The Mancunion

Britain's biggest student newspaper

Leave behind the EU and embrace Rule Britannia

In his true final piece of the year, Colm Lock lays out the case for Britain voting to leave in June


The EU is quite the hot topic these days. It seems to have a monopoly on our news outlets and will continue to do so until the 23rd of June when it will at last all be over. The sweet release after months of campaigning has taken its toll will be evident, and we will either have a vote to remain or a vote to leave. I would very much prefer the latter and I will explain briefly why.

But firstly, for the more attentive amongst you it may come as a surprise to see me pen another article this year. Indeed, I did say that I was spent for the rest of the semester. But when my editor put out a call for someone to write a piece on the merits of Brexit, the opportunity was too much to pass up. So back to this grim business.

The paramount reason for us to leave the EU, and hopefully trigger its collapse, is because of its basic threats to democracy. It has ridden roughshod over the parliaments of Greece and Portugal, is victimising Poland for electing a Eurosceptic government and has an all-powerful executive comprised of appointed bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the likes of you or I. I doubt they answer even to God at this point. Britain is therefore in very great danger of being sucked further into the project.

There is contentious argument over how many of our laws are made in Brussels. But whether it is 70% or just 15%, the figure is immaterial. Even a single percentage should be completely unacceptable. We have fought wars against two kings to establish the sovereignty and rights of the British people and the British parliament and yet we are willing to capitulate our legislative abilities to these continentals? The EU is not accountable to us. If we dislike a law imposed on us by the Commission, can we overturn it? Nope. This should be an affront to us all. For it was Britain who invented parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, the right to own property, habeas corpus; the list goes on. Much of this is threatened under the EU and so we must be away.

“But what about our influence in the world?”, the Remain campaigners screech as they hurl darts at a Nigel Farage cut out. They say we cannot go it alone. That we are too small a country to negotiate our own trade deals or that we will be at risk of attack should we leave. What do I say to that? Poppycock! I’ve heard more truths from Fox News on the theory of evolution. Of course we can go it alone.

We are the 5th largest economy on the planet and we have the strongest military in Europe. I like to think that we could cope outside the EU. Norway and Iceland seem to be doing okay and last time I checked they weren’t being annexed by Russia. Please note this could change by the time this is published.

In terms of trade deals, we have links to possibly the biggest community on the planet, the Commonwealth. Why not trade with countries who share our language, our values and our love of cricket? The Prime Minster of New Zealand recently said that we are forgetting who our friends are; many are emerging markets and healthy growing economies as opposed to the pitiful state of Europe’s economies.

We have bugger all influence in the EU as it is anyway. In the last 20 years we have objected to 55 pieces of legislation in the council of ministers and 55 times we have been defeated. That is not influence, that is irrelevance.

Now you could vote to remain and look forward to a United States of Europe being shackled to the likes of the French, with our flag to be replaced by that blue and yellow monstrosity and have Ode to Joy being our national anthem. We joined with the promise of free trade and instead have been sucked into participation of the early stages of a super state. We should strive for a Europe of independent nation states free to do as they please, and it is up to us to blaze the trail for them.

So on June 23rd, vote to leave the EU so that we might again completely govern ourselves and trade with the world as we should like. Because, to quote Tony Blair (I can’t believe I just said that): “The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth.”

And by Jove we can go it alone.

  • Betty Wap

    Another badly written article by Colm Lock, who clearly failed to pay attention in his GCSE English classes. He writes like the lovechild of Enid Blyton and Jeremy Clarkson.

    It’s a badly structured argument, based on nationalism and xenophobia. He makes a weak political argument and to compare the economics of the Commonwealth to that of the European Union is laughable. Then again so is this piece.

    It’s very cute of him to reference colonialism in the title and then throughout the article. Let’s hark back to a time Britain can be proud of, when Britain invaded and enslaved a quarter of the planet. You only need to look at the Middle East today for conformation of imperialism’s positive legacy.

    He also failed to mention the story that is actually monopolising the news at the moment, the tax affairs of a certain David Cameron.

    All in all a pretty poor effort, Colm. Poppycock.

    • adam

      What’s the tax affairs of David Cameron got to do with the EU debate?
      Where has he mentioned the British Empire throughout the article? He didn’t. You did. (Also the writer doesn’t get to choose the title – it’s added on after by somebody else)
      Also, as for “nationalism and xenophobia”, I think you’ve misunderstood Colm. It’s clearly been written in a humorous manner. I cannot find any quote in the article that one could genuinely be offended or insulted by – unless you have the emotions of a 5 year old.
      Disagreeing is fine. But taking offence at lines that were clearly written in humour is silly.

      • Current Affairs Editor

        A quick clarification – not all headline are written by editorial staff. In this example the headline was written by the writer.

        • adam

          Fair enough and thanks for the clarification in this case. But the point still stands that in the main body of text, there has not been one mention of the British Empire. It is unfair to suggest that he was referencing colonialism, since he hasn’t – there has been no mention or suggestion of it in the main body. Which was the point I was making to the OP. There are legitimate grounds to criticize or disagree with an article without making things up.