Opinion: The European Union will come CRASHING DOWN!

Article submitted to Unity News Network (UNN) by Matthew Rigby and approved for publication on 10/07/19 by UNN Editor-in-Chief Carl D. Pearson.

The European Union has a long evolutionary history. The first ideas of a new world order, single world government or superstate started to surface after the first world war. President Woodrow Wilson from the United States attempted this with the failed league of nations. The Pan Europa movement based in Vienna released a manifesto in 1921 detailing how this would be strategically achieved. After World War One these plans were generally accepted to prevent war from ravaging Europe and the world ever again. However, the people are aware of a secretive, subversive nature of this masterplan which evidently meant forsaking the views of the common man or woman. In the east around this time the big player was Lenin and the Soviet Union.

Lenin’s vision was accompanied by deep strategical thinking which sort to ultimately eradicate the very concept of the nation-state, only then would a single world communist government be achievable. Nazi Germany also played a big part in what would later become the EEC (European Economic Community). The very real document that details all of this is called Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (European Economic community) published in 1942 Berlin.

It was a comprehensive plan of how Germany would manage the economies of Europe had they won the war. It contained plans for a single currency, trade, transport, a customs union, agricultural policy and much more. The reality is that this document is very similar to the EEC that was formed in 1957 (treaty of Rome). The reality of post-war Germany is that even though they had been defeated militarily they were able to win diplomatically.

The bankers, ministers and economists who were responsible for devising plans such as this were the type of people negotiating with the west after the war. Germany was uniquely placed between the United States and its enemy and immediate threat the Soviet Union. The United States and Britain wanted to rearm west German troops in the fight against communism. This gave Konrad Adenauer (chancellor of West Germany) and his ministers a unique negotiating position in which they were able to receive billions of dollars from American investment (Marshall Plan). This investment combined with good economics allowed Germany to recover from World War Two much faster than Britain.

So, over the last century at some point, the United States, Britain, the rest of Europe and Russia have all been engaged in this idea of a New World Order. It’s safe to say that many in power have influenced and shaped it into what it is today. On one hand, some believe it is a force for good, making war less likely in Europe again. It also suggests that travel, work and business are easier within the bloc. It has made considerable efforts in the environment and human rights. However, I’m a realist and you don’t have to be a genius to realise that we live in a dangerously divided political landscape. WHY? Brexit didn’t create this division it was merely the realisation of the division that has existed for decades. Without referendums and effective democratic representation, how can our politicians act on our views to move forward in a compromised manner? In over four decades we have had two democratic procedures to oppose the European agenda as a nation (1975/2016 referendum). It’s a very simple concept of political action going in one direction whilst public opinion goes in another. This literally creates the conditions needed for civil war and revolution.

However, a large portion of the population agrees with our government’s collaboration with a foreign entity, despite having no say on the revolutionary constitutional changes that have affected our country, such as the Maastricht treaty. Slowly but surely over the space of a few decades we have gone from a trading bloc with seemingly sincere and logical war avoiding goals, to the formation of a European Superpower and full scale, borderless political union with a total of eight institutions if you include its External Action Service, which includes an army, navy and air force. Did you ever get asked if that was ok? If you were on board with this idea?

 If you think a handful of MEP’s on the EU’s payroll can somehow represent an entire nation democratically then you are mistaken. The evidence is all around you. A country with an effective representative democracy isn’t so obviously divided. The majority will agree on the big issues as the populace’s views are routinely acted upon. The views outside of this mainstream opinion can be accurately deemed as right wing or left wing, whilst the extremely fringe minority opinions can be considered far right or far left. We live in an age where the media, celebs and politicians throw these labels around carelessly with no proper consideration to the democratic source of reference (the people). They take media interpreted public opinion and conclude that anything other than their own opinion must be extreme. We very rarely hear the term far left because the mainstream media unknowingly embrace it.

The views the Brexit Party and Ukip have been championing are shared by the majority of the voting population as per the referendum 2016 and is, therefore, a centrist opinion and yet these exact same views have been deemed as far right at every opportunity by the mainstream media and the EU in the past. This inaccuracy is obvious to many people and due to the lack of representative democracy in this country, we now have a scenario where technically both remain and leave views are centrist opinions. Our government’s collaboration with the EU is the sole cause of this ideological division just as it is the sole cause of representative democracy to avoid it.

You cannot simply abandon the idea of the nation-state for a higher goal in such a short time scale. The very involvement of an international body tying itself so closely with our senior politicians, bankers and businesses in the hope the common man or woman will just fall in line, is a Lenin inspired communist concept and is a recipe for corruption, division and inevitable conflict. The unity that the United Kingdom had achieved after centuries of barbaric slaughter was a long, slow process. In contrast, the European Union has attempted to unite twenty-eight different countries over a few short decades and has inevitably driven a wedge right through the heart of its member states.

So, preventing war in Europe has turned into creating war within its own member states through deep ideological division over the nation-state or the European dream. How can something so divided ever thrive? The Soviets used censorship, brutality and imprisonment until the old had passed away and the younger generations had been successfully conditioned and indoctrinated. These are firmly in the realms of authoritarianism and I fear they are taking place in subtle forms today. Take France and the yellow vest movement as a prime example; Paris in flames and yet news which has been completely censored in the UK. If the EU were somehow successful, we would have another superpower centred in Europe. All empires fall in the end and after two world wars, it will never have my support. I’m glad I backed the nation-state.