I can not really imagine a EU without the UK. But then, when I hear David Cameron saying “we want the good of both worlds, means maintaing the GB£, not belonging to the Schengen area and being the closest partners of Washington and Wall Street” are kind of funny. Ok with David Cameron, a victim of NLP’s “art-of-twaddle” I got used to his Freudian slips, still its a though pill to swallow. 

Reality is: 60 % of British exports are going to EU member states and still there is a British Pound, Britain is not member of Schengen. So why should it be a member of the EU?

So why was Obama two days ago recommending the people in Britain to vote for staying in this European Union with its more then doubtful democratic rulings. Simple: No US government will ever allow to open its border to Mexico and the same applies to its most influential ally in Europe to leave the EU.  

Another aspect is the view from of all those European countries who have been signing the Schengen Agreement: How about all people in Europe would finally live up to the thought if they want the UK remain in the club, despite keeping the GB£ and not being a member of the Schengen agreement?  It looks like that sometimes the EU is building fences on the wrong side. For an example all the fences built in and around the French town of Calais are built to protect an island which is not member of Schengen.

When it comes to political and economical partnerships a divorce is always expensive. So what is more expensive to leave? After Germans cancel or Merkel in 2015 opened all borders, letting one million migrants into Germany (350.000 without identity checks) it is clear just the social costs will stay almost unmanaged. 

I can understand the British people who say; “I do not travel all the time. I can live with border controls. If we have people crossing borders unregulated our social systems will collapse and once they collapse our businesses will collapse anyway.” So why are the EU bureaucrats not honest is ,because they do not want to loose their cozy, highly paid jobs. Saving their wages would be such huge win-win for all that no business would suffer. 

With the full blast of the Washington-Wall street-sybiosis, the support from Goldman Sachs and others, the Cameron loyally  begun to promote for a Yes-vote sending out letters to businesses who in turn suddenly say they want to stay. This clearly is showing Cameron and his successors in spe have to continue to play Washington surrogate nurse and keep UK in the European Union, so Washington does not loose its influence in Brussels.

The reasons are plain and simple: The EU is to become a “U.S. Colony”. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will abolish Europe’s sovereignty. Because of this there is much resistance among the people in Europe to this TTIP. This TTIP is a welcomed boost for American exports to Europe when you look at the sluggish US economy. How would you react to a proposal by e.g. Saudi-Arabia for a partnership and they would insist Europe has to introduce the sharia?  

However, the resistance of Europe citizens is to the power this “partnership” is giving to US capital over European social rights, like worker-, health-insurance and last, but not least, agricultural rights and rules. All those rights are likely to be thrown under the bus if this “partnership” is comming into force. There is also the secrecy around this “partnership”, - not even members of the individual national elected governments have insight of the texts of this agreement. All is being negotiated by a non-elected bureaucracy in Brussels . 

It was Lord Lawson, the leader of the group “Conservatives for Britain” who said in a BBC interview that the US primary interest is to be able to have influence over the entire EU by having Britain, its closest ally, as a member in the EU. Well, then look the realities: The refugee crisis in the French port of Calais are a result. 

There are many governments within Europe, Italy, Germany and France who are calling for a revision of sanctions against Russia. They see very clearly that the majority of European citizens have no illusions about the very sinister role Brussels was forced to play in the Ukrainian case in 2014 after this notorious person Nuland was drawing Europeans close to a conflict with unpredictable out-come. 

Most Europeans do not want that this regime-change exercises are resulting in a dangerous clash with Moscow. They also do not want to be up sorbed by millions of refugees from the regime-change disasters in the Middle East. For America the arrival of millions of refugees has no negative effect. Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands allow only a very few thousand migrants, the East-Europeans, Poland, Estonia, Lettucia, Chech, Hungry, Slowakia do not even allow a few hundert  migrants into their countries. By the end of this year Germany may have one million migrants to accommodate for a cost of at least 10 billion Euro. So, the economically strongest state in Europe is systematically weakened. 

If Britain would leave the EU I’m sure Europe it will give signals to other European countries.  Forget the word partnership when talking about TTIP. This will weaken Europe even more.  The leaked informations about the rules of TTIP are so worrying that there can’t be a partnership. Europe must understand its just a half-island of Asian Continent.  Its future is Asia when you think about Europe ends at the Ural. But Britain is just a small doughty island.