The consequences of a Brexit betrayal would be catastrophic: there would no longer be any halting the tide of anti-establishment fury that has been building since the early 1990s. Support for mainstream parties would collapse and new ones would emerge. Yes, a centrist business-as-usual grouping may well be one of those that arises from the rubble, but its supporters – the Remain metropolitan base – massively overestimate its potential. It would be small, little larger than the Lib Dems are today. Sadly, the libertarian yet Eurosceptic party of my dreams would be even tinier.In refusing to accept the referendum result, in this constant, febrile, attritional campaign against cutting the ties to a failing Federast empire, the country's supposed elite are acting like purblind idiots. They are blundering in their arrogance into a place in which the politics of hate, fear and force drive out the freedom and liberty we have spent centuries building; the repulsive bullying, authoritarian racism and vicious spitefulness of far right and far left would crowd-out fairness, decency and tolerance.
The real winners would be nasty, European-style extremist parties of Left and Right that would desecrate our public life. The polling is depressingly clear: swathes of people would vote for a new authoritarian party under certain circumstances, while there is extensive support for hard line socialist positions. The poison of far-Right and far-Left demagoguery would contaminate our body politic, as has already started with the rise of Corbyn and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party; and just like in other countries, millions would end up voting for detestable people with repellent ideas.
Heath concludes his piece with the one question we have all been asking for the past two years - if the elite are so bloody intelligent, why are they fighting to ally us with the EU?
Mainstream, popular policies of the kind routinely embraced by self-governing countries around the world could nip the extremists in the bud and give the Tories 45 per cent of the vote. Why can’t they see this? And why is the establishment willing to gamble everything for its irrational love of a failing super-state?
31 comments:
Why?
Who benefits from the proposed Superstate (failing or not)?
Answer: the Global Elites. And they aren't going to willingly give it up.
Perhaps there will be others like me - I intend to 'lend' my vote to UKIP (or some other authentic Brexit party) at the next opportunity to 'punish' the Conservatives and warn Labour.
It seems an obvious political link to me that if you voted 'leave' to 'take back control' you are also likely to expect authenticity from your politicians. Saying one thing and (secretly) doing another is undermining democracy and arguably it is an EU disease that has infected our own politicians (with a few notable exceptions).
Who gets my vote after Brexit or BINO will depend on circumstances. If UKIP go 'extreme' it will be another party, or possibly none.
I wake this morning to news that Juncker and Trump have agreed to cut tariffs. As Mr Punch would say, "Thgat's the way to do it!" Theresa May has to learn - quickly - to carry a big stick and threaten to use it.
In short then Radders, if the so called "liberal elite" think Brexit is bad, it will be as nothing when, and not if people start voting for any party that will enact Brexit. It's degree of extremity will not matter. People are not going to be in amy mood to consider all the nuanced arguments. They want their will imposed, or else.
People are rightly absolutely blood furious with an establishment that declares that it is doing their bidding, yet doing the exact opposite and trying their damndest to overturn the largest mandate in British political history. They had better get this right.
As a long time UKIP member 1997 ish, I am currently minded to let my membership lapse.
I have a problem with a political party that effectively excludes a group because they have a different sky fairy. That way lies friction, but not only that, they are effectively killing a large proportion of their voter potential.
My membership will continue if Gerard stops his current campaign, if not, I am gone, and deprived of my vote, I wouldn't touch the reds or blues with a barge pole.
I have a problem with a political party that effectively excludes a group because they have a different sky fairy.
Would that be the group that seeks to create a 'union' even larger than the EU? Would that be the group that rejects democracy because the 'truth' was revealed to a derranged, murdering sex maniac 1400 years ago? Would that be the group that is being imported all across the western world to destroy national institutions and cultures by others that also want a world 'union'?
A group may hold a belief but a belief doesn't have to hold a group, an important distinction. Unfortunately sky fairyism of certain sorts seems to be given too much respect by those that should know better.
The Labour ant-Semitism row exposes the problem with the current version of Labour. Nothing is ever their fault. They are Socialists and therefore not capable of being racists. The Jews think they are racist. Therefore the Jews are attacking them for no reason. The Socialists have to defend themselves. Therefore they have to attack the Jews to silence them.
I am English and I live in that place, I am critical of a government that believes that we are enriched by this cult that anon dislikes so much.
My beef is with government, not moslems. It was they that created the terrorism, they have set out to indulge anyone that might cause friction. Friction causes a need for government.
There is on youtube a very interesting lecture on the subject of immigration which uses a gumball to represent a number of potential immigrants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM1YU-Ni_84
We in the west can never assimilate the billions of potential immigrants. Government that keeps beating that drum is either criminal or very very stupid.
