Tuesday, June 28, 2016

It's time the Remainiacs accepted their democratically delivered defeat

I don't think I have ever been so disturbed by anything—except perhaps the "allow a rapist into the ladies' room" Bay State bathroom bill—than the bellyaching that occurred only hours after Brexit won the day during the early morning hours of June 24.
Almost immediately, the Remainiac crowd, comprised of just the sort of young people that Lenin once called "useful idiots," started a #NotInMyName campaign, borrowing the same petulant slogan from the anti-Iraq War protests fourteen years ago. A note was left for an Italian couple by their London neighbors who earnestly wanted them to know they were welcome despite "the awful news this morning."
Then an on-line petition to hold a second referendum was launched, which within a few days had attracted up to 3 million signatures—77,000 of which were removed because they were fraudulent as they came from non-British citizens, according to fellow Blogspotter Bigfoot's Place. It's true—the Commons have found the petition to be riddled with deceit. That is typical of hard-line liberals in that they cannot do anything without being underhanded or crooked. Honesty has no place in a Leftie's agenda, ever.
The best part? The petition was started in advance of the vote by a Leave campaigner, William Oliver Healey, who anticipated a slim Remain victory and stated in the original petition draft, "the logistical probability of getting a turnout to be a minimum of 75% and of that, 60% of the vote must be one or the other (leave or remain) is in my opinion next to impossible without a compulsory element to the voting system. I have been opposed to the bureaucratic and undemocratic nature of the European Union as an institution privately for many years and for all of my political career." The Remainiacs co-opted this and used the percentages argument to bolster their demand.
Luckily, the petition, even though it has more than gathered the required amount of signatures to be debated by Parliament, stands no chance of triggering another referendum, according to UK elections expert, John Curtice.
"How many people voted in favour of Leave? Seventeen million. One million [the number of signatures it had collected at the time] is chicken feed by comparison. It's no good people signing the petition now, they should have done it before. Even then, these petitions don't always mean a great deal," Curtice told the Press Association. Furthermore, David Cameron, Prime Minister until October, has insisted there will be no chance of a second referendum.
What I really find incredulous is that some voters who had opted for Leave had said that they voted to get out of the EU in jest, as a protest against the current Conservative government, because they thought Remain would win by a comfortable margin and that their votes would not impact on the overall result. This includes columnist for The Sun Kelvin MacKenzie who noted, "When I put my cross against Leave I felt a surge as though for the first time in my life my vote did count. I had power. Four days later I don't feel quite the same. I have buyer's remorse. A sense of be careful what you wish for. To be truthful I am fearful of what lies ahead. Am I alone?"
Well, Mr. MacKenzie, you're just going to have to live with it. The rest of us are only too eager to see Great Britain become great once more, free of its shackles. As for the rest of you morons who want another vote? Maybe next time don't be cavalier with your vote or treat it frivolously. People died so you could have that right. Always cast your vote for who or what you hope will win, not for what you believe will lose. There is no such thing as a "protest vote". There is only a vote, one way or the other. Be a responsible citizen and don't regard your vote as if it's for a poll on social media.
It truly bothers me that there are so many people who don't respect the democratic way, of giving the people a voice and letting them decide. As Jack Harvey writes in The Yorker, "Why is democracy held in such contempt" in the wake of the successful Brexit vote?
All of this reveals a deep, disturbing contempt for democracy, even more astonishing in a country with a tradition of fighting for democracy. Standing on the shoulders of the Chartists, the Suffragettes and others, who fought for and gave their lives in the pursuit of suffrage and democracy in Britain, many Britons today want a free, democratic decision revoked. Can it be any crazier when an MP [David Lammy] asks for Parliament to reject the vote of the electorate? After months of ugly campaigning in which average people were treated like infants by their politicians, now the people themselves wish for over half the public’s decision to be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
If Cameron hadn't tried to put the issue over the EU to rest by holding a referendum, then we wouldn't have had a say. Life would have trudged on underneath this neo-Marxist entity telling us how many refugees we must accept, how powerful our appliances can be, and how much we need to pay for deadbeat member nations that have nothing and produce nothing. Oh, but gee whiz, they're our "friends," and we can't let them down, that would be so ungrateful—and, of course, racist. Every single instance of nationalism, populism, anti-globalism must be "racist," because these people who believe in being ruled over by powerful men (and women), who believe in being serfs to an unaccountable superstate, have no other argument. The Remain campaign proved that beyond all doubts, and 52 percent of voters saw through it.
Consider this: In June 2008, when Ireland voted on the Lisbon Treaty, because Ireland's constitution was the only one that allowed for it, the vote was 53.2 percent against it. The EU responded by sweet-talking the Irish, assuring them on the subjects of importance to them, and then made them vote again. In October 2009, Ireland voted by 67 percent in favor of the Lisbon Treaty.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the same will happen here, that a second EU referendum would be manipulated to ensure that the EU—and the corporatists and the globalists behind the bloc—get the result it wants. The EU does not care about democracy. I don't know how anyone could be fooled into thinking that they can possibly have true freedom under its soft, but nonetheless menacing, dictatorship.
The EU won't be happy until its motherload of rules and regulations put almost the entire continent in the same situation as Venezuela. When Europeans of all stripes and persuasions start starving to death, the EU will crow about its successful population control policies. The migrant class will still be fed. Starvation will apply to Europe's Caucasians only.
All right, fine, perhaps I'm jesting. I don't even know anymore. The EU is the new Soviet Union. It can rule as it likes. Frankly, I don't see why any member state is obliged to follow their diktats. Why can't they show it up for the hollow organization it truly is? If, say, the Netherlands decides it doesn't want to pay its dues or abide by a ruling on vacuum cleaners, what's the EU going to do? Invade Holland with its non-existent military? Bring George Soros into The Hague to lecture the Dutch on their responsibilities?
This is a question I had long asked myself while Britain was still part of this rotten, would-be empire. What would happen if say a Eurosceptic Prime Minister said "no, we're not doing that" with no negotiations, just pure defiance. Tell me, how would the EU respond? It may be the new Soviet Union, but a limp-wristed one whose bark is far worse than its bite. The problem has always been the weak establishment people that keep being put in power, the ones who roll over for the EU and corporate America. Both command "jump," and whatever milquetoast is in the PM's office—Labour, Conservative, it doesn't matter—responds, "Jolly good, how high?"
I'll tell you right now, the EU is frightened because it knows it's not effective. The successful Brexit vote, and the call for referendums by other member nations, is kicking in the door to its palace. It can only watch in despair as its dream of dominion crashes and burns.
And they have reacted with the easily predictable temper-tantrum: Britain has in essence been told by the EU leadership, Pack up your shit and get out. European People's Party chairman Manfred Weber declared, "Exit negotiations should be concluded within two years at max. There cannot be any special treatment. Leave means leave." Thank the Lord for that, Mr. Weber.
Another champion of the people, Member of the European Parliament Elmar Brok sniffed, "If Britain wants to have a similar status to Switzerland and Norway, then it will also have to pay into EU structural funds like those countries do. The British public will find out what that means." If you were trying to intimidate me, dude, it didn't work. Man, do I regret that we here in Britain won't be dictated to by dour Teutonic socialists such as this. Pity us, dear reader!

