Have the British people finally had enough of bailing out irresponsible governments around the Mediterranean and seeing more and more of their national sovereignty lost to the emerging bureaucratic state in Brussels? The Mail Online (UK) has the story about the possibility of a popular referendum on seceding from the European Union:
A historic vote on growing demands for Britain to leave the European Union will be held in the Commons before Christmas.
MPs will debate whether the Government should give voters a chance to decide the issue once and for all in a referendum.
How can one generation make a decision to bind future generations “once and for all” to any sort of political union? This sounds like the Texas v White case in which a US Federal court declared that once a State foolishly joins the United States it is final and can never be undone by any future generations:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
The court decision above from the Feds which “legally” prohibited secession flies in the face of the principles laid out by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the Federal Judge Salmon P. Chase (a New England Yankee and political ally of Abraham Lincoln) who penned the above declaration probably could have gotten a job for King George denouncing the Colonists’ secession from Britain in 1776 had he been alive then. He basically argues Jefferson was wrong – there is no unalienable right of self-determination.
Now, back to Mail Online article:
It will be the first time Parliament has held a major vote on seeking the public’s view since the 1975 referendum confirming the decision to join the Common Market.
But, combined with growing public opposition to the increasing power of the EU, it would put enormous pressure on David Cameron to let the people decide the country’s European fate. The Commons vote has been forced on MPs – and a reluctant Prime Minister – by public demand after the crisis in the eurozone, with desperate attempts to prop up the Greek economy, led to a surge in anti-Brussels feeling.
The decision to hold a debate was made after a petition, signed by more than 100,000 people demanding a referendum, was submitted to a new group of MPs given the job of making sure Parliament does not sweep controversial issues under the carpet.
The Mail on Sunday has learnt that the Commons Backbench Business Committee will agree to grant a one-day debate on a referendum after Parliament returns next week.
Committee chairman Natascha Engel, a Labour MP, said: ‘Given the crisis in the eurozone, this issue has become more relevant than ever. There is a clear majority of backbench MPs who want to debate this and we have to respond to that.
‘The EU today is completely different from the one the British people voted to join in 1975. It is time to examine the position again. For years it has suited successive governments to avoid debating whether Britain should leave the EU. The whole purpose of my committee is to make sure the big issues of the day are aired in Parliament. People in pubs and shops all over Britain are discussing our membership of the EU and it is time MPs openly debated it too.’
Notice that this is essentially what Texans and other Southerners said in 1860. The Union in 1860 was completely different from the ones their grandparents joined in 1789 and was continually seeking more power (as governments have a tendency to do). It was in their best interest to practice the unalienable right that Jefferson declared was theirs in 1776. Of course, this unalienable right was violently suppressed by the United States military at the orders of Washington, DC and Texans paid dearly for their desire for independence. Will the British people, unlike Texans, be permitted to practice their right of self-determination?
The debate will be held before the end of the year. Anti-European campaigners are divided over the question that should be put in a referendum. Some want a simple ‘in or out’ question. But others want to offer the choice of going back to an old- style trading association, along the lines of the Common Market which British voters agreed to 36 years ago.
If the nation voted ‘yes’ to this, the Government could demand that key powers over immigration, health and safety, City regulations and other issues are handed back to Westminster. If the EU refused, Britain could leave altogether.
From years of following news articles about the European Union, the EU has basically made Europe one big “super nation” instead of a bunch of sovereign nations as it was for centuries. That’s kind of how I see it from not hearing much about independent European nations and only Europe mentioned in anything political about Europe (unless it’s being mentioned elsewhere and I don’t know about it).
For the life of me, I never could understand why these euro nations would give up their sovereignty in the first place. I dont see where they have gained any economic or cultural advantage by doing so. On the contrary, most of them are broke and overrun with third world immigrants. Sounds like a precursor to the future of the u.s.
I predicted long ago that eventually three entities would pull out of the UN after the collapse of the EU (because it will go broke); Germany, U.K., and USA.
So far it looks like Germany and Britain have an even earlier jump on things than even I thought.