Why was Britain leaving the EU called ‘Brexit’?

It’s a word we hear used every day now, a word that didn’t exist not all that long ago.  Where did it come from and why are we using it?   Are there any alternatives that might work better for us?  We are a nation, and capable of controlling our own language.  Where do we want all this to go from here?

The problem for the EU was to have a member leaving and the effect that that would have on the EU’s image and prospects.  Instead of solidity, and certainty, there would be doubt and perceived weakness.  If the process had been called EUbreakup or EUquit, emphasising the event from the EU’s point of view, the PR consequences would obviously have been verging on the catastrophic from the EU’s perspective.  By coming up with a name for the process which makes out the problem is only one as far as Britain is concerned, the EU’s perceived integrity is not compromised.  Brexit can only apply to Britain.  EUQuit would leave it open for any other EU member to join in, but with Brexit, you’re a one off and on your own.

The other advantage in the name is that it emphasises the negative.  In any divorce there are negatives, the ending of a relationship, an end of the line and and to hopes of a successful outcome.  Yet there are also hopes of a better life once the negatives are dealt with.  That’s the whole point of getting divorced presumably.  Divorce is called divorce for that reason, to make it sound as negative as possible.  If however it was called SingleAgain, or Second Chance, or NewLife, then it would sound a lot more attractive.

If Brexit was BritFree, or DemocracyRegained, or something positive, that would be totally unacceptable to Brussels.  For Brits seeking freedom, it has to be sackcloth and ashes, and Brexit.  The ‘exit’ is a doorway to the outside, away from the warmth, and the party, a journey usually taken alone.  Does it all need to be so negative as the mainstream media would have it?

The name alone shows that the process is being run by Brussels PR from the get go.  The reality of walking through the exit door will no doubt be made as rough as possible so people are left begging to be let back in again.  That’s stage two, starting March 2019.  That date might coincide with other world events, stock market crashes, the end of quantitative easing, negative actual interest rates (you are penalised for holding cash balances, and paid to borrow cash), more wars to suppress opposition to world government.

Is it all worth it?  To me yes.  It is.  We have lost most of our democracy and the loss experienced over the last fifty years.  Behind the EU and the move to totalitarian fascist government stands far more losses of freedom to come.  If we don’t fight for human sovereignty, we are not all we should be.

It is a little worrying to say the least what might happen, but rather than taking a certain pathway to 1984, inside the EU, it’s worth trying the exits available while we still can.  You never know.  If we are not thrown into a US totalitarian fascist state instead of an EU one, we might find a Goldilocks scenario, somewhere between Rome and Persia, a country where we can trade down the middle and continue as a sovereign human state for a while longer.  The ride will be rough, I am sure, but it’s a ride we need to take, and should have taken a long time ago, before Blair, Brown, Major and Thatcher sold us into inevitable fascist slavery.  Our humanity demands we never give up.

So stop calling it Brexit and go for EUquit, (to rhyme with UKIP).  We can move on from there to FreeB, rhyming with GB, and maybe finally the confidence of the former GB will re-emerge.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.