Re: commentary column by Simon Ducatel, “Overzealous and unquestioning nationalism a disease of humankind,” p.6, July 5 Innisfail Province
Whilst I fully agree with the underlying sentiment of the comments made (i.e., there is absolutely no place in a normal civil society for right-wing nationalists, extremists, radical hardliners, racists or bigots) I feel there should be some explanation as to why in my view a (slim) majority of U.K. citizens voted to leave the European Union (EU).
This cannot be explained as simply being a fervent nationalistic reaction to immigration by those of a younger generation. To explain you first need to understand the difference between immigrants and economic migrants – all members of the EU are free to travel unrestricted within member states and to seek work without requiring either work permits or visas. Persons living in the poorer eastern (former Soviet) states of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and soon to be Albania) naturally want to migrate (west) towards the more affluent countries of Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.K. The advantage of moving to the U.K. over any other country however, is their ability to speak the native tongue (for most Europeans English being their second language) that of course is a huge advantage when moving to another country to seek employment.
The result has been a steady flow of uncontrolled economic migrants into the U.K. over the past 20 years. The population of the U.K. is roughly 66 million people in a country which is only four times the size of Vancouver Island. The infrastructure of the country is already at breaking point – i.e., schools, housing, hospitals, policing, prisons, social services, the road network, the rail network and even the electricity network. Further levels of migration can only be sustained if there is a controlled and measured basis on which people are allowed to enter the U.K. (as is the case today in Canada).
This of course cannot happen as the EU will not allow a fundamental change to the notion of open borders between member states.
The real issue for many living in the U.K. today is not a lack of migration control per se, but a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure (and hence standard of living) which cannot be alleviated by placing even more demands on it year on year by an ever increasing influx of people.
Further reason for voting “out” was the frustration vented towards a European parliament that has no transparency, accountability or control and a mechanism whereby U.K. taxpayers pay more into a central fund than we receive from it in return (similarities here with Alberta and its own payments to support federal spending plans).
When the U.K. joined what was the EEC in the late '60s, the purpose behind this was to open up free trade with no import quotas or tariffs on goods sold between member countries. What we have today however is a faceless political behemoth of an organization that has lost sight of its original reason for being.
For example, EU shape standardization regulations introduced for the sale of apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes, tomatoes and bananas, and further marketing standards for 26 types of produce, had to be scrapped following reports that that a fifth of produce had been rejected by shops across the EU for failing to meet the requirements. Good edible produce wasted because of appearance controls introduced by the EU.
In comparison, ask yourself whether or not Canadians would like federal decisions made in a Canadian parliament in Ottawa by represented and elected Canadian officials to then have those decisions ratified by a number of non-Canadian member states (say for example the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela and Argentina) before being able to put them into law and practice. I predict that over a period of time the same levels of frustration, bewilderment, concern and rejection would be experienced here as in the U.K.
In summary, was this the right choice? Economically, no. This will leave the U.K. very isolated and devoid of any trade deals with the rest of Europe. Politically, yes. U.K. citizens need to be able to stand up and determine their own laws free from foreign political interference and regulatory controls – and if they want to sell crooked or straight bananas then let that decision be made unhindered.
Arno Glover
Innisfail
