The UK has voted to leave the EU.
My life has been shattered.
I am an ex-pat. I left the UK in 2008 and have since then lived in various European countries. Until the day of the UK vote, I, entirely separate from the UK, with a life and an arrangement of my own affairs governed entirely by mutually agreed contracts between private individuals, lived, worked and moved regularly within the EU.
Very soon now, I will not be able to do so.
Why should the choice of sixteen-odd million individuals currently about two thousand miles away whom have nothing to do with my life, and I nothing with theirs, affect MY life? what business it is of theirs?
The answer of course is that by the current arrangement of affairs, where countries exist and assign membership to individuals, and where countries require all individuals to possess such a membership and
decide to give or withhold from them permissions based upon the country which provides that membership – wholly independent of whatever voluntary and well-informed private contracts these individuals would otherwise make – means that indeed, countries possess the power to impose themselves upon my life and indeed the lives of all; and here is an unsual case of a country deciding what to impose upon everyone by a simple majority – but no majority, simple, two-thirds or even complete makes it *right*, for my life is in fact simply none of anyone elses business.
This is oppression. It is the imposition without the justification of self-defence of contracts upon others, here, by State upon individual. For whatever ends it might be thought necessary, it can only be considered expedient – useful, but unethical.
The profound problem with this view is that if an individual holds he can impose his will upon others, then he also holds others can impose their will upon him; anyone who agrees with this going on is agreeing with that which is imposed upon them, and they may indeed not know it, but infinitely more is imposed upon them against their will or, more usually, without their knowledge, than they manage to impose through the medium of the State upon others. In any case, it’s all unethical; you can’t impose contracts on other people except in self-defence.
It has come then to pass that I will benefit from the three years I lived in the Netherlands; for with the addition now of two more years there, and the learning Dutch, and the surrender my British citizenship, I will be granted Dutch citizenship, which means also EU citizenship.
I need to learn some arbitrary second language, live two years in some arbitrary city, and then indeed pay several hundred pounds to the UK State to give up citizenship, then more to the Dutch State to obtain their citizenship – so that I can continue to make the very same private, voluntary, well-informed contracts which I have happily been making for the last eight years with no trouble at all.
What point is there in the existence of the intervention of the State in these matters? what it is *achieving?*
From the point of view of the sixteen million who voted to leave, it removes from them the imposition of contract from the central EU government, and replaces it with the imposition of contract with the central UK government.
Can I observe of this then that in fact *nothing has really changed*, and that which they object to – the imposition of contract – is exactly as it was, and indeed is the very same burden which has now been inflicted upon me, leading to this insane situation where I must learn some arbitrary language and live in some arbitrary place for two years, just to continue to be free.
What is needed, as has always been needed for the entire span of human history, is the emancipation of individual from the largest single source of imposed contract, the State, or, to put it simply, what is needed is *freedom*.