Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Now for that you have to give credit to the inhabitants of the British Isles: Just by holding a referendum they got to the point considering the European problems. One should only keep in mind the paper of almost six hundred pages negotiated between the Tory government and Brussels. This “paper” highlights the problems for the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union (EU): Britain is a torn country. For malice on the Continent there is no reason, as the rest of the EU is, due to the EU-European war policy, Ms Merkel’s decision on behalf of migration starting in September 2015 and the consequences of the US bankruptcies in 2007 and the years to follow, in no better condition. But what is it that makes the situation in the British Isles so dangerous? In recent years, it has emerged that Britain is the result of English island imperialism. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been torn for decades between the emphasis on self-evident autonomy on one side and remaining inside the constitutional formation that the English part of the Isles had hard-won against the Scots, Welsh, and Irish in recent centuries. Viewed from the outside, the impression is that in the British Isles everything is focused on the necessities of the “City of London” as the central point of British politics.
The political watershed was the Brexit decision of 2016. This has been clarified by the breaking points of the British situation. As unloved the European Union may or may have been by the British Isles, its effects have been wholesome and soothing. For Northern Ireland, the “Good Friday Agreement” and prosperity guaranteed by the European Union offered a chance to distance itself from endless bloodshed. Wales received from Brussels subsidies without end and Scotland through EU-Europe the chance to see that not only London applied shackles, as far as proud Scottish action went. However, the reality created by the Brexit decision makes it clear that the bloody and rogue past will reappear when the opportunities of EU-Europe are deliberately rejected. Should the Civil War in Northern Ireland break out again? Should Wales drift into independence and Scotland do what it wants to do with changing majorities since centuries? All this is not eliminated, but is nonetheless maintained in a bloodless relation with the possibility, expressed in the negotiated paper, of the entire United Kingdom remaining in the “European Customs Union”. None of this has to break out in the British Isles of what has crystallized since the bloody events in the Balkans on these islands. In a way, the Balkans has paid the price in recent decades for British diplomats torpedoing any opportunity for peace because they feared a negative impact on the cohesion of the British Isles.
From the point of view of many Britons, the price to be paid is too high. Here, two principles collide in an almost unsolvable consequence: EU-Europe offers the United Kingdom the opportunity not to be dominated by centrifugal forces in the future. On the other hand, this ruling on remaining in the “European Customs Union” is almost dramatically contrary to the principle in the British democratic genes: “No legislation without representation”. Europe’s offer is for peace, but there is no voice in a customs union that goes over British heads. So far, British voters decided too in EU-Europe. Leaving EU-Europe will put an end to this, even if taken into account the above well-documented benefits of remaining in the Customs Union to prevent civil-warlike conditions here and there on the islands. The United Kingdom is currently caught between “a rock and a hard place”. Civil war or renunciation of say – that is the question.
In this dilemma one could leave the British to stew, because they followed the Johnsons of this world and not the Camerons. This is urgently to be discouraged because the British, democratic dilemma affects us all in the EU. It was the European peoples who, with great approval, launched the “European project”. They wanted to weatherize their sovereignty by cooperation. However, they had to experience that their representatives had used this authority to act against the “sovereign,” to abolish it as a constituent and to consign “predetermined interests of the global industry and non-governmental organizations “with also backgrounds to foreign governments the role of the “sovereign”. We have seen this not constitutionally legitimized action taken by the respective German governments in two elementary examples. Germany has been at war since 1999, in defiance of the United Nations Charter and its own constitution, and is thus one of the main causes of human misery in many parts of the world.
In September 2015, the German Chancellor without authorization rendered defenceless the borders of Germany. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people came unjustified and uncontrolled to Germany. Thus, the German constitutional state was virtually nullified without gain in humanity. An irreparable damage was and is the result. This is above all because the Bundestag did not or did not want to fulfil its state responsibilities. The European Union should consider its political life-lies if Brexit is to make sense.
The rift does not go between the British Isles and the EU alone, the rift goes right through the EU. Poland, Hungary and other countries are now closer to the state conceptions of the Russian Federation than the rampaging EU breeding champions like Timmermanns and Asselborn.
Almost thirty years after the German reunification, we have to conclude that in their own country due to the out-of-focus approach of “Berlin” things don’t look different. For the Berlin government “democracy is of yesterday”. The German nation sees it differently, as do the people in the British Isles: no legislation without representation by the citizens.
