ANOTHER excellent article giving a Spanish point of view by Víctor Santana Lorenzo  was first published, in Spanish, on the website Libertario. You can read it in the versión original here. But here’s my rough and ready translation (with apologies for only having had about ten minutes to do so):

‘An unprecedented financial crisis will be unleashed.’ — ‘Oil prices will skyrocket.’ — ‘We’ll lose purchasing power.’ — ‘Pensions will be put in peril.’ — Even, ‘It will lead to World War III,’ or, even more ominous: “The beginning of the end of Western Civilisation.’

These portentous predictions do not refer to the threat of Islamic terrorism, global warming, water and food shortages in Africa or even the lack of vaccines to treat curable diseases. No. They are phrases that politicians and bureaucrats (including, for example, the unelected leaders of the European Commission), the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the ECB and other interest-groups have employed when speaking about “Brexit” i.e. the possibility of the United Kingdom (or rather its citizens) decide to cancel their membership of the European Union.

Can they all be in agreement? Really? Can they pretend to decide for British citizens in their serried ranks? Their unanimity is remarkable. But when it comes to solving the refugee crisis and the deaths in the Mediterranean; or how to help people who suffer the consequences of EU economic policies in Greece, Spain or Portugal; they show less resolve. And why might this be? Maybe because such trifles do not endanger the enormous bureaucratic machine of the status quo upon which depends their position, their comfort and their (disproportionately generous) tax-free  salaries? And, to make matters worse, we citizens are paying for this.

Every year, at every summit of world leaders — from meetings of Heads of State and governments in Brussels, to conferences on climate change and development aid — we hear no end of pie in the sky. These meetings are little more than useless, rarely reaching any important or even minimally ambitious agreement. Yet, after each one, each participant appears on television in his or her home nation to tell us that in these matters we must go ‘step by step”, that these are ‘difficult decisions’ and that there is a need to balance the ‘many interests at stake.’

Let’s be clear: this is a joke. When matters are so complex, why, when it comes to Brexit, have all managed to agree so quickly? What possible credibility can all these threats — bankrupt pension funds, the fall of the pound and international isolation — possibly have coming from the self-same voices who were last in agreement when they told us that the Euro would deliver a rise of 1% of GDP for each country, year on year? Make no mistake. These belligerent warnings have little to do with Brexit. Nor are they borne out of concern for the welfare of the citizens of Britain. It goes much further and strikes much deeper. It is a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo and, with it, the privileges of a ‘new aristocarcy’ that we, the citizens of Europe, believed had disappeared more than 200 years ago.

Proponents of Brexit do not seek to end Europe but rather a system which only works for itself. We want to see an end to unjust and undemocratic structures that are only available to the ‘new aristocracy’ who make all the decisions. That’s what all of us in Europe should  want to change. Now, at least, British citizens are preparing to go into battle. What are we doing?