Better the (EU) devil you know?
IT IS often said that attack is the best form of defence. The principal argument of the 'Remain' campaign is that to leave would be to create uncertainty; it would be to play Russian roulette with the economy and the future. (I can't see how being able to trade with 100% of the world is worse than being able to trade with 7% of it, but I'll park that argument for now.) As a result of the Leave = Risk argument, no, or very few, questions are being asked about the degree of change which would arise if the UK remained in the EU. The whole message is 'better the devil you know'.
Let's wind back a year or two to David Cameron's promise that if the Tories won the national election, the people would have a referendum on whether to remain in the EU or not.
Why? If the Tories believed that the people wished to remain in the EU, why not have 'we are committed to EU membership' in the manifesto and get elected on that basis? That would be a mandate to remain in it.
If they believed the people wanted to leave, then why offer a referendum? The promise may have secured votes in the national election, but what's the point in winning the national election if you have to resign when you lose the referendum a few months later – which they surely will have to if they do? Golden rule of politics: don't create or encourage a battle you can't win.
It occurs to me that more and more people are coming to the realisation that successive HM Governments have subjected the people of Britain to laws of a foreign land by signing up to EU treaties. (This would be treason if it weren't for the fact that treason is betrayal of the Crown, and the government belongs to the Crown and the Queen signs the treaties). The motive for the referendum is, therefore, to obtain a mandate from the people to adopt and accept increasing dominance from Brussels and a federal Europe, which most people can now see, I think, is looming large.
So forget any notion of 'vote remain and we'll carry on as we are'. It looks like a case of 'Vote remain and we'll be told, when the euro is adopted in Britain, along with all sorts of other legislation and changes, that "you had your chance to get out back in 2016".'
To have a federal Europe you will need a single currency. He who controls the money supply controls the economy. In Guernsey we choose to retain our pound at parity with sterling. We could float it, but it would be quickly bought up by wealthy individuals or entities who would thus control our economy.
So when the UK is forced to adopt the euro, and there is no sterling, what will it mean for Guernsey? Not 'carry on as we are', that's for sure.
MATT WATERMAN,
Flat 2, 3, Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port, GY1 1HL.
PS: On 15 June Switzerland, arguably the world's most successful country, followed in the footsteps of the recovering, banker-arresting Iceland, and withdrew its application to join the EU. (Iceland incidentally, let its banks collapse and is now doing very well thank you very much).
