The antagonistic attitude of the EU towards Brexit, which has become apparent this week, must not deceive. This attitude was not motivated by high European ideals, but by Brussels' mere interest in not losing Britain's funding. For the EU oligarchs. Personal interest comes first, long before wanting to respect democratic decisions.
The way to deal with this issue was to get the result at all costs, otherwise, the British will have to vote again. Otherwise, Brussels will completely ignore the will of the people of the United Kingdom.
On Tuesday, the so-called 'Withdrawal Agreement' of British Prime Minister Theresa May was heavily defeated in the House of Commons, with a large number of voters voting against it.
On the same day, former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, tweeted: "If an agreement is impossible and nobody wants an agreement, who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is? ".
The message was retweetened, among others, by Michel Barnier, who was the main negotiator of the EU Brexit.
We all know, through an exclusion process, what Tusk meant by 'the only positive solution'. Britain remains in the EU and puts two fingers in the eye of the 17.4 million people, many of them from the poorest parts of the country, those who voted to leave, to leave the EU.
The head of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, meanwhile, urged the UK to "clarify its intentions as soon as possible", warning that "time is almost up".
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the European Union offered Britain a bad deal because it knew it would not be approved. Thus, maximum pressure could be exerted in the UK to reconsider its decision to leave, or at least kick Brexit as an option, which is what would happen with a second referendum.
The European establishment wants Britain to reconsider Brexit. The internationalist ideals of 'preserving European unity' do not fit into this, it is about protecting income flows.
There are a few facts to consider. If Britain left without an agreement, the EU as an institution would find much worse than today. The UK has consistently been one of the first three countries to invest more in the EU budget (after Germany and France).
The UK is one of the ten countries that brings more to the EU than it gets. In 2017, the UK's net contribution was £9 billion.
If Britain leaves, the EU faces a financial deficit. In 2016, 16 countries were net recipients, including Donald Tusk's Poland. It is no wonder that he sees Britain as "the only positive solution".
The very generous financial remuneration packages enjoyed by EU officials could also be threatened by the British withdrawal.
In December, it was reported that EU senior civil servants would be paid over €20,000 per month for the first time and that Tusk and Juncker would see their pay packages rise to €32,700 per month. Austerity? Brussels preaches to others but not to itself.
The European Union is a fabulous train of money, benefits and privileges once you are on board. But the train relies on its wealthiest members who do not leave, otherwise who will pay the bill?
If Britain leaves the EU with the "No Deal", it is not only the EU budget that will suffer. In 2017, EU countries sold around £67 billion more goods and services in the UK than those imported from the UK. Europe needs full and unrestricted access to the UK market, much more than Britain needs full and unimpeded access to European markets.
Berlin tries to retain London, not for a form of "nationalism", but simply on the basis of economic reality. The country that would lose the most with Brexit is Germany. Britain's trade deficit with Germany is greater than that of any other country, even higher than China, whose products are everywhere in our stores! In 2016, the year of the EU referendum, Britain imported about £26 billion more from Germany than it exported.
It is therefore not surprising that the president of the Federation of German Industries is one of the signatories to the letter to the Times, asking Britain to stay.
In Germany everyone is saying: "We would have lost Britain as part of the European Union. We would miss Britain as part of the European Union.
We also need to discuss fishing. Other EU countries benefit from the Common Fisheries Policy, which gives them access to UK waters.
Belgian fleets get about half of their fishing from British waters! As reported by the Independent, the common share of fisheries in the last 34 years has provided 84% of cod in the Channel to France and only 9% to the UK. In total, EU vessels fish about four times more fish from UK waters when British vessels fish from EU waters.
Once again, you don't need to be a genius to understand why the EU really does not want Britain to leave.
If the EU's commitment to democracy were genuine, they would have done everything they could to ensure that the result of the June 2016 referendum was implemented. But the financial bias of Britain's departure is too high. So, instead, Brussels has done everything it can to subvert the democratic will of the people, while boasting about their commitment to "democracy".
Of course, the EU is not the only party to blame. The British government has had its share of responsibility in subverting the result, not least because of the pusillanimity of its members.
Theresa May has proved to be desperate for an 'agreement' while, in fact, those who really need an agreement to provide continuous and unrestricted access to the lucrative markets of the UK, are the EU's oligarchs. If the UK government had discovered the Brussels bluff and announced that Britain would go away, you can be sure that Tusk, Barnier, Juncker and others would have come with a much better offer.
Their high salaries and the profits of big European companies depend on it. The techno-bureaucrats in Brussels know how to do their sums well.
