Brexit and It's Implications On Your Rights
A greater issue haunts the conundrum of Brexit than many people, at least outwardly, acknowledge. That issue is the withdrawal of your rights as a working class citizen. Put it this way - if we leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, the thing that everyone is fussing over at the moment, we will have a near instantaneous withdrawal of certain rights. Rights that have been democratically earned and conferred upon us by virtue of being a member state of the EU.
Leaving without an agreement means the withdrawal of a citizen's right to freedom of movement within the EU, the free movement of goods within the EU, the free movement of capital within the EU and the freedom to provide services within the EU. It's not hard to imagine someone who runs a small business that might export or import goods to and from the EU as an essential part of their business, or student wishing to do a masters degree within another EU country, or even the fact that some of us just like to go on holiday in EU countries. And then there are the people who like to move or even retire to other EU countries. Notice I haven't even touched on what happens when the NHS can't obtain medicines which would amount to a tacit withdrawal of the right to healthcare.
Rather than argue the material facts which are self-evident, I'm going to go a more philosophical route and it's only one, somewhat protracted, question that needs to be asked for the whole "Brexit means leaving WITHOUT a deal!" mantra to fall apart.
After the referendum, it turned out that 17.4 million people of the 33.5 million who turned out to vote, voted to leave the EU. That is, 33.5 million people out of a registered electorate of 46.5 million of a total UK population of 66 million. Roughly 33 million people did not or were not able to vote. This is established fact, as the Quitlings, like to remind us with their vulgar mewlings of "wE wOn YoU lOsT GeT oVeR iT!".
Try getting over this, you tarts:
By what virtue should one group of people be able to withdraw fundamental, democratically acquired and now naturalised rights from not only the opposing group but also those who did not vote within the bloc as a whole and those outside of the bloc, i.e, citizens of the EU?
Lets stick those numbers in there and reframe the question to give it some context:
17.4 million votes think they have the right to remove rights from not only the totality of 66 million people in the UK and their next generations, but also from Brits living in the EU and citizens of the EU themselves. By what virtue do Quitlings claim they should be able to, nay must, withdraw rights from other citizens?
Leaving without an agreement means the withdrawal of a citizen's right to freedom of movement within the EU, the free movement of goods within the EU, the free movement of capital within the EU and the freedom to provide services within the EU. It's not hard to imagine someone who runs a small business that might export or import goods to and from the EU as an essential part of their business, or student wishing to do a masters degree within another EU country, or even the fact that some of us just like to go on holiday in EU countries. And then there are the people who like to move or even retire to other EU countries. Notice I haven't even touched on what happens when the NHS can't obtain medicines which would amount to a tacit withdrawal of the right to healthcare.
 |
| I love the redundancy of this. Almost like Brexit itself. |
Rather than argue the material facts which are self-evident, I'm going to go a more philosophical route and it's only one, somewhat protracted, question that needs to be asked for the whole "Brexit means leaving WITHOUT a deal!" mantra to fall apart.
After the referendum, it turned out that 17.4 million people of the 33.5 million who turned out to vote, voted to leave the EU. That is, 33.5 million people out of a registered electorate of 46.5 million of a total UK population of 66 million. Roughly 33 million people did not or were not able to vote. This is established fact, as the Quitlings, like to remind us with their vulgar mewlings of "wE wOn YoU lOsT GeT oVeR iT!".
Try getting over this, you tarts:
By what virtue should one group of people be able to withdraw fundamental, democratically acquired and now naturalised rights from not only the opposing group but also those who did not vote within the bloc as a whole and those outside of the bloc, i.e, citizens of the EU?
Lets stick those numbers in there and reframe the question to give it some context:
17.4 million votes think they have the right to remove rights from not only the totality of 66 million people in the UK and their next generations, but also from Brits living in the EU and citizens of the EU themselves. By what virtue do Quitlings claim they should be able to, nay must, withdraw rights from other citizens?
Do they really think they should be able to just toss away the rights of a much larger group of people? Even if it's turkeys clearly voting for Christmas? How do you justify that?
I can almost guarantee you that the only answer you'll get will be along the lines of "We voted, so we must do it". This line of reasoning is nothing short of something I've been saying for a while; that they are fetishising democracy. We don't need to do something just because we voted to do it, democracy is not a truth machine. You don't put your vote into it and get the truth out in return. Parliament votes on things all the time for instance, a lot of stuff gets left by the wayside - sometimes because it turned out to be a pointless exercise in bureaucracy, or it will likely have no real effect or even sometimes, very rarely, it turns out to just be a bad idea in general.
With all of this in mind, the only way to withdraw from the EU, maintain our rights and satisfy the results of the referendum, is to do it in name only.
Argue that, tossers.
Comments
Post a Comment