 Elmar Brok, the quintessential EU party animal *

The angry reaction to Brexit by Remainiac crybabies can be summed up none-too-succinctly by one vile little toerag by the name of Giles Coren. Writing in The Times, Coren alleges that old people must become more stupid with age because they don't buy into the climate change agenda, and posits that because the Leave vote was most successful with the 50-64 age group, "The less time a person had left on earth to live and face up to their decision, in other words, the more likely they were to vote to leave the European Union. The wrinkly bastards stitched us young 'uns up good and proper on Thursday. From their stair lifts and their Zimmer frames, their electric recliner beds and their walk-in baths, they reached out with their wizened old writing hands to make their wobbly crosses and screwed their children and their children's children for a thousand generations."
Why The Times, a broadsheet of some considerable intellectual caliber, cheapened itself by accepting this scrawling creed of an obvious lunatic, I'll never know. Can I ask, just when in this mad society we live in did we decide that young people really are the know-it-alls they believe themselves to be? When did we decide that older people were not sources of wisdom and declare them potentially unfit for the vote? Coren would place an upper age limit on the right to vote, and that is beyond despicable.
You work hard, pay your taxes, and gain some insight into how the world really works, and then you get contemptuous rabble like Coren telling you that you should be ineligible to vote, because all you do is steal young people's futures. Amazing.
This is the same Giles Coren that previously bashed the Polish, referring to them as "Polacks" and alleging that "if England is not the land of milk and honey it appeared to them three or four years ago, then, frankly, they can clear off out of it." This is the same Giles Coren that once wrote on his Twitter page: "Next door have bought their 12-year-old son a drum kit. For fuck's sake! Do I kill him then burn it? Or do I fuck him, then kill him then burn it?"
Helluva guy, that Giles Coren. Let's all follow him off a cliff. Any takers?

*Photo by Francois Lenoir/Reuters

No comments: