Information Related to "Why Brexit Matters for Europe and for You"
| Audio/Video |
Michael Ash/Unsplash
We live in deeply unsettling times. Look around the world. The political backlash unleashed by Britain's "Brexit" vote to leave the European Union (EU) last summer has continued with the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November. Other upcoming elections in Europe may shake the continent even more.
The results have sent shock waves through the ruling elites. What's going on? Many pundits define this political revolution as brazen acts of anti-immigration nationalism. Is that really the case? What was behind the British exit vote and what does it portend for the future of Europe and the rest of the world?
More importantly, why should it matter to you?
Immigration into Britain from other EU countries as well as the war-torn Middle East and Africa the past few years no doubt served as a spark for those wanting Britain to leave the EU. But those who voted to leave the EU also voted against the nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have been imposing seemingly unreasonable policies and strangling their sense of national sovereignty.
With every terrorist attack, with every job loss, with every report of a social welfare system straining to provide for the seemingly endless stream of immigrants as well as citizens, many British "have nots" had had enough.
As CNN International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson wrote: "For many in the UK ... they see a rich upper class that has grown ridiculously rich, intertwined with a political elite in their pocket ... The argument of political leaders that immigration benefits the economy is lost on the 'Leave' supporters because they don't feel they see the benefits" ("A Look at Brexit: Why Are the Brits Thumbing Their Noses at Europe?" CNN.com, June 24, 2016).
While the new economic elites in London and other gentrified urban areas of Britain have become wealthy, as in America's major urban areas and high-tech rich coastal cities, the middle and working classes have seen their opportunities and those of their children shrinking at an ever-increasing rate. The same is true throughout the Western world.
Jim Tankersley, economic policy writer for The Washington Post, further observed: "The forces driving those populist uprisings, both against E.U. bureaucrats in Brussels and elected officials in Washington, are complex and intertwined ... Across the West ... the rise of populism corresponds to a decline in the income share held by the broad middle classes of those countries ... With the Brexit vote, the populist movement can already claim a victory: It has won a clear reversal from the economic-integration trend of the past decades" ("Britain Just Killed Globalization as We Know It,"WashingtonPost.com, June 25, 2016).
But were anti-immigration sentiments and economic fears the only reasons for Brexit? Concludes Nic Robertson's CNN analysis: "The message from the shires of England is that they no longer trust their leadership. A divide has opened; centers of cosmopolitan wealth are at odds with their council estate and country-living cousins. It is not about wealth, it is about history -- about who the British think they are."
Though Britain was on the winning side in World War II, the decades following saw the once-proud nation struggling. The British Empire was gone, and the nation went through a time of economic turmoil. Many looked to the continent with envy as the European Coal and Steel Community began to prosper. But entry into what became the European Economic Community (EEC) would not be easy. Twice the British were denied membership (1963 and 1967) because then French President Charles de Gaulle doubted Britain's political will to fully integrate. He would prove to be right.
Nevertheless, on January 1, 1973, the British Union Jack was raised in Brussels -- signaling the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. In 1975, 67 percent of British voters endorsed the UK's membership in what they saw as a free trade zone called the EEC.
Fast forward 43 years to June 23, 2016, and in a dramatic turn of events, 52 percent of British voters elected to leave the European Union in stunning victory for those backing Brexit. Why did this remarkable development take place?
We've already seen the role of immigration and Brussel's bureaucracy. One of the greatest stumbling blocks to British integration into the European Union, however, was Britain's distinct history. Britain has never quite thought of itself as European (see "The Ancient Brits Leave Modern Europe ").
Europe was always "the Continent." Britain's legal traditions are its own, rooted in the 13th century and earlier, and are distinct from the Continent's Roman law and Napoleonic code. Britain had been a premier world power with global trade connections of its own through its Commonwealth.
British foreign policy with respect to Europe had always been a matter of shifting alliances and sheer military force to contain the power and influence of its European Continental rivals. From France of the Middle Ages, the Dutch mercantilists, Imperial Spain, Bourbon and Napoleonic France, Czarist Russia or Germany, Britain had successfully held at bay its rivals time and again.
Nonetheless, the lure of the prosperity that the EEC (later the EU) was experiencing throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, compared to the economic turmoil of a Britain in economic decline, proved too much to resist. But for many the rosy picture of untold prosperity for all failed to materialize.
Andrew Gilligan, London editor for The Sunday Telegraph, observed: "At the beginning, Britain -- though one of the less prosperous members -- was the second-biggest net contributor to the EEC, behind only the far richer Germans, pouring large sums into subsidising French farmers, butter mountains and wine lakes [or huge stockpiles] through the Common Agricultural Policy. Not until 1984, 11 years after joining, did Margaret Thatcher secure a permanent two-thirds rebate. 'They say it's their money, and I say it's mine,' she remarked at the Brussels summit in March of that year.
"Yet this significant victory involved loss as well as gain for Britain: Thatcher's grating personal negotiating style permanently damaged relationships between her and the other European leaders. She thought they were hypocritical, attacking her as 'not a good European' for opposing a system from which they benefited. They thought she didn't understand what Europe meant to them: their countries, devastated by war, had been given lasting peace and prosperity" ("The EU: So Where Did It All Go Wrong?" Telegraph.co.uk, December 30, 2012).
But while Thatcher's Britain did not seem to understand what Europe meant to those on the Continent, the same could be said of those on the Continent not understanding what Britain meant to the British people.
Another problem was that the ramifications of EU membership had been misrepresented in Britain. British citizens had been promised no "erosion of essential national sovereignty." But, as Andrew Gilligan states in his Telegraph article, "This, as many have conceded, was quite untrue: European law did and does override British law, and more and more of it was coming down the tracks from Brussels."
By the late 1980s and early 90s it became obvious to the EU that Britain would always be a reluctant partner at best when the British opted out of the single currency to retain the Pound Sterling instead. Meanwhile, a steady erosion of British sovereignty to the powerful EU bureaucracy that was largely unelected and largely unaccountable to the member states helped create fertile ground for those advocating an exit strategy for Britain. That strategy took the first decisive step on June 23, 2016, when British voters elected to leave the EU.
David Pryse-Jones, a conservative British writer and commentator, gives some interesting insight on additional motives for Brexit: "The EU was a good idea in 1945, but it has long outlived its initial purpose of reconciling Germany and France. What stands out is that heads of state and politicians in Europe have been surreptitiously building a much wider political entity ... The EU has developed into something never seen before in the world, an oligarchy with soft totalitarian symptoms.
"Conflicting national interests and global economic factors lead inexorably to the hardening of these totalitarian symptoms ... There is only one way out of this predicament, and that is to amalgamate all the nation-states of the EU into a genuine federation, with political and fiscal unity that is even more unpopular and alarming." In other words, the continent was developing into a United States of Europe.
Pryse-Jones concludes, "The British perceive that this empire must end in full-blown totalitarianism or catastrophic failure, and their vote shows that they want no part of either" ("Why Britain Was Right to Leave," NationalReview.com, June 24, 2016, emphasis added throughout).
So where do Britain and the EU go from here? As British Prime Minister Theresa May outlines her plans for Brexit and a new relationship with the EU, we'll see much discussion of how long this exit will take and what future trading relations between the two will look like.
All is not gloomy for Britain as the nation begins to chart a new, independent course. Luke Coffey, a research fellow specializing in transatlantic and Eurasian security at a Washington, D.C. "based think tank, gives this insight: "For many in the UK, the decision to leave the EU was a no-brainer. The UK is the world's fifth-largest economy. It is a member of the 53-nation Commonwealth. It has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has a 'special relationship' with the US.
"It has one of the most capable militaries in the world and possesses nuclear weapons. The UK trades more outside the EU than it does with the EU (and will continue to trade with Europe after it leaves the EU). Even though fewer than 6 percent of UK businesses trade with the EU, all have to implement the EU's red tape and regulation" ("Brexit: A Wake Up Call for the EU, but Will It Listen?" Yahoo News, June 24, 2016).
As Britain plans to leave the EU, what about those nations that remain? Britain leaving means the EU loses a moderating force that focused on minimizing further power transfers to Brussels. The EU will also have gaps in its defense capabilities. As a result, France and Germany have lost no time in putting forward plans for further military and even political integration.
A document titled "EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy" outlines a new military thinking within the EU. The white paper states: "We, as Europeans, need to take on a greater responsibility for our own security ... We need to be ready and able to repel, respond and to protect ourselves against aggression, provocations and destabilization."
Where can this new military thinking lead? Britain's position within the EU was that no EU army was needed. However, with Britain's impending exit, European military and defense leaders are actively exploring such steps as a common European military headquarters and joint military forces.
And going further, a new EU without Britain leaves wide open the door for the push to take the next step to political union. Daily Express reporter Nick Gutteridge adds the following:
"The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an 'ultimatum.' Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels ...
"In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: 'Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture'" ("European SUPERSTATE to Be Unveiled: EU Nations 'to Be Morphed Into One' Post-Brexit," Express.co.uk, June 29, 2016).
It is not yet clear if other EU members may follow Britain and vote to opt out should key players seize the chance to create a United States of Europe. But we have been writing about a new European-centered superpower for decades.
The Bible indicates that an end-time, powerful superstate will rise up to astound an unsuspecting world. The superstate, symbolically called "the Beast," will be an imposing union of 10 leaders of nations or groups of nations that will coalesce as one final revival of the ancient Roman Empire (Daniel 2:37-45;Daniel 7:15-27; Revelation 13:1-8; Revelation 17:8-18).
Is a British Exit from the European Union Required to Fulfill Bible Prophecy?These leaders will relinquish their own national sovereignty to become part of this end-time superpower: "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast" (Revelation 17:13). They will promise peace, prosperity and security through a new world order, but at the price of political, economic and religious freedom.
This new world order will affect the whole world by setting the stage for the catastrophic time when humanity will face extinction without God's direct intervention (Matthew 24:21-22).
As we begin to see the fulfillment of end-time prophecies, what will we do? What will you do? These prophetic events should motivate each of us to examine our spiritual condition in the light of God's Word. An understanding of prophecy ought to lead us to repentance and to truly seek and serve God.
Britain's vote to exit allows theEUto begin a new chapter for Europe. It is well worth keeping an eye on!
©1995-2022 United Church of God, an International AssociationRelated Information:
Table of Contents that includes "Why Brexit Matters for Europe and for You"
Other Articles by Dan Taylor
Origin of article "Why Brexit Matters for Europe and for You"
Keywords: brexit Britain E.U. wealth distribution European superpower
European Union - Britain: