The author is 50% right and 50% wrong. Simon Jenkens explains that a Brexit would mean Germany will be given free rein over Europe once again and to be able to do what it wants without being stopped. This is the the half portion where he’s right.
Where he’s wrong is that he’s missing 50% of the picture: Germany doesn’t really care what Great Britain does, it’s advantageous either way. If the Britons wish to remain in, they will be subjugated to Germany as they run the EU and two thirds of the Troika which is stacked with unelected officials answerable to nobody — and coincidentally mostly German. To see where the scenario of staying in would lead to, just look at Greece. It’s a vassal state with no more sovereign rights and gets dictated to on economic policy, the terms of the bailout it accepted under Communist Varoufakis and Tsipras. The same for Cyprus.
This is the price for staying in and reaping what the leadership in Germany and Brussels call “benefits”.
One day people are going to wake up and realize the Fourth Reich is here — and it’s pushing for a tyrannical United States of Europe. Its respective EU Army (NATO’s replacement) is already under construction. Soon you won’t be flying into a continent called Europe, but a nation called Europe.
You might’ve seen this quote often here by now, but it still couldn’t be any more true and relevant for today:
“You have not anchored Germany to Europe,… You have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.“
– Margaret Thatcher
In the end, this referendum is about politics not economics. And a Britain that votes to stay in the club will wield serious clout
Decision time is here. The dither must stop. The referendum campaign has been tedious and infuriating, but in truth enthralling. I cannot remember a political event that has so consumed public discussion. In every pub, workplace, college and home, friends have argued, families feuded, allegiances splintered. Only the 2014 Scottish referendum came near it. For two months democracy has been asked to do that most alarming thing: to think for itself, independent of party. It is awesome. It is also dangerous.
I have deliberately switched sides each week during the campaign, to see how the much-vaunted “facts” register against divergent prejudices. I have subjected my poor brain to a barrage of “reality checks”, and meticulously balanced pros and cons. I have long been a Eurosceptic, but that is not the same as being a leaver.
I am unpersuaded that Brexit will spell economic catastrophe. We know what will happen. The British establishment will spend two years busting every gut to pretend we voted otherwise. It will wriggle, plead, pay up and concede anything to establish some sort of “associate EU” status. Somehow trade will continue. Somehow a deal will be done on people movement. There will be opt-outs plus, but no Armageddon.
At the start of the campaign I was relaxed over a Brexit vote. It would lead to a messy renegotiation and then probably another vote. There have been “double votes” on Euro treaties, proxies for in-out, in Denmark and Ireland. In France in 2005 a no vote was fudged and eventually disregarded by the national assembly.
If the pollsters are correct – and they are frantic to call this one right – project fear has been a disaster. David Cameron has sought to do what no democratic leader should ever do: to win an argument not through reason but through promoting apprehension and fear.
The EU is clearly ailing. It must in some sense dismantle itself, either by debate and negotiation or by a sequence of copycat plebiscites. Other electorates are itching to do what Britain is doing. Anti-EU sentiment in most of Europe, much of it rightwing, is found in roughly a third of the population, and is growing. This is ominous for European unity.
The oligarchs of Brussels created this backlash, and they must find a new framework for Europe’s divergent national identities, many of them desperately in need of the safety valve of a floating exchange rate. In 1918, 1945 and 1989 autonomous states were the building blocks of a new European democracy. Those blocks must be reinforced, not weakened.
Britain is not a big player in the EU game. It has always been a disgruntled bystander. But for Britain to trigger not a “dis-integration” but a dismantling of what is already a tottering congeries of states is most dangerous. It would leave Germany effectively alone at the head of Europe, alternately hesitant and bullying. That has to be a bad idea – as sensible Germans will attest.
This is not the equivalent of 1914 or 1939. It is closer to 1815 and Waterloo. A Britain that votes to stay with the EU would be able, for a crucial while, to wield serious clout, in Europe’s interest and its own. At the start of this campaign I wanted to leave, renegotiate and stay. Now I am for stay, lobby and see what happens next. Whatever anyone says, there is always another time.
Full article: I fear German dominance. That’s why I’m for remaining in the EU (The Guardian)