The full text isn't known yet but it's been leaked that Obama will try to intervene into the British June 23rd referendum about the kingdom's departure from the European Union. (The Daily Telegraph honored Obama by offering him some room on the prestigious enough Page 20 today.)
Barack Obama will claim that Britain is a weak loser who doesn't have a chance to survive for a week away from Angela Merkel's and Jean-Claude Juncker's breasts. It's important for the strength of Britain to shut up and become an obedient servant of the bureaucracy in Brussels. Without the leadership of Merkel and others, Britain may degrade into a banana constitutional monarchy led by monarchs who even demanded exporters of tea to pay their taxes back in 1776. On the contrary, the permanent residence under Angela's skirt will make Britain much stronger, Obama argues.
Boris Johnson is the popular conservative mayor of London who happens to lead the "Out" camp of the Brexit referendum and, like 60% of Britons, he may have some issues with this meddling by Obama. In The Sun, he wrote an essay
Churchill was a great warrior for the strength of the British Empire – who not only helped to save the democratic world (and restore countries like Czechoslovakia: Churchill was the first major politician who left the old, 1938 European Union codified by the Munich Treaty) but who also sent some troops against some rebels in Kenya – so the Obama-Churchill chemistry didn't work too well.
Boris mentions many examples of extra expenses paid into the EU wallets that the British membership includes – and lots of respects in which the British sovereignty has been weakened. He points out that it's particularly ironic and hypocritical for America to encourage its friends (?) to throw away big parts of their sovereignty because America is extremely sensitive when it comes to its own sovereignty.
For example, Unistatia hasn't even allowed the International Criminal Court yet and it has avoided the adoption of the international convention for seas, Johnson observes.
Many of Boris' arguments against the EU membership are standard and unrelated to Obama. I agree that Obama and many Americans are attempting to enforce very different standards for others – e.g. when it comes to sovereignty. On the other hand, when Johnson says that Obama would never make America join the EU, we should carefully ask:
Are you sure, Boris?
The reason is that at the end, I find Obama's ideas about politics, relationship between countries, nations, states, and ethnic groups to be extremely similar to those in Brussels. If it were up to Obama, America could very well become an EU member state. It would almost certainly join the bloc of countries where the political correctness has run amok, countries that would like to actively distribute millions of incompatible migrants across the whole continent. And I even think that Obama's America-within-the-EU would be much more aggressive in the promotion of similar suicidal policies than Angela Merkel or other contemporary European lunatics.
Boris says that Obama's plans to push the U.K. deeper to the EU are inconsistent, incoherent, and downright hypocritical. With certain assumptions, I agree. However, a required assumption is that the outcomes that Obama actually wants are at least slightly similar to the outcomes favored by Boris Johnson or many of us. That assumption might be incorrect.
Obama may very well want a centralized continental, intercontinental, or global government composed of the likes of his puppet master who control gray, carefully mixed, easy-to-be-manipulated, multicultural population with systematically reduced IQ in vast regions of the world. That's what many of the jerks in Brussels want and even though we're not used to think about Obama as a Eurocrat, I think that by his nature, he's really an ultimate role model for them.
Don't get me wrong. I can imagine many circumstances – or even many perspectives on the current conditions – in which it would be a great idea for the U.S. to join the European integration process. The Western civilization may be really threatened and in that case, it's better if the nations stay unified. The economies may be threatened and it could even be a good idea for the U.S. to join the Eurozone and merge the two currencies, and so on. And as everyone know, I am a basically fan of the American-European free trade agreements.
But aside from the gradual integration in justifiable aspects of the life, there exists a huge part of the ongoing European integration that is absolutely clearly counterproductive, that is reducing the freedom and sovereignty of the nations and the ability of their populaces to decide about their lives. The EU has begun to personify the march towards post-democracy, absence of feedbacks and accountability of the politicians, post-modernism, excessive political correctness, new forms of totalitarianism, and other things.
Boris Johnson probably sees many of the things in a similar way as millions of Europeans and Americans. America is outside the EU so it may enjoy some extra freedom from the pressures exerted by Brussels. But at the end, I do think that all the people in the West are basically observing the same reality, they understand what their soulmates on the other side of the Atlantic sometimes have to face, and most of the dangerous trends in the EU are actually trends endangering the whole Western civilization.
Nigel Farage says that Obama is the most anti-British U.S. president so far, and why. Farage also thinks that Obama doesn't understand what the EU is. A more emotional reaction by Farage exists, too.
I must mention one paradoxical thing: the U.K. is clearly located "in between" the continental Europe and the United States. So any weakening of its links more or less unavoidably means that the U.K. is getting closer to the U.S. An American president should welcome that, right? Why doesn't Obama like the "Out" vote in the Brexit referendum? Well, even though I think that Petr Hájek's Counterstream is full of sometimes over-the-edge conspiracy theories, I agree with the general spirit of one theme: the EU officials are, to a large extent, controlled from D.C. these days. So if the U.K. leaves the EU, it will mean that the power of Obama and pals will weaken because they won't be able to control the U.K. as well as they can do it now! It may sound shocking but it's the only sensible explanation why Obama is so eager to keep the U.K. "In".
It's up to the British voters to decide. I have mixed feelings about that. I am not terribly looking forward to any possible hysteria about the possible "Out" result, the market panic, and other things. And I don't like the idea that a more sensible EU member will disappear so that the average EU country becomes more hardcore and Brussels-like. On the other hand, I am confident that the Britons also have the right and numerous very good reasons to vote "Out" and such a result will not lead to any hugely bad consequences for their country. And the consequences of the "Out" vote for countries like mine will be basically non-existent.
Also, I can understand the emotions of many Britons who are being insulted by their fellow citizens and by Americans who say that Britain is too weak to live outside the EU – Johnson has mentioned this theme, too. Queendom is the fifth largest economy of the world and some two centuries ago, it was really the most important empire in the world. Why should its survival depend on some apparatchiks in Brussels or the alliance with countries that have been separated from Queendon by the English Channel for thousands of years? I am sure that members of many other nations see the same absurdity when their nations are being insulted in similar ways.
There are lots of issues and worries that are regional or national in character. But the Western civilization also faces certain threats and problems that sensible people across the civilization understand in very similar ways. Many of us respect concepts such as the national sovereignty, nation state, home rule etc. – which naturally make us relatively isolated from soulmates in other countries because e.g. the "CZ patriotism" and "UK patriotism" are ultimately different things.
But we must acknowledge that many of the values we believe in are rather universal and that we're facing an enemy that is organizing itself at the international level. So we simply must be thinking about doing the same thing. Britons will be primarily deciding about the future of their country – or at least one important (but so far not quite fatal) aspect of it. But the decision will have consequences for others and, on the contrary, many people outside Britain are influencing what happens in Britain. Even though we favor sovereignty of nations, we can't deny the constant interactions between all countries and places of the world.
P.S. I must answer a question posed by Johnson:
Can you name your Euro-MP? Can you say what they are doing in Strasbourg?I actually can. I voted for Petr Mach (whom I know in person a bit) as the #1 candidate of the Free Citizens Party and he got there. He's fighting for the traditional values and "local decisions" and against the lunacies of the EU for many hours a day, I believe according to his reports on the Internet. In fact, I follow the activities of some other Czech MEPs as well and – even though I wouldn't say the same thing just a few years ago – I actually believe that the average Czech MEP does more work than the average member of our national Parliament right now.
However, two years ago, if I knew about this female candidate from Mach's party who is interested in physics and astronomy (but studies medicine), I could have given her some extra personal votes to get higher from the spot #19. ;-)