View Single Post
Old 29-01-2024, 23:58   #5843
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,749
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: Britain outside the EU

Only one thing sadder than someone who asks a loaded question, is someone who answers their own loaded question, because they lack the confidence that they may get a concurring answer…

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:43 ----------

Anyhoo, interesting article from the IEA, that well-know loony left woke tree-hugging organisation*

https://iea.org.uk/why-brexit-was-a-...n-perspective/

Quote:
Many libertarians supported Brexit, believing it would reduce governmental layers and bring power closer to the British people. They saw it as an opportunity to escape the control of Brussels’ technocracy, expecting increased autonomy and economic freedom. However, this article argues that Brexit, rather than decreasing government control, intensified it in the UK. Some libertarians supported Brexit due to a misunderstanding of the European Union’s essential nature and role.

The libertarian argument for Brexit was centred around the idea of eliminating the perceived excessive interference by the EU. Moreover, Brexit was seen as a form of secession, which is often favoured to promote a libertarian agenda. Supporters of Brexit envisioned a rejuvenated Britain, regaining sovereignty and experiencing fewer regulatory constraints. They imagined a country liberated from Brussels and Luxembourg, able to independently navigate its future, potentially leading to greater liberty and economic efficiency. However, this perspective failed to understand the EU’s function and the implications of breaking away from it.

The critique of the EU often portrays it as an overreaching superstate, taking over national sovereignty. This perspective, fuelled by the rhetoric of the EU Commission’s technocrats and the broader Brussels establishment, erroneously suggests ambitions for a European superstate – a misconception that played a role in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU. This interpretation overlooks the true nature and purpose of the EU. Contrary to being an emerging superstate, the EU essentially operates as a collection of regimes designed to check excessive state power. The notion of the EU as a nascent absolute state is a misinterpretation of its real function: to regulate and balance state powers, particularly in economic matters.

The EU originates from the principle of vertical separation of power. Significantly, the EU allows for member withdrawal, underscoring its distinction from absolute states, which are characterised as indivisible. Membership in the EU involves states mutually restricting their arbitrary power – for example, of limiting international trade or controlling the movement of people. These are areas where government policies typically spill over from extensive domestic intervention. In an era where state power is more extensive than ever, the primary method for curbing such power is through a balance of power among states themselves.

The European Union’s foremost goal is to diffuse and limit power, rather than centralise it. This approach is evident in the EU’s efforts to curtail excessive state intervention in trade, capital movement, and the flow of people.
Spoiler: 

__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.

If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.

Last edited by Hugh; 30-01-2024 at 08:33.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote