear for all European nations that they had one of two “lovers” to join. Either join Stalin and his brand of “loving” or join the United States, a somewhat gentler, kinder, more generous “partner”. Even before the war ended it was clear that most western european nations would choose the latter and so they did.

The love affair lasted awhile, and a family of sorts was born, even a few “Children” produced.

However, as with all marriages, eventually things hit a rough patch. Partners tend to stray. In the end there is some loss of integrity and trust, and loyalty on both sides suffers. This is especially true when household finances get tighter due to less than responsible expenditures.

In general this is the situation now. There is some real corruption, and the question for many is how to deal with this degeneration?

As when one nation conquers another, and an “alternative” is offered to the population of the conquered nation, half the people will choose to fight to the death, the other half take a chance on getting in on the new party and possibly dance the night away till a new sun has risen.

So it is with the corruption we see today. Half the population will want to fight it, hoping to defeat it for something better. The other half will choose to live with it, hopefully get something out of it for as long as the party lasts. But this is not what we will consider here. The Mass Media is much better suited to give an overview of the risks and/or rewards of either joining or fighting the new corruption within the European-American affair, or what prospects there might be for other “love affairs” after Britain’s marriage to the EU-AU has ended.

Rather we should take a look at some higher principles that might be affected should England choose to stay, or go from the Union.

Why Leave?

There’s a vote coming up on June 23rd for whether the British Union should remain a part of the European Union. The British people will be asked to choose between remaining a part of the Euro area, with all its requirements, or separate, and therefore go their own way. The question and its answer will most likely have Titanic ramifications all across the globe.

A few notes should be carefully considered.

It is true that smaller autonomous states are more efficient than large Unions. Large unions must undertake many more processes that extend to all the sub components in order to maintain the order of the whole, and mostly in the interest of the whole. For this reason there is added complexity in managing a Union of smaller states than there is to manage a single state, or separate single states as simple autonomous, self-interested states. A Union of states will always mean less self-determination for the individual states.

This is pretty much the basis of the elder Federalism as we have seen it in the United States. The argument is that states have more freedom in building their own internal relations; and these almost always have to do with societal ties, and organically developed familial ties which government should not be free to interfere with. It is argued that government has rarely been able to improve the state of a family unit, and allowing a large union government to interfere in the internal “familial” order of a particular state always leads to inefficiency, and often to injustice.

For the most part this is still true. Smaller states can achieve greater specialization, and more complex efficient function in their limited spheres than they can if they must extend these functions to suit a large union. There is little to argue here.

England therefore would be free to pursue wholeheartedly its own interests, what would make it’s own state better should it choose to leave the European Union.

Minimizing the propagation of chaos and corruption

More importantly perhaps small states can also minimize the propagation of error the more autonomous they remain. As in any very complex system, component management and isolaton allows for random errors to be contained within the component that first showed the corruption. This is the corner stone of efficient technology. For example we have seen remarkable safety improvement in air travel, a very complex highly technological industry, and yet with very few accidents considering how many planes take to the sky each day. In large part this has been accomplished through the reduction of error propagation by making certain that errors are contained within the original component in which they first appeared. Preventing a singe components malfunction from destabilizing the entire aircraft is key to maintaining flight therefore each unit is as self contained as possible.

That is to say in practical terms, that individual autonomous states acting together in a non-binding manner can contain any corruption in a single state from spreading to other states. For example when Greece was having its difficulty paying back its loans there was talk of contagion, or therefore that the corruption default would be passed to neigboring states in similar difficulty. In a Union bound together through all kinds of legal regulation and interdependence this is far more likely than in a collection of states not bound together under law and regulation.

Therefore the smaller the individual states the less likely for corruption to spread throughout the system since its contained in that smaller space. Assuming of course that productive non-binding co-operation is at all possible among separate smaller states. That is to say if the European nations could live in a productive peace, alone, as separate entities, then corruption from one state might be less likely to spread to all. Whereas in a Union, as in a room where there is one sick person among a hundred, any corruption or disease in one member can easily spread to others.

