Great Britain and BREXIT – An Objective View

 

UK BREXIT

An objective View

by Mustang (Our man on the beat)

I should perhaps begin by saying that I never once thought that the United Kingdom joining the European Union was a good idea.  Over the space of forty years of British membership in the EU, the people of Great Britain, increasingly fed up with the onerous taxes placed upon them by the EU Parliament, came to a similar conclusion.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron, in a political move he calculated would fail, agreed to place the question of continuing EU membership before the British people.  The result of that referendum reflected the overwhelming desire of the Brits to reclaim their national identity, and like the child he is, Cameron resigned.

Teresa May was elected to replace Cameron.  To be fair, the task in finalizing Brexit has been an onerous task.  Ms. May has not only had to contend with the animosity of the EU member states (which at times, has been damned insulting to the United Kingdom), she’s also had to fight the Labor Party as well.  I should also note that the Leader of the British Labor Party is a devout Marxist who champions the notion of a new world order on the global socialist model.  For May, it has been an uphill battle from her very first day in office.  With that said, Teresa May is no Maggie Thatcher.

EU membership is supposed to provide distinct advantages to member states, such as “free trade,” but the cost of membership has far outweighed its benefits.  EU Membership requires that nations give up their national identity and their autonomy.  According to the EU membership application process, states must comply with all standards and rules, and every decision made by the home legislature is subject to the approval or veto of all other member states.  Currently, there are 35 chapters of rules, regulations, and policies with which each member state must adhere, and these (individually and collectively) are quite substantial.

These EU regulations detail the conditions and obligations of member states in such areas as energy, environment, immigration, cross-border movement, transportation, communications, and banking/finance.  Each member state must also “pay their fair share” of membership.  Let’s just call it what it is: a tax.  To the weight of the tax (which is always passed along to the citizens) we must add the impact of EU regulations, which have the effect of stifling British commerce in a very substantial way.  So, the British people want out —and I don’t blame them one bit.

A short word about Britain’s fair share of the EU tax burden.  In 2008, the British people were forced to pony up to the tune of £2.7 billion (about $2 billion).  In 2013, the UK’s “fair share” was £11.3 billion.  The EU, as with every government, has never seen a tax that it didn’t like.  To put this tax burden into perspective, the UK’s annual gross domestic product is $2.95 trillion; the US GDP is $19.49 trillion.

So, while we generally think of the UK as a highly productive society, that productivity is but a small percentage of our own.  What this means is that the average citizen in the UK scrapes to get by.  While their per capita GDP is $44,000/annually (ours is about $60,00), their tax burden substantially reduces British purchasing power.  British citizens pay a 20% tax at the basic rate, 40% for incomes over £34,500, and 45% for incomes exceeding £150,000.  Add to this the Value Added Tax of 20%.  It may seem that the average British citizen earns a good income, the picture changes significantly after taxes.

Think of it this way: when average Americans decide to purchase a newer car, they are likely to visit a new car dealership.  There are such things in the United Kingdom, but most people “upgrade” to a new used car.  It’s all they can afford.

At this point, we should wonder what the kerfuffle is all about.  Teresa May has not done a very good job negotiating the Brexit agreement with the European Union.  The agreement that she’s settled on places her country at a substantial economic disadvantage.

I don’t have all the details, of course, but I know that under May’s proposal, the UK will continue as an “associate member” of the EU, which means that the UK will still be taxed, and the EU will continue to control (to some extent) the UK’s trading relationships with other countries.  It is also my understanding that given the agreement that May has worked out, the UK would be prohibited from negotiating a free trade agreement with other countries … the US, for example.  If this is true, even in spite of Brexit, the UK is not the master of its own destiny.

Conservatives in the British Parliament do not support such a deal with the EU.  Yesterday, there was a question about national confidence in the leadership of Teresa May; last night, the Parliament voted to decide whether to retain Teresa May as Prime Minister.  They voted to keep her in the job.  What this means, to me, is that even conservative members of Parliament aren’t convinced that Brexit is the right choice for Great Britain.

How sad is that?  It leads me to conclude that politics in the UK remains as fractious as it always was.  Political division is the history of the British political system —and this may go a long way in helping to explain our own politics.  After all, Great Britain is our mother country.  Our apples, or so it seems, have not fallen far from the tree.