During a June 28 interview with CNBC, former U.S. congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (shown), when asked if the Brexit vote is “the beginning of the end of the European Union,” replied: “Yes, I really do, it will become nonfunctional.” Paul continued:
I think in a functioning way it really is coming to an end. That doesn’t mean tomorrow or the next day, but people are going to be very unhappy. But the end is coming, not because of the breakup. The breakup is a reflection of the bad policies that the world has been following. We’ve never lived — in the history of the world — with pure fiat money for as long as we have, for 40-something years, since 1971. So it is a type of bubble and mal-investment and debt-ridden world that you have to deal with.
Paul blamed the instability of the financial markets, exhibited by sharp price declines following the Brexit vote, on what preceded the vote. “What has been preceding this situation that we have throughout the world and this country as well is artificially low interest rates,” Paul said. Such low interest rates, he observed, cause investors “to make mistakes in buying bonds.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Paul said that he thought that those who looked only at the Brexit vote and the impact it had on the stock market were missing an important factor:
I think what everyone is looking at is there was a vote, an important vote and it went differently than expected and it sent shock waves through the markets, but I think the concentration is on the wrong issue.
That right issue, noted Paul, is the basic monetary policy practiced by the world’s nations, especially the artificially low interest rates set by bodies such as our own Federal Reserve and equivalent central banks in other countries.
Another topic Paul delved into during the interview was globalism, and London-based writer Steve Watson quoted the former congresssman’s explanations about the difference between free-market globalism and what he described as politically forced globalism. “A libertarian, free market person doesn’t hate globalism, we hate political globalism, and force that comes in and entangling alliances, and when politicians gain control like they have in the European Union,” Paul noted.
Paul said that libertarians favor “globalism in a free market [where] you have a sound currency that you accept is commodity based, and you have as much free trade as possible, and it’s a globalism that is based on freedom and free markets.” Of course, that is not the kind of “globalism” that’s on the rise today, wherein political and economic powers are being consolidated on the regional and international levels under the guise of free trade.
“It’s not globalism that is bad,” said Paul. Rather, “it’s this forced globalism [that] we’ve been involved in it for years” that he objects to.
He continued: “We’ve done what the Founders said not to do: they said don’t get involved in these entangling alliances.”
In his weekly column posted on the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website June 27, former congressman Paul asked in the headline of his article: “After ‘Brexit,’ Can We Exit a Few Things Too?”
After asking “Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement?” Paul went on to ask if we can emulate Brexit by getting out of a host of other arrangements that hinder our nation and threaten our freedom:
Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?
Paul continued by listing a pair of proposed entangling alliances to get out of:
• “Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place?”
• “Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony ‘free trade’ agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.”
Surprisingly, Paul did not mention the UN as an organization the United States should get out of, perhaps because during his career in Congress, he had repeatedly introduced legislation to do so, so his position on that subject is already well known. Paul first introduced H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, to repeal the U.S. involvement with the UN during the 105th Congress. He reintroduced the bill in 2009, during the 111th Congress.
What’s more, Paul has some philosophical heirs in the present Congress. As was noted in a recent article posted by The New American after the Brexit, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in an online post:
“Time for #amexit? I’m a cosponsor of H.R. 1205 to get the US out of the UN. #brexit.”
When he was asked in a comment why it would be a good idea to get the United States out of the UN, Massie responded: “In one word, Sovereignty.” “As a member of the UN, we bind our citizens to decisions made by undemocratic countries, when in fact our constitution should be the supreme law.”
H.R. 1205 carries the same title as Ron Paul’s old legislation, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, and was introduced last year by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
An article about Rogers’ bill was published by The New American in June 2015.
Related articles:
Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN
After Brexit, U.S. Should Dump UN, Says Sarah Palin
Sen. Rand Paul Would be “Happy to Dissolve” the UN
After Brexit, U.S. Congressman Promotes #Amexit from UN
After Brexit, EU Bosses Unveil Plot for “Giant Superstate”
Will Brexit Trigger a “Domino Effect” Among Other EU Member States?
Independence Day! — Historic “Brexit” Victory, UK Votes to Leave EU
