Rjan:
Because of the amount of disruption you’d cause - not just from the necessary effects of any policies you pursue, but from the consequences of retaliatory actions, and from the perception of Britain being seen as a loose cannon (not just in the eyes of foreign nations, but of British bosses literally asking “Am I going to have a European market to sell to tomorrow, if I pay out wages for production today?”).Even if the state stepped in to control the economy, maintain order, and guarantee profits (like it did with the banking crash), the costs borne would quickly exceed the membership fee saved (and remember you’ve won a referendum by a wafer-thin margin based on promising money savings, not of promising to spend a lot of money and cause a lot of economic upset simply to make a symbolic point with no other payoff).
It’s like I say, I don’t even know why we’re having this argument. Not even the most extreme, hard-right Brexiteers suggested flatly reneging on our existing commitments the day after the referendum (which are easily affordable, even if you see them as illegitimate and should never have been agreed to in the past) - at best, those commitments were to be treated as a bargaining chip (for example, Boris arguing that the EU could “go whistle” for our contributions, if they did not agree to a trade deal).
The reality is, it took both world superpowers running at full steam, a variety of resistance movements in almost every European nation, plus the British economy on an total war footing that left almost everything utterly worn out by the end of the war and lumbered it with 60 years of war debts, just to bring Hitler to his knees. You’re living in the clouds when you imagine that if Britain defaulted on its (modest and freely-entered-into) obligations for just the next couple of years, that it would be their problem rather than ours. I would agree that It indeeed took a gargantulan political effort to even get so much as Lend Lease out of America, with them not coming into the war for an indecently prolonged period whilst Britain stood alone, looking like losing. If only such “gargantulan efforts” politically could be made to get Brexit done, rather than support the losing side of Remain.
Indeed, and the simple fact is that Britain would have folded against the Nazis had it not been for worldwide support. But how concerned do you think the world is going to be to support an irrational political convulsion by a tiny minority of Brexiteers over EU membership fees? There would be no point going crying to the US, because it has political and military interests in the EU project and strong alliances with the other member states, so if it was forced to take sides on this particular issue it would take the side of the EU.
I don’t want to go off on a tangent about pensions (obviously I support the principle of workers’ pensions), but on shareholding, if you want democracy then you agree with collective ownership and control.
Even if shareholders had one vote per shareholding, the reality is that the rich would just buy up all the shares - and would outbid poor people for those shares.
As expected it’s clear that you’ve got absolutely no sense of loyalty to your own country because you don’t even actually believe that it has the right to exist as such.To the point where you obviously take the side of the EU in ‘retaliating’ against us for the crime of secession.This is all going to get messy sooner or later with this type of division being an ideological one not an economic one at all and you know it.Having already shown that you’ve got no intention whatsoever of admitting defeat concerning what was a clear majority vote to leave the stinking EU Federation ( EUSSR in all but name ).The definition of Leave meaning no more cash for the privilege of Brit jobs for EU workers and an end to free movement.Among other issues related to the full return of sovereignty and don’t pretend that you don’t recognise the definition of national sovereignty over EU rule in whatever form in that regard.
As for the US yes it’s no surprise that secession in Europe presents a conflict of interest with the US’s own ideology and Federal government regime.In which if push comes to shove there’s no way that it will support secession here because of the implications at home when states like Texas say why not us too.Also bearing in mind that its corrupt dealings with China shows that it no longer has any fear or qualms about selling the West out to Socialism if they see a few bob in it.
But don’t expect the secessionist side to swallow your Soviet Federalist zb without the argument turning very nasty sooner or later just as throughout history.Your rabble obviously kicking off such a fight in predictably not being prepared to accept a clear democratic mandate for secession and supporting the undemocratic imposition of foreign Federal rule on the country with your loyalties being with the EU and not your own country in that regard.