The ‘European Union’ [EU] grants many rights to its citizens, but make no mistake about it, the rights were not provided without good calculations. The laws of the EU were not introduced for the sake of having laws, or for the sake of people being able to say that they have rights.
The EU laws have been designed to deter and prevent situations that inhibit the economic activities of countries, for the benefit of each country of the EU, and for the benefit of the EU as a whole. It’s almost like a sociological study of life in various countries was undertaken at some point, and the flaws that prevent economic activity in those various countries were noted, so that laws preventing those situations would be developed.
At the top of the list of situations that EU laws are designed to prevent, discrimination seems to be the one, but generally, the EU laws aim to help individuals within the EU to become economically active, for the benefit of the EU country, and then for the EU, with a single currency that aids the sharing of the benefits of the EU’s economic activity as a whole.
If problems like discrimination, privacy invasion, and the harassment of innocent persons by governments, can be eliminated, then individuals of those states where this elimination is able to occur, can be free to pursue economic activities and to enjoy life growing in the world. This is a theory behind the EU laws.
#Brexit is a rejection of the EU laws and principles that the UK should benefit from, and looking back at how the Brexit ideology was advertised, #Brexit is based on racism, where the free movement of EU citizens exists for permitting economically active EU citizens to travel-to and remain-in other states of the EU (if they are economically active there), for the benefit of the EU state of their choice. As the UK chooses to reject the EU on the basis of the free-movement principle, despite the economic benefits, what the UK is saying is that despite all of the economic benefits that individuals from other parts of the EU can bring to the UK, that it is nothing – because they are not original UK nationals.
In recent times there isn’t a more blatant example of racism by a state than the Brexit movement of the UK, and a racism that is exclusively beneficial to the original UK national is the kind of racism that will continue to effect all UK citizens that are not the original UK national, during the #Brexit discussions, after the discussions, and have probably effected the same victims long before the #Brexit movement was finally presented.
There are three laws offered by the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights that make it possible for governments and large companies (corporations) to be taken to court and discouraged from wrong doing in the lives of EU citizens:
“The freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices is recognised.” – Article 16
“Everyone is equal before the law.” – Article 20
“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications. “ – Article 7
“Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” – Article 48
The laws above are for preventing governments (and corporations) from excessive and unjustified interference into the lives of EU citizens, and if these laws exist in a country outside of the EU, then they may be able to benefit citizens in those countries for the same purpose.
When it comes to governments intervening in the lives of ordinary individuals of their states, it is very easy for these governments to do so secretly, but in order to do so, they need to communicate with all the people of their victim’s life. It might be the case that the individual is said to be a terrorist suspect, or a violent person, or some other kind of character, where this alarms the others in the victim’s life, towards co-operating with the government behind the victim’s back, but the question for such people to enquire of in such cases is, has the individual been proved guilty of the thing(s) that the government is alleging? If the answer is ‘no’ then the “innocent until proven guilty” principle comes into play, and it could be unlawful for the government to interfere in that person’s life.
In practise, it is a regular thing for individuals to be under investigation for their whole lives; it is often justified by naming an offence that has never been proved, but which has been investigated for years and years, and could continue for the rest of the person’s life unless a government is checked.
In practise, it is possible for individuals whose privacies are being invaded by governments, to not know so for years, and then even when they begin to suspect and realise, they find it impossible to prove, but, in order for a government or corporation to affect an individual’s life in secret, as is possible, the government or corporation needs to communicate with other ordinary people – the same people that the victims of such breaches of privacy are communicating with — and through this avenue an opportunity to prove the breaches of the law becomes possible to show.
The laws are good and can be useful, but in order to be effective, they need to be capable of preventing the various problems — they can, but they cannot without co-operation. A government could continue invading the privacy of its citizens, endlessly, in secret, except if there is a co-operation with every person capable of providing the victim with valuable information (the same people asked to betray the victim by the government or corporation).
The way to create a co-operation is to offer a reward for information.
How has the government become aware that you communicate with such and such people?
What has the government being saying to such and such people about you?
For how long has the government been breaching the victim’s rights to privacy and to conduct a business?
The reward should be for information which shows the intervention of others into the victim’s life, and whether those others are government or just clever nosey people, the said laws provide protection.
The offering of a reward is capable of creating a network for useful and valuable information with the same people business is carried out with — those that can be called friends.
With #Brexit on its way for the UK, can the government of the UK be expected to develop laws that promote and create economic activity? Can the UK be expected to provide laws that protect individuals within the UK from excessive interference into their lives? Probably not, because the UK has shown by #Brexit that economic activity and the prosperity of all its inhabitants, is not a priority. With the UK’s simultaneous doing-away with laws that give improved legal effects to Human Rights laws, can the UK be expected to begin breaching Human Rights laws as can now be expected by the USA? Time reveals.
A #MeToo movement on the basis of the points made above.
For any questions in relation to the above, please contact us.