Page 1 of 4

My personal rationale for voting Leave

My personal decision to vote Leave rests on just three key points:(a) The balance of risks
(b) My concern for the future quality of life in the UK
(c) The right of democratic self-determination.
Taking each of these points in term:(b) The balance of risks:
Leaving the EU presents risks.
But staying within the EU also presents risks.
To vote to stay within the EU is not to vote for a status quo option, because there is no
status quo option in this decision.
The EU was founded to pursue a mission of ever-closer integration: the end objective being
some kind of Europe-wide mega-state, aka New European Empire. The Commissioners of
the EU are personally charged with pursuing this policy of ever-closer integration.
Coupled with the pursuit of ever-closer integration, it would seem that the EU is also bent on
a parallel mission of ever-greater enlargement: Over the next 10 to 15 years the EU plans to
admit Turkey, Albania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina and
Kosovo as full members of the EU. A total population of 140 million people.
This pursuit of ever-closer integration and ever-greater enlargement will create a vast New
European Empire spanning from the shores of the Bosporus to the shores of the Atlantic.
One can view this empire-building mission as either heroic or inherently highly risky; possibly
both. What is certain is that such a mission is without precedent, Roman wars of conquest
excepting.
Part of the pursuit to integration has been the attempt to impose over-arching economic
structures, notably the Euro. The adoption of this single currency across countries of very
different cultures and levels of economic discipline has meant that adjustment of relative
labour costs between states through the movement of currency exchange rates is no longer
possible. This one-size fits all currency regime has brought unemployment, poverty and
misery to the nations of Southern Europe. The response of the EU in the face of these grave
societal difficulties is not to back-off, but rather to re-double its efforts to ever-closer
integration, in the belated recognition that it is folly to implement a common currency
ahead of a common fiscal regime.
But was it simply an act of thoughtless folly on the part of the EU to implement a common
currency without first establishing a common fiscal regime ? Or was it (correctly) seen by
the EU that it could never gain pan-national approval to implement a common fiscal regime
without first applying the painful strait-jacket of the Euro to EU states, such that these states
then had no option other than to agree to move to a common fiscal regime ? The history of
the pursuit of the goal of European unification is marked with many examples of such

Page 2 of 4
devious tactics; those involved justifying such chicanery on the basis that the end justifies
the means.
The EUs attempts at providing an over-arching set of political policies for its New European
Empire also give rise to dismay.
The attempt to deal with the problems caused by the recent mass migration to Europe from
the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa is a case in point.
Germany offers asylum-seekers a home, exciting millions of immigrants to make their way to
Europe in hope of finding a new homeland there. Meanwhile other EU nations attempt to
distance themselves from the problem of mass migration. Some, like Greece and Italy
however, cannot distance themselves because their shores are a landing-point for the poor
and the desperate.
As individuals and as nations we are torn between humanitarian
compassion for the refugees and our self-interest in not wishing to accommodate and
burden ourselves with millions of homeless and potentially unemployable migrants.
The EU is found incapable of providing a coherent solution to the problem of mass migration
that is universally acceptable by all EU states. Instead we see disarray between EU states
and finger-pointing.
What will be the longer-term effects of the EUs pursuit of economic integration, overspanning political policies and ever-expanding territorial boundaries ?
We do not know.
Will far-right and far-left parties spring up in bitter reaction to the ruinous EU economic
policies? Will the big government nature of the EU result in counter-cultural direct-action
movements that foment civil unrest and terrorism ?
What we do know is that the records of past European empires do not evidence a convincing
track record of fostering a happy human condition: Each of these historic empires has
broken down, leaving societal disarray and economic dislocation in their wake.
To choose to Remain then is to choose to be a captive passenger on the EU juggernaut in
its pursuit of an ever-closer union of an ever-greater number of states and to be subject to
the foreseeable and unforeseeable risks that attach to a journey wholly outside of our
control.
To choose to Leave is to take matters in our own hands, to steer our own ship, for better
or for worse, and to alter course where we find it necessary
(a) Future quality of life in the UK:
As mentioned above, over the next 10 to 15 years the EU plans to admit (and give freedom
of movement to) the following nations to become full members of the EU: Turkey, Albania,
Ukraine, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo. A total
population of 140 million people; the majority of whom are unskilled and low wage.
Some 800,000 Poles have arrived here since Poland was granted entry to the EU. This
constitutes over 2% of the entire Polish population of 38 million.
The above new entrant countries have a lower per capita income than Poland.

Page 3 of 4
If 2% of the 140 million of the above countries arrive here, then that would be almost a
further 3 million immigrants: equivalent to three "Birminghams".
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) forecasts a growth in the population of the U.K. of
five million over the next ten years; this is equivalent to "two Greater Manchester's" or "five
Birmingham's".
Three million of the ONS forecast of the five million increase results from net immigration.
To house five million people will require two million homes.
Over the last five years we have built just c 140,000 new homes per year.
To build two million homes at the current rate of 140,000 per year would take fourteen
years. To build two million homes in ten years we would have to galvanise the UK housebuilding industry to increase its current build-rate by 50% to build the equivalent of two
Greater Manchester's in the next ten years, together with all supporting public
infrastructures, i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons, transport links, power, water and sanitation
services.
Is this plan achievable ? I think not.
If the ONS forecast turns out to be correct, or even under-stated, and we fail to deliver the
necessary homes and public infrastructures, what then ? We will have massive overcrowding in housing, leading to slum conditions. We will have great difficulty in obtaining
school places for our children, our hospitals services will yet further deteriorate, our trains
will be even more packed, our roads more log-jammed, our power supplies at risk of blackouts and our sanitation services at risk of dumping effluent into our rivers and onto our
beaches.
A crude scenario of the resulting over-populated, under-resourced future of such a UK can
be seen in any one of the massively over-populated slum cities of the Far East and South
America.
Even if by some miracle of planning and state intervention we are able to adequately house
and support another five million people, where are these new massive urban conurbations
to be built ?
Are we to have a continuous urban sprawl development the full distance alongside the M1
between London and Birmingham ?
Is England to become one vast housing estate ?
This vision, of a grossly over-populated Britain, I fervently do not wish to see become a
reality.
(d) The right of democratic self-determination:
My final reason for deciding to vote Leave is the most ethereal, the most fundamental and
for me the most overwhelmingly important of my three reasons.
The EU Parliament currently comprises EMP representatives of the existing 29 EU member
states: UK EMPs are just 10% of the total EMPs.

Page 4 of 4
With the admission of Turkey, Albania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia
Herzegovina and Kosovo to the EU, the number of member states will increase from 29 to 37
and UK representation within the chamber must necessarily reduce from its current 10%
voting rights to some as yet undefined lower percentage.
Attempting to agree common policy on a range of issues amongst 37 states, of different
cultures and differing self-interests, will be a herculean task. Attempting to obtain support
for matters of vital interest to the UK, a non-Euro member state of a wholly different culture
to say, Turkey, Albania or Ukraine, may become almost impossible.
Notwithstanding the above issue, of the UKs minority EMP representation in the EU
parliament, more importantly In the EU Parliament we have a chamber that can debate and
endorse laws but cannot propose them.
Instead we have a body of Commissioners who make the laws (in their sworn pursuit of
ever- closer integration of EU states) but whom we do not elect and we may not dismiss.
This ability, to choose those who are to govern us, coupled with the ability to dismiss them
should they disappoint, is for me a fundamental good, which out-weighs all other issues of
consideration.
In the absence of self-determination we put the circumstances of our lives outside of our
own control and into the hands of others; that is we become the subjects of tyranny. Should
we then become unhappy with our circumstances we have no legitimate political means by
which we can bring about improvement. Our only recourse then is revolution.
History offers us many examples of circumstances where people, denied satisfactory
political means of redress, have, in desperation, resorted to arms to throw off tyranny,
including the English Civil War and The American War of Independence.
I admit my own personal weakness here. I simply cannot understand those who regard
democratic self-determination as a petty bauble to be traded in exchange for perceived
material gain. I find it incomprehensible that they do not perceive the precious value in this,
our unique right, for which past generations of men and women have gladly laid down their
lives to purchase for us.
In summary, in this (at least) I am wholly at one with Enoch Powell when he says:Independence, the freedom of a self-governing nation, is in my estimation the
highest political good, for which any disadvantage, if need be, and any sacrifice
are a cheap price.

I rest my own personal case for deciding to vote Leave.

Alan Stedall,
April 26th 2016, Sutton Coldfield