Defending BREXIT (and democracy)

Yesterday’s vote by MPs to rule out a ‘no-deal’ BREXIT, must surely count as one of the most irresponsible acts by the UK’s elected representatives – ever. It amounts to constitutional vandalism and clearly represents a concerted attempt by forces on both sides of the House of Commons to overturn the voters’ decision of June 2016 and force a second referendum. The decision can only have one of two effects: EITHER, the UK still manages to leave the EU but the terms and conditions will be materially worse than we would otherwise have secured, had we still retained the option of walking away from the negotiating table – OR we do not leave the EU at all.  14 March 2019

We will never know what deal the EU might have been prepared to offer, had the UK made clear that its ultimate default position was ‘no deal’. By their insistence that Parliament should categorically reject a ‘no deal’ outcome, Amber Rudd, Heidi Allen and the other ‘remainer’ MPs have effectively killed off the likelihood of the EU ever offering us an acceptable, compromise deal. It is absolutely clear that the EU has no incentive whatsoever to ‘meet us halfway’. Unless the EU believes that the UK can and will walk away from a ‘bad deal’. it will never agree to anything which might be considered acceptable (and workable) to both sides. The EU has one aim in mind - and that is to force a second referendum. Amber Rudd is a member of the cabinet and yet  she is collaborating with a foreign power to undermine the interests of the UK, in attempting to force a second referendum . The UK is still (for the time being) a sovereign nation. Amber Rudd is a traitor.

  There is one simple reason why we, as a nation, have struggled for the best part of 40 years to reconcile ourselves to the concept of the European Union. That reason is democracy. At its heart the EU does not believe in ‘democracy’ in the way that we do. Ultimately, the EU does not trust ‘the people’. The self-appointed elite that governs from Brussels does not consider it safe to allow ‘the people’ to decide the important issues – or indeed to have any meaningful say at all in the affairs of the EU. It’s not hard to fathom why this is so. Germany and France, have both suffered deep national trauma as a direct result of allowing ‘the people’ to decide. Hitler did not seize power in March 1933 – the people voted him into office. He didn’t stage a coup. He didn’t ‘hijack’ the German state. He formed a legitimate coalition government in March 1933 having secured overwhelming popular support from the German people at the ballot box. In the three federal elections ...

I am starting to become slightly irritated by 'remain' politicians (and not a few journalists) who insist I am stupid - simply because I voted 'leave' in June 2016. Am I stupid and if so, why? Yes, I voted leave. Yes, I choose to ignore HM Govt's official advice (to vote 'remain') as published in the leaflet that was delivered to every UK household at the start of the referendum campaign. Yes, I voted 'leave', even though I had been clearly warned of the likely consequences of such irresponsible behaviour by the the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the United States of America, Grayson Perry and other assorted saints and world leaders, whose intelligence and understanding of such matters is clearly far beyond that of a lowly commoner such as myself. Yes, I think the result of the June 2016 referendum should stand  (and no, I do not think we should have another referendum) Yes, I think the UK should exit the EU on 29 March...

Why did May ever think the EU autocracy would show her any more respect than it did Cameron? He trotted off to Brussels in early 2016, supposedly to re-negotiate a better deal for the UK, ahead of the referendum. He got nothing. Juncker and the rest of the panjandrums swatted him away like some annoying street urchin. That was before the referendum, when it would have been easy to give Cameron at least something to take back to the British people. Had Brussels been prepared to bend, to offer some meaningful concession on freedom of movement, it would have been possible to guarantee the outcome of the referendum. But it didn’t. In time-honoured EU fashion it choose to ignore the impending deadline, confident in its belief that Cameron and his team of prefects would deliver the correct result – and, besides it was just a referendum, the result of which, if needs be, could be easily overturned as had been the case in Ireland and Denmark. So, why on earth did May think that the...

If pro-remain forces manage to overturn the result of the June 2016 referendum, which is quite clearly their intent, it will represent a betrayal of both the will of the British people and the most basic, fundamental democratic values which define us as a nation. There can be no justification whatsoever for overturning the June 2016 result. 52% voted to leave and 48% to remain. While there was no official tally of the outcome by constituency, independent analysis has shown a clear majority of Parliamentary constituencies voted ‘leave’ – for instance a study by Royal Holloway College (Prof Hanretty) suggests 64% of constituencies were in favour of ‘leave’. So politicians – all politicians – must accept the result and the inevitable consequence has to be that the UK leaves the EU – with or without a ‘deal’. That is what people voted for. It is unacceptable to suggest that the result of the referendum would have been different had voters known that the UK would start tradi...

The answer to those who insist on holding a second referendum is simple: yes - of course, there should be a second referendum....... .......IN 2056!!!!  That is 40 years on from the last one - because that is how long those of us who wanted to leave the EU were forced to wait before being finally allowed to have our say in 2016.