We might also see some hints of this tendency in cellular biology where we note that whether an animal is large, as for example a killer whale, or small as for example a mouse we see that cell size is usually comparable and realtively small. The more likely reason is that error due to complexity is contained better in nature if components or cells remain small in scope, and with particular specialized functions and a certain amount of redundantcy. The overriding purpose in a biological organism seems to be to obtain maximum funtionality with minimum error propagation throughout the system. If a cell goes bad(gets sick in other words) it is isolated and simply replaced by a reduntant copy and in the process and not allowed to destabilize the whole. But of course in biology a cell is still quite dependent on the rest of the organism.

This same truth applies to governmental states as well. If a given crisis affects one particular state, it should not be allowed to propagate throughout the whole Union. For example if a state like Texas should experience the rise of criminal gangs, these should not be allowed to cross over into Oklahoma and thus propagate the disorder and making it ever harder for the authorities to deal with the problem. But in Europe at this time, this seems to be a recurring theme, and for many nations it has become a reason to exit the Union in order to avoid becoming “sick” as they see it.

We can see this problem manifest in England with the immigration crisis gripping the European continent. The British people feel that Europe’s open border policy has allowed the refugee, migrant worker crisis to seep into the British state itself and thus begin to destabilize the nation. For this reason many feel that it is now time to end the Union with Europe, as some in Scotland felt they needed to end their own ties to Britain itself-in their case because of what they percieved to be excessive taxation, and excessive external regulation.

So what we’re saying is that there’s an argument to be made for having smaller separate independent states in Europe as opposed to a large connected Union. This from a global perspective. But also from the view of the British people themselves any corruption that occurs in the rest of the European Union in this way would not immediately spread to Britain, would not make Britain “sick” with another nation’s disease. Therefore the difficulties that the Greeks have with with the Syrian refugee problem would not automatically propagate to Britain if European states were separate and relatively autonomous.

Yet we still have to consider all this in terms of Europe as a whole since no matter what Britain chooses she will still be strongly related to the rest of the European continent. Its not really possible for her to remove herself from the rest of the continent, though she often seems to have desired that most in the past. So we really cant completely separate England from the rest of the continent and that has to be part of the overall consideration. No matter what the British people choose, they will still in many ways have strong relations with the European nations, either as a Union, or as separate national entities. So there is no real way to completely avoid the risk of “contagion” from Britain’s neighbors.

So the British people must consider also which would they preffer, to have relations with Europe as a Union, or possibly as an assortment of separtate states, for it seems more likely that if the British exit the Union of Europe, it will most likely break up into separate national entitities.

Would the British people prefer to see a break up of the European Union? They must consider whether they want to risk breaking up the Union with their actions, and if they did, would that really be in the British people’s interest?

Why Stay?

But can we say for certain that the European Union would come apart with a British exit?

No. Its possible the rest of the EU might still survive. But to vote one way or other an honest consideration of that possibility must be contemplated. The question therefore must be asked: if a British vote to exit the EU were to materialize, what would be the consequence on the British people? What self-interest, what responsibility? What obligations?

When a union comes apart it begins to set the potential for rapid and violent degeneration. In any Union there is a certain amount of stored energy, in human terms we may call it predictability or trust, or reliability. There are all kinds of systems built up within the present European Union that people, and governments depend on daily for a multitude of functions. If these systems become unreliable or unstable there will be a tendency for global propagation of instability. Thus not only is the former union itself subject to possible destabilization, but the entire world that has hithero relied on the integral functions of that Union to be valid and reliable.

For example the rest of the world depends on the European Currency to be valid. And although the British still have the Pound, this currency too is integrally bound to the Euro through trade and various other daily transactions. Should the world all of a sudden not have this validity or reliability in these two currencies, it will have a deleterious effect on the economy of the world. The world will have to adjust to a much more volatile situation and unfortunately adjustments cost money, time, and effort and will always lead to immediate inefficiency even if the system can recover as time passes. Therefore even if the system can recover, the immediate consequence of an EU degeneration would probably be global economic instability. This instability would propagate through each economic state and would most likely cause severe degeneration in the world’s economy and political order. We should note with this that the general economic prognosis for the world is not good right now. In the event of a British exit from the EU we could see tremendous economic upheavals because of the present weakness of the Global economy. Would the British people want that responsibility?

When there was talk of chucking Greece from the Unoin there were those who argued that if a state is inefficient, or “sick”(in the sense that it does not fit with the rest of the organism) it should be chucked from the rest of the Union and this would make the Union more efficient, “healthier”. However, this is not probably true in most instances. When a state is ejected from a Union it becomes a potential for continued destabilization of the remaining Union.

For example if Greece or Iceland, or some other nation be ejected from the Union, or if England should exit the Union of its own accord it will create a foothold for those powers and interests who might see a profit in destabilizing the rest of the Union. Just as if a cell is excluded from the rest of the organism it becomes prone to infection and corruption that may ultimately afflict the main organism so too would likely be the effect of ejecting a particular state from the Union.

Other major powers, such as the U.S., Russia, or China may see fit to use England’s isolation to further their own control of a now weakened European union, and a now isolated English nation. But this would not likely bode well for the mass of British people in that it would in the long run imply a definite corruption of individual liberty and self determination. True, England would fend for herself, but in a world of wild Bears, deadly Dragons, and fearsome Eagles. Would the British people really feel more comfortable if they had to face the wild world all alone? And how much sacrifice from each individual Briton would this take? There is some insulation in a Union, some protection that otherwise would not be there.

Moreover the temptation to manipulate a degenerating Europian Union would probably lead to a further degeneration of the aforementioned Super-Powers themselves. In almost all cases its temptation that leads to eventual disorganization. The Super Powers would all be tempted to take a stance, and as usually happens this would eventually lead to their own internal corruption. Would the British people really want any of that?

For this reason the British people should consider carefully whether they want to risk this kind of global destabilization. Its a real burden of conscience.

There must be a balance

Yet, as we started out to say, a people need their autonomy. A people need their freedom, and have a right to self determination. The EU should not dictate peremptorially to its seperate states. The EU needs to make certain that the vitality of each nation is maintained and not permanentaly altered. In the case of Greece it was altered through absurd amounts of credit, which the Greek people could not repay and may not in the end have been truly responsible for. In the Case of England there is a notion that the British people are asked to play whatever game Brussels comes up with on a whim. In both cases the ordinary people of these two nations feel their own will and right to self determination is being compromised.

Borders of some kind are always going to be necessary if nations are to survive. The exact nature of those borders in Europe, or for that matter in any Democratic Union can be postulated and actualized as needed, and as are efficient to the stability and sustainabity of the organism. For example in Europe, perhaps some system of automated registration could be used to determine who can and who cannot cross a particular border, or what activities or services that person is entitled to once they enter. Yes this would have some drawbacks, and some cost, but these costs would beat the destructive effects of dissolution in any case. Still the Union needs to understand that the family unit and character of nations must be preserved or there is little doubt that a crisis will sooner or later result again that may lead to dissolution of the Union.

Unfortunately Europe has seen too much degeneration of its native cultures and customs, and this is always extremely dangerous. We should not forget that contrary to what we are often told of Hitler, it was in fact his hatred of immigration and his imagined “corruption” of his own culture that started him on his highly destructive path. Yet today we are seeing this same seed being planted freely in most all of the world’s democracies, and will almost certainly have comparable effects no matter how “open minded” the idealists would like us all to remain.

The problem in Europe is the same as in the United States and it is that of illegal immigration. Without borders a nation cannot exist. This is not something too difficult to understand, it isnt “rocket science”. Having the EU simply say it has lost control of its borders and therefore each nation in Europe must lose control of its own borders is not an answer. Yet in effect this is what Brussels is saying to each of these nations. That answer will not suffice for long.

The purpose of having a European Union, or any union for that matter is to facilitate the growth of each nation or state, it is to assimilate that nation’s vitality into the whole for the betterment of each nation individually. A Union is not for the purpose of eating each member states as if eating a candy bar. The purpose is not to break down the nation to its most elemental parts only to consume it as we would digest a piece of candy, or a burrito. The purpose of a Union is to enhance the integral beauty and efficiency of its member states while giving them as much autonomy and liberty as is possible.

This same maxim needs to be kept in mind when dealing with global society. The right of self determination and betterment should be utmost in the mind of any union seeking relations with any particular state. The idea is not to overtake and devour a given state but to enhance it, to allow its internal beauty and integral function to reach a pinnacle of value, and to integrate that specific functionality into the whole so that it might enhance the function of other states in the Union as well.

What we see instead are the two most prominent Unions of our world today, the U.S. and EU seemingly intent on devouring all states that they come into contact with. And unregulated Immigration facilitates this process today as it did in colonial times. The Turkish empire once got the bright idea that if children of vassal states are captured young, and brought up as executives of the Turkish empire they could then be repatriated into the vassal states as “authentic” representatives of the Empire. A bright idea perhaps, but not too kind or in the end effective. Yet this process of infiltrating and devouring is what we seem to be witnessing in both great Democratic Unions.

In order for the Union to be successful and beneficial to the British people it must make some serious changes in foreign and domestic policy. There must be a consideration of whether or not the European Union is capable of adapting to a new requirement in order to remain viable. Can the EU adapt? That’s a very real part of the consideration for Britain(or any other member population) as to whether to remain in the Union or leave. Can the EU really accomodate self-determination of national entities effectively? Can the EU even ask the member populations what their conscience dictates in regard to the actions of the Union as a whole?

At present the EU cannot efficiently get the will of individual Europeans to affect general policy. It requires representatives from the various states to vote unanimously in order to agree to any sort of common regulation. But in reality it should be asking the European people directly. Therefore some form of union wide referendum procedure should be considered. The European people should be able to vote on certain issues. Sure there will be some imperfections in this process, and on occaision some unbalanced burdens will fall on particular populations. But if the EU intends to be a real Union, then it should get along and do so. A state of limbo where the individual citizens of the Union have no direct say in the regulation of the Union is not likely to be viewed as being a viable state of Union. If you want to uphold democratic values, as the EU purports to do, then ask the people directly, and develop some efficient means of doing so. If a people are asked to vote their conscience then they have more reason to believe they are indeed vital, legitimate members of the Union-as long as that vote is not in some way usurped, manipulated, or negated.

The EU has never actually asked the individual citizens of Europe how they really feel about migration policies and for this reason is facing the possible disintegration of the Union. Angela Merkel’s own views do not in any way represent the views of the rest of Europe. She was never elected as their leader for example. She cannot, again only as an example, choose what is best for the rest of Europe since she is not a representative of the European people. The point is that being the leader of a powerful, and wealthy European nation does not necessarily mean that you can make policy for all Europe. And this is part of the problem. The EU needs to find a way of tapping into the will of the European people if it is ever to be a real Union.

In the End if the British people were to leave it would be in part because they feel they have no say in the affairs of the Union which daily affect them regardless of their wishes.

The question then is will this ever change? Can the Union change its ways? Can it integrate within it the will of the British people?

Unregulated immigration is the key destabilizing issue in both the U.S. and the E.U. Yet the European people have not been asked directly what their opinions or wishes are regarding this matter. Yet they continously find themselves and their culture victims of such policy. This is almost certainly the chief cause of the distress.

Should the British exit the Union it will almost certainly begin a cascade that will unravel the EU very quickly. Moreover this disorder will almost certainly spread throughout the entire world. It is easy to see as some others have pointed out that the first state to seek exit from its own ties will probably be Scotland. All nations in Europe are now considering national referendums on their membership in the EU. The immigration problem is an existential threat not only to the EU and to its member nations, but in reality to the entire world, for the disintigration of the EU is probably going to lead to the propagation of political disorganization around the world.

In all likelyhood- and these things are always a matter of chance, for chance is king- it would in our personal opinion be best for the British people to remain with the Union and redouble their efforts to control their borders and retain as much sovereignty as possible over their own land. They should demand more direct democratic representation, and greater autonomy within the Union for all national populations, as this increases the pressure on the EU chiefs to grant more autonomy in general. Perhaps the British people should seek the aid of other national populations in Europe that feel the same way. But it is time that the EU chiefs “got real” as they say, and secured the EU borders by whatever means necessary. The EU must start listening to its people and not just to the paid politicians.

But there should be no illusions, no false bravado, a British exit from the Union is revolution. It is destruction for the sake of creating something better the day after. If the British people vote to exit the European Union, they will very likely begin a global revolution as more and more states will opt to opt out of globalism as conceived today. The people who founded the most illustrious example of colonialism-the British- would then be the same who ended it, probably forever.

Though it is by now clear that the present multi-national colonialism that is proposed as the future form of global society is faulty, and should probably be undone, the question is how, and how quickly should this multi-national colonialism be undone? If it is done too quickly, it could result in disastrous and violent disorganization. Again in our presonal view, if it is to be undone, it should be done slowly and deliberately. If Britain were to exit the union, the resulting global reaction might just be quick and violent and not probably lead to anything good. Do the British really want that responsibility?

Should Britain stay in the Union or go? Will staying benefit the British people? Will going benefit the world? Only a people excercizing their combined conscience can ever answer such questions legitimately. As long as the British people are informed honestly an answer of this order must be their decision and theirs alone(I mean by that no one individual should presume to be able to answer that question ultimately, only the combined wisdom of a people can answer such a question.) But the people must vote in utmost good conscience as individuals , for so much is at stake not only for them, but for the entire world; and this will be part of their legacy forever.

Post Script: Degeneration of Family

Most of the degeneration we have seen in the various democratic nations around the world can probably be attributed to the degenration of the “family unit”. The family unit is very probably akin in function to the DNA of a biological cell relative to national structure . It is this family unit that orders the rest of the state, and combined with the ethnic identities of other states will order the Union as the Union grows. That is to say that the sustainablity of a nation pretty much depends on the integral order of the family unit within each particular sub state. Whatever can be done to preserve the culture of nations, should be done. Although some will argue that culture is ever evolving, and this is true, it can evolve best if it has a good background, a good foundation. Destroying the family structure, or the ethnic culture of nations is not going to lead to the kind of strong societal conscience that is needed to maintain a healthy, if even enlightened, empathetic people. Some cultural discipline is necessary to the stable development of societies.

We have too easily dismissed the phenomena of the past believing that there is a better way to political cohesion than the old familial ways. But in all likelihood there was a reason for the old kingdoms(not to say that we would favor a return to monarchial government, but that there was a reason for these to exist that we too easily dismiss as archaic today.)

The eternal question of state vs individual liberty is the most difficult of all. Should a man care for himself above all, or for his family? And how in return should a family care for that man? An individual’s personal freedom balanced against familial obligation. This is the true seed of this question. A Union is simply a family of families. But so too is civilization. In this day of high tech, and devotion to abstractions of all kinds, the truth of family sometimes gets lost, or trivialized. But this is probably why we have the problems we have. Why we are so desperate for family ties, that we often have to import them, or seek them somewhere far away where “simpler” values still are vital.

Those who think that our modern detached ways-purely individualistic ways- are most productive are ignoring history. Most great cultures co-evolved along with the growth of strong families. And when those families degenerated is when those cultures also began to degenerate. It should come as no surprise that both Shakespeare and Bach, perhaps the two most profound artists of modern European culture were really a product of their times, when family values in Europe were at their apex. (There will be those nit-pickers who might bring up the point that Shakespeare’s familial ties are not known, which is true. However his knowledge of “personailities” and their relationship to families is unrivaled…he must have known family somewhwere.) We may say the same of Gallileo, Newton, and Maxwell. Even Einstein, as a late example, can be proved to be a member, and product of a highly developed extended family.

Building a strong “family” is nowhere as easy as it might seem at first glance. Strong, well cultured families may take centuries to form, though they can be undone in a single generation. Yet it is these families that more often produce the most consumate individual personalities. We seem to have lost all sight of this today.

When the founding fathers of the United States wrote the constitution, they seemed to believe that we should be free as individuals to serve our nation as we feel fit, and in good conscience…within a Tribal, familial order, and fully expressive of that order and culture. They did not seem to think that taking all off our clothes and running drunk-wild through the woods would serve a higher purpose for individual liberty, or for the nation…yet some seem to have interpreted the American constitution in this lesser manner; but the founders also seemed to believe that the resulting Tribe must care for its citizens and defend always their right to fully express their individual conscience towards the common familial order and be fully enabled to offer freely, without threat of retribution, or coercion their honest advice on the challenges met by the common family, and to their own particular families which throught “freedom of religion” were fully acknowledged.

But what was to be agreed upon would then be morally and legally binding, and not easily dissolved.