32 Brexit
The European Union is one of the best things that has ever happened to the world. In contrast, Brexit stands out as one of the worst events in this context. The European Union has brought peace, stability, and prosperity to a continent that, for centuries, struggled to establish a culture of living together. Europe was once a place torn apart by constant wars, where the impoverished youth of societies had no choice but to die fighting. The EU has transformed this troubled geography into a space for peace, order, and unity. It has broken down borders, allowing people to live together happily, in solidarity, without fighting.
The European Union should continue to expand its borders, extending its peaceful environment beyond the continent. The principles of living together, human rights, and the rule of law that the EU upholds should be shared with other regions. These values should be promoted in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, helping to create a global community built on solidarity, peace, and mutual respect. Rather than retreating into isolation, the EU should be a beacon of cooperation, demonstrating how diverse regions can thrive together, united by shared ideals.
On the other hand, the European Union represents a system where trade wars are absent, and commerce flows freely across member states. The removal of border controls has allowed for the seamless movement of goods and people, creating an interconnected economy that operates efficiently without the bureaucratic obstacles that often hinder international trade. In the EU, businesses can access a vast single market without the need for costly tariffs or customs procedures, which has led to increased economic opportunities and a higher standard of living for millions of citizens. The elimination of these barriers fosters competition, encourages innovation, and creates a more dynamic and resilient economy.
Moreover, the EU’s regulatory framework ensures a level playing field for all member states, providing clear and uniform rules that businesses can rely on. This has reduced the uncertainty often associated with international trade, enabling long-term investments and facilitating economic growth. The EU’s commitment to free trade has not only strengthened the internal market but also helped the region become a leading player in global commerce, shaping international standards and trade agreements. In essence, the European Union has created an environment where economic cooperation thrives and where countries are no longer isolated but rather integrated into a common, prosperous future.
Despite all the beauty of the European Union, there are, of course, marginal politicians who are not working in the interest of humanity. Politicians who represent the views of a small segment of society are well aware of the manipulative and deceitful arguments they can use to persuade the public. These arguments are often so compelling that they gain traction within society. No matter how much you write about the social and economic benefits of this unity, certain powerful narratives continue to circulate. In the case of political movements that seek to undermine such unions, one argument that often gets attention is: “Look, these people from this particular country are flooding into our nation, taking your jobs.” They may even falsely claim that immigrants are exploiting the social welfare system, engaging in fraud or abuse.
For instance, in the UK, some of the arguments raised included claims such as “Polish people are invading the country” or “They’re taking your jobs.” These kinds of statements are persuasive, as they play on fear and misunderstanding. However, the reality is much more complex. These claims overlook the fact that, in many cases, it is British society that benefits from these workers, especially in sectors that are highly dependent on seasonal labour. In fact, many of the industries in the UK would struggle to function without migrant workers. There may be individual cases where some take advantage of the system, but it is wrong to generalise and scapegoat entire communities.
The rhetoric of “them vs. us” is dangerous, as it manipulates the public’s fears for political gain. The truth is, the majority of British society benefits from the contribution of foreign workers in many sectors of the economy. This kind of fear-based argument often leads to an emotional, rather than rational, response and can be exploited by those who aim to break away from the European Union. It is important to note that the solution is not to scapegoat a small, exploitative minority but rather to improve the system, making it more transparent and fair for everyone.
The focus should be on building a more just system, where the vulnerable are supported, and abuses are prevented. Instead of blaming immigrants or other groups, we should focus on creating better controls and stronger regulations that ensure social welfare programmes are not abused while protecting those who genuinely need help. There is room for improvement within the system, but demonising immigrants is not the answer. A fairer, more efficient system that prevents exploitation, while ensuring genuine need is met, should be the priority.
Let’s take a look at this situation from a commercial perspective. Imagine a small village on the western shores of the UK. Some marginal groups are arguing that this village should separate from the UK. “We could be better off on our own,” they say. “Let’s break away from the UK, set up borders, and make sure all entry and exit processes are tied to bureaucratic procedures. Let’s become independent, forge our own social and commercial relationships, and make our own decisions.” How does that sound to you?
You would probably think these villagers are crazy, wouldn’t you? As a small village, what do you think is more beneficial to you – the entire UK profiting from your existence, or you benefiting from the economic and social power of being part of such a large nation? But these villagers won’t listen and decide to hold a referendum, eventually leaving the UK. They decide to cut off the ties with the huge, prosperous nation at their doorstep and instead seek new relationships with distant lands.
Now, imagine the absurdity of the situation: They’re in the middle of the ocean, with the world’s richest continent at their doorstep. Instead of continuing their connections with the huge, powerful nation right next to them, they decide to sever those ties and reach out to faraway lands across the globe. “Good luck to you,” I’d say. You’re cutting yourself off from a large, prosperous landmass just to build connections with distant places. It sounds completely irrational, doesn’t it?
This is precisely what the UK has done. The country is a small island, surrounded by the ocean. While it’s fortunate that one side is connected to another continent by a narrow channel, it’s still part of a vast and wealthy region – Europe. To what kind of logic would lead them to sever ties with such a region? It’s a mad decision, isn’t it?
That’s the essence of Brexit: rejecting the undeniable advantages of being part of a geographically and economically advantageous area in favour of uncertain and distant alternatives. It’s a reckless, self-destructive choice.
As a matter of democracy, a referendum was held, and, of course, the results would likely differ if it were held today. However, it’s important to emphasise one critical point: fundamental rights and freedoms should never be put to a vote in a referendum. This is fundamentally contrary to both democracy and human rights. The rights of people living in a country – the right to be citizens of a continent, the right to travel freely, to live, to work, and to move freely – cannot be subject to the vote of others. You cannot allow the freedom and basic rights of more than half of a nation’s population to be decided by a majority vote.
This point is crucial: how could we allow fundamental rights to be up for a vote? For example, imagine if other basic rights were put to a vote – the right to free speech, the right to practise one’s religion, the right to personal safety, the right to marry whom you choose, or the right to equality under the law. These are rights that, by their nature, cannot be decided by a majority vote because they are inherent and universal, not dependent on the whims of the majority.
In a democracy, these rights must be protected for everyone, regardless of the outcome of any referendum. When these fundamental rights are subjected to popular vote, we risk undermining the very principles that democracy is built on – the protection of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. The right to be free and equal in society is something that must always stand above political fluctuations.
