The beginning of the end of the EU is not the day of Brexit, it is the day the EU under suggestion of that trouble creator of bank Goldman Sachs let Greece in the EU and in the eurozone: that day was the real beginning of the end. That thing could have been rescued through a gracious “Grexit” that Juncker, I don’t know why, avoided. Then the rush towards the end couldn’t be stopped anymore. To insist saying “Cameron shouldn’t give the referendum” is shameful, people who say this better stop.
The EU revealed itself as a boasting giant not worthy the half of the value of a member state. They knew Greece, just as Italy, wouldn’t respect the Maastricht Treaty and let them sign it the same, like a banana republic, a third world country, the opposite of Switzerland. The refugee crisis and the eurozone shameful crisis triggered by Italy, Greece and Germany did the rest. Why should the Britons remain? And why should we? Whatever Treaty is signed can be broken, like Dublin, this is not serious and becomes very dangerous on the long run. It doesn’t work, it is under everybody’s eyes to take it against the Brits is silly. Again the europhiles don’t want to face the EU’s faults. Both structural, inherent the antidemocratic structure of the Union that prevents the citizens from removing the commissioners who do wrong, by willingly impeding any parliamentary power, and the personal faults of the powerful people who happen to run it and to run it the wrong way; is there a reason why at the EU the meetings were held by night after long dinners and not from monday to friday from 9 to 5 like in “Europe”? Why is the EU so different than Europe?
After the legal activation of Brexit tomorrow, because now Cameron cannot keep the world other three or even fourth months like this, the Netherlands and Germany will want no tariffs on trade with the UK, so no big punishment, Renzi will try to get more flexibility, that means more debts, someone will want “the relocation of the refugees” but if Britain doesn’t take them and goes on trading why should little countries already full with extra europeans quite rebellious immigrants like Belgium or France, well why should they take them? It’s Renzi that goes on taking immigrants like a human trafficker he’ll probably be left on his own dealing with this truly “self created problem” in the end Italy had signed the Dublin Regulations and it is not even trying to respect it. The globalists have lost. A United Europe had to be christian and liberal democratic, it was anti-christic and anti-democratic.
The EU between the Greeks and the creditor banks stood on the side of the creditor banks against the Greeks and nothing tells us that when Italy reaches Greece’s point of indebtedness it won’t be doing the same. The best thing would be to reorganize the eurozone, creating a euro only for countries that really respect Maastricht: The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Finland and letting the others having lighter currencies. And stop with this truculent idea of the superbloc. But I don’t see anything else than lies until the crash.
I understand Djsselbloem who wants political union, but is he sure? This means continuous debt relief for Italy, Spain and Greece, or they should do it only among countries that really respect Maastricht. But for any good word by Dijsselbloem, if they didn’t even accept the greek debt relief, and let a previously nice country become european third world, why should we trust them they won’t do the same with Italy, Spain and Portugal? etc.? They talk continuously about peace in the world but when these people see money they just don’t understand anything else. Then it’s better to be like me who am a (italian) brexiteer and I am looking forward rushing away from the EU and from the eurozone.