None of which alters the fact that this world group that anon seeks to beat me with are not the cause of our problems, they are victims, even if they don't know that.
So a party which sets out to exclude potential voters just because of their sky fairy selection, sets itself up as a party with a support of something less than ten percent of the vote.
RW - pretty much Nigel Farage's position;
Farage said the party was right to oppose Islamic extremism. “But if dealing with Islamic fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire religion, I’ll tell you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose,” he said.
“We absolutely have to get that Muslim majority living in many of our towns and cities on our side, more attuned to western values than some pretty hardline interpretations of the Qur’an.”
I also concur with Farage's view on Batten's support of 'Tommy Robinson' - no leader of any UK political party can openly condone law-breaking. Far less someone who is banned on account of political extremism from joining UKIP anyway ...
@right-writes
"My beef is with government, not moslems."
That's a bit of a loose statement for, without Government, do you imagine that Islam wouldn't still do what it does? try to expand they way it does? aim for a global caliphate the way they say?
Government may cause friction with Islam(ists) but their stated aim is still and always will be against every free thought and expression the West lives by.
Immigration is good and, as far as I'm concerned, welcome - with the usual caveats of 'adopt our society, our language, our ways, our culture' etc. Fail on any of those caveats and you're NOT welcome, you're a threat (to our society).
But, on topic, my issue with Heath's article is more about the (his) definition of far left and far right.
The many, many people that are labelled (currently|) as populists are often labelled 'right wing' and support for your own country, your fellow countrymen and your own culture is actually paraded as FAR RIGHT!!!!!!
Conversely the issues that Labour and its followers adhere to understates the actions, motives and intent of the FAR LEFT.
We have a very stated media view of the political spectrum that is (in my opinion) exaggerated against 'populism' (the will of the people) and ignores the real threat - socialism.
Yes, the extremes of either political belief has serious consequences but I don't see a 'far right' problem - I see a media-created backlash against the will of the people being advertised as 'far right' and deliberate ignorance of the potential trouble that a genuine (in existence) far left will actually bring about.
Once again, the MEDIA is stirring the pot of unrest.
Raedwald, I do hope you don't share the Establishment belief that the Lab/Con duopoly is entitled to perpetual rule - ? I read Heath's piece yesterday with growing disbelief; here's what I wrote as a comment:
"I have a lot of time for Allister Heath but I am both disappointed and disturbed by his finding it "terrifying" that the AfD is on 17% support (with 90 seats in the Bundestag based on the 12.6% vote they got last year - same figure as our own UKIP gained in 2015...) and that Marine le Pen's party is still a force to be reckoned with. I suggest Allister develops a sense of proportion, and steps aside from his seeming Establishment view that anyone slightly to the Right of the UK's Lab/Con duopoly represents any sort of extremism. Neither the AfD nor the FN are extreme: the former's views on mass immigration from beyond Europe are surely plain common sense, as opposed to the suicidally daft policies of Merkel's extreme social democracy; and while the FN is too socialist for my taste, its policies on immigration AND the EU resonate with an awful lot of French citizens. My own commune in the Midi (where I spend much of the year) is friendly, civilised, welcoming - and voted FN last year...
Similar things can be said about Holland's PVV, Itally's Lega/5 Star accord, and Austria's ÖVP. Far from being "extreme" they are patriotic, democratic, and popular. Would that we had something similar in England."
I mean that closing remark wholly and truly. The Left of course attempts daily to smear even UKIP as "fascists" but that's just a reflection both of their stupidity and their vicious desire to destroy opposition to the Left at any price - they are Stalinist bastards. Continental Parties such as those I referred to receive an awful lot of votes, and are very popular indeed, but the UK's voting system handicaps newcomers so sweepingly that our electorate tends to shake its head and just vote in Labour or the Cons yet again, ad infinitum. I detest this situation, which is very bad - it represents far worse a threat to democracy than the chances of our having a "Lega/PVV/OPV" of our own...
Oddly Raedwald, Nigel's idea that Tommy Robinson deserves what he got does not sit well with me. I have absolutely no time for him, but I did see the video outside Leeds Crown Court that led to his plight.
As I understand things, amongst all of his usual racist rant, he had actually ensured that he wasn't breaking the terms of his licence. The names that he was reading out, along with their alleged crimes was published information, and that it was his contention that the powers were indulging in the opposite of what they had done to Cliff Richard... Trying to conceal something that should be in the public realm.
There is no doubt that Robinson's justice was summary and applied in the most arbitrary manner. The events that have taken place since are indicative of the high regard that the authorities hold this man in (NOT!). Thirteen months, of which he will probably serve every day in solitary, for NOT breaking the law, but for having a stupid face that doesn't fit.
Still no basis for a successful political party though.
Tony - No, most UKIP mambers aren't fascists, nor are most AfD members or most FPOe (the OeVP are the tories here, who usually govern in coalition with SPOe 'labour') but all of these parties to some extent shelter some rather nasty people who are - despite efforts to exclude them. Like rats, they infiltrate and abuse the legitimate concerns of 'decent' members to gain traction for their own vile views under the cover of political respectability.
As a Libertarian I oppose all authoritarians, whether of right or left or centre. I will no more stand 'Tommy Robinson' telling me what I can or can't think or say or do any more than I will stand little Owen Jones doing the same.
Raedwald - I'm pretty libertarian myself but I don't think Tommy R is either an authoritarian, or tells people what to do! And re the comment by "right-writes" I don't think TR was making racist comments outside the court: didn't he leave the EDL because he considered it racist? As for some UKIP members being a bit nasty, exactly the same can be said of the established Parties - especially Labour these days, what with being run by the Marx Bros and including various MPs/supporters who are variously anti-semitic, crooked etc.
Another point re TR: it is instructive that he was dragged away by Plod so quickly, sentenced the same day, and banged up, for "crimes" (few would call them such, surely) far less onerous and far less damaging to our country than the words & actions of such as Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza, who fed off us parasitically for many years while preaching the downfall of us and our culture.
I spent years asking "Why did fascism rise? What caused the enfeeblement of the fledgling capitalist democracies?"
And the genuine answers - WW1 bankruptcy. Social disorder following WW1's sacrifices. The break up of hundreds of years old existing nations.Wall Street crash. Hyper inflation. Austerity. Technological innovation. Women's rights . Communications and emergent nations using modern technology to leap forward with the intervening democratic, human rights, financial and legal changes a society should grow through.
And yet still I could never find a suitable explanation for WHY people voted for fascism. Supported Communism - Even unto death in foreign lands. Why?
There was no secret about what was in store if they did.
But now, I do understand.
The failures of previous, craven, weak and utterly ineffective politicians leads to the rise of a harder, more authoritarian society.
In Russia you can have freedom or bread? Or a bit of both with Putin.
If you lived in a coal mine area, in the 1990s,and a Trump like figure promised to reopen your mines and bring back jobs, but might also accidentally start a war, who wouldn't vote for him?
Mr Drew of C@W has written for years about making sure to always let the public voters have a space to move into. Never take away hope for a better future or they will vote for a worse now,in the expectation of a better one later.
Raedwald said @ 10:23
'As a Libertarian I oppose all authoritarians, whether of right or left or centre. I will no more stand 'Tommy Robinson' telling me what I can or can't think or say or do any more than I will stand little Owen Jones doing the same.'
Not aware that he has ever told anyone what to 'think or say or do'. You either made that up because you felt like it or you are genuinely ignorant. I'm an ethno-nationalist and Yaxley-Lennon isn't, however my interest in him is his right to speak out about the industrial scale rape of little English girls.
The government ignores Owen Jones when he preaches revolution at the people because they know he's a fantasist. The government does not ignore Tommy Robinson when he reports on Pakistani grooming gangs because they know he is right.
When you left this land to make a home for yourself on the Continent many commentators wished you well, including myself. I could do the same but I wouldn't dream of it because the threat to my people will see me die for them one day. I have no interest in politics.
Steve
There was an intersting programme on BBC radio a year or so ago called something like "In Search of Moderate Islam". The presenter was clearly one of the BBC's own but had been brought up as 'the only Muslim in the village'.
He was quite shocked to find second/third generation Asian girls in Manchester that were adopting the hijab and who were very critical of their parents/grandparents for betraying Islam.
These girls, of course, weren't 'the only Muslim in the village', they didn't go to Oxbridge with the English aristocracy, they live in communities so 'diverse' that they are 90% Muslim and go to schools that are 99.5% Muslim.
Previous governments might have caused this 'problem'; the current government thinks the 'problem' is people that write/say things like my previous paragraph. The girls, as R-W, implies are just doing what comes naturally.
But isn't it reasonable to ask 'Where are we heading? What is the intended destination?'? Just putting one's head in the sand and calling those with their heads up in the air 'extremists' won't change things. Rather the inevitable 'change' is that Muslim numbers will increase and appeasment will be no longer needed as democracy is used against the democrats. There will be no 'second referendum' when the 52% vote for Sharia, just as there is no democracy once the 52% vote for communism, no need to hold any more elections comrade!
"Why are the elite fighting to ally us with the EU ?"
Because they have been corrupted by either power or money or both to be part of the anti-democratic EU.
Corporates have been corrupted by subsidies, contracts and laws made to benefit them and the ability to enact such massive frauds as the German diesel testing scam with impunity.
Organisations are corrupted by payments made to them by the EU such as those the EU makes to the BBC, CBI, IMF and I am sure many others including academia.
I am sure that many regional payments made by the EU are also used to corrupt organisations or individuals.
The EU threatens anyone who has worked for the EU with loss of their pension if they speak out against the EU.
Landowners, such as Lord Heseltine, receive large EU land subsidies.
Our civil servants are only to happy to attend lunch meetings regularly in Brussels (hence the building of HS1 and probably the only reason for HS2)which is why they are fighting so hard to continue this perk.
We know that the EU is unable to have its accounts approved. This is because of the money it spends corrupting organisations and people to its cause.
DP111 writes ..
Why is the West so intent in destroying itself.
The world has a problem. It is clear even now, African nations are not able to feed their populations. With massive population growth, in a few decades, there will be mass starvation in Africa. In that event, the world, the West really, will have to do something. Massive food aid will not do. In any case, the problem will still remain and getting worse.
What we are now seeing is that Western nations, all of them, have decided to move Africans to the West before those catastrophic events, and to "share the burden". We see this particularly in Europe as the EU tries to force EU member states to do so.
The only reason that they can give Western populations for making Westerners a minority in the West, is that "Climate Change", for which the West is held primarily responsible, has caused the failure of crops, and thus to this disaster in Africa. As such, they argue, that the West should take unlimited number of "migrants" as compensation.
Unfortunately, Pres Trump has declared Climate Change a con - which it is. So no longer any payments for Carbon taxes from America. But more to the point, Pres Trump has destroyed the main reason "Climate Change" was advanced - i.e., to change the demography of the West. Also, it would lead to some sort of World government, which the Left would dominate the rest of time.
In addition, Pres Trump is enforcing zero tolerance for illegal "migrants", which again strikes at the root at what the Left is trying to do. Moreover, it is encouraging European people to elect nationalist parties. Time is short. Somehow the left has to unseat Pres Trump, or their game is over.
I believe this is the reason why the "left" in the West, in America, Europe and Australasia, is fighting Pres Trump tooth and nail. Its a matter of survival.
DP111
If Mr. Heath is so worried by the election of MPs from parties other than the Conservative and Labour Parties, what about those MPs belonging to the SNP and DUP ?
If the current Parliament does not deliver a meaningful Brexit then those who support Brexit will have no other option but to vote for those parties who support Brexit.
In fact, there is no way that anyone should support those anti-democratic MPs and parties who are intent upon overturning the referendum result to remain in the EU.
So at the moment there is only one party to vote for and that is UKIP.
But with our FPTP system, UKIP is highly unlikely to gain many seats and at the very best could equal the number of DUP MPs.
However, this small number could still be enough to ensure that we finally leave the EU, and possibly even the threat of UKIP MPs might be sufficient as was found in the 2015 GE after the 2014 MEP election result.
To not vote at all is just what the Conservatives and Labour Parties and the anti-democratic EU collaborators want
DP111 writes..
I believe this is the reason why the "left" in the West, in America, Europe and Australasia, is fighting Pres Trump tooth and nail. Its a matter of survival.
Its a matter of survival for the West as a civilisation. A matter of survival of tens of million Africans, and a matter of survival of socialism/marxism. This is a matter of survival of all three, but more a matter of survival of a totalitarian ideology. I see this war becoming increasingly violent.
Right-writes, Your view that UKIP "effectively excludes a group because they have a different sky fairy" does not tally with what I see. Islam is currently a problem in the UK, not Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. That is because, unlike other religions, Islam is also an ideology of conquest and submission. The mass of Muslims may not be "extremists", but they provide cover for those who are. It is a difficult problem. But it must be tackled. I think UKIP, including Batten, are doing a good job. I am a lot more concerned about Labour's anti-semitism, and its atheistic Marxism, than by UKIP's position on Islam.
@Budgie...
Yes perhaps "sets out to exclude" is stronger that I ought to have put it.
If I were a moslem, I would be happy to have a barney with Nigel on LBC, or at our Christmas dinner, which I have. A UKIP led by Nigel, contrary to media reporting, might have been a one man band, but everyone was welcome, and a good argument can persuade.
Still as a moslem I note that every time Gerard stands up, he reminds us of our affiliation with a death cult.
Not very welcoming is it?
I like Gerard, he is tremendously knowledgable and probably right about his views on "the cult", however he is supposed to be growing a broad church in order to defeat the reds and blues, or at least hold them to ransom, instead he chooses to digress into a minefield.
As I commented above, this is the recipe for a party of 10% support.
right-writes: Would you prefer Batten to equivocate, engage in euphemism, brush things under the carpet, avoid discussing things which might frighten some of the electorate - that is, behave like the overwhelming majority of politicians in the (comfortably) established Parties which have so wangled the voting sytem as to enjoy a near unassailable certainty of governing? Nigel did/does indeed have many good arguments but although they persuaded, they counted for nothing when it came to the rigged ballot box. And let's see, 10% support out of a population of more than 60 million...
Jerry Corbyn as PM, and Olly Robbins as his "aide de camp". But which one's Punch and which Judy?
"The failures of previous, craven, weak and utterly ineffective politicians leads to the rise of a harder, more authoritarian society."
Usually, a harder more authoritative individual. Somebody who has a clear idea and plan for what is to be done, instead of flapping about like a wet hen.
The chickens, exasperated by their chuckle-headed leaders, vote instead for the fox. That is how Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Mugabe, Erdogan and the rest succeed.
Don Cox
@Tony Harrison...
We already attracted more than 4 million votes at a general election and gained ONE seat, so bearing in mind that under FPTP votes gradually become easier to win... 6 million votes might give us 20(?) seats.
Like the LibDims then?
What we need (under a party system) is a party that represents "the deplorables", one that might even form a government. You don't withdraw the hand of welcome to any sector of society, the more the merrier.
Deplorables ain't so bad... They are most of us that aren't part of the establishment. The division is simple, which is what the reds and blues that we currently have is supposed to be. The problem with the current parties is that they both represent the same voice... The establishment.
You aren't ignoring anything, but you aren't exactly brushing things under the carpet either... You are "boxing defensively".
Hi Raedwald, I am not sure whether you have listened to this https://www.breitbart.com/podcasts/james-delingpole/ but it is worth a go.
Fish...
Dead fish...
And I am not a supporter, as you know.
The Conservatives, and Mrs. May in particular as Home Secretary, have already for a long time ignored their manifesto pledge to reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands”.
This is despite polling showing that 70% of the electorate believe that immigration is too high.
If Mrs.May and the Conservative Party fail to implement a second major manifesto pledge and thwart Brexit then they will be electoral toast and will deserve to be out of office for a very long time, as happened when Mr. Major combined the ERM fiasco with the signing of the Maastricht treaty.
Only this time Mrs. May’s treachery will be seen as even worse as we have made the decision to leave the EU via a referendum.
However, unlike last time, the internet has enabled new parties to more easily emerge and hence Labour may not this time be the beneficiary of the unpopularity of the Conservative Party.
I see every chance for either UKIP to return in a big way, or even for a totally new party to form and be successful and be able to gain sufficient MPs to have an effect in Parliament.
Of course, the Establishment will try to thwart any such opposition as we are already seeing with the reports and recommendations coming from the DCMS select committee.
The real danger to our democracy is to continue to vote for the two main parties even when they ignore voters’ wishes, fail to implement their manifestos and blatantly override referendum decisions.
Have you considered that the EU is probably very like any other large institution, in that the different bits don't talk to each other very much, and that the high command aren't technically adept?
Consider the current debacle with Brexit: the pre-existing condition is that the Euro as a currency is doomed, long term. The rich bits of the EU need to be funding the poor bits in order to even out the wealth disparity over the whole, but things like the German constitution expressedly forbid this sort of thing. So, my guess is that the European Central Bank is engaged upon damage control, and has been for a long time.
Damage control is all about not letting things get any worse. Drastically altering the amount of money coming into the EU counts as letting things get worse. Also, crucially, the money from Britain is in Pounds Sterling, not Euro, so it represents a huge input of useful foreign currency that can be used to balance foreign currency exchanges and so on.
However, if the ECB technocrats aren't talking to the EU politicians very much (and there is no reason for the two to meet up and talk), then the politicians may well be utterly ignorant of the fact that the ECB relies on stability. This, however, will not now be the case.
My guess is that as soon as the Brexit vote was announced, the ECB technical people had a collective brown trouser moment and immediately went and bollocked the EU politicians, and made it very, very clear that Brexit greatly increased the chances of a rapid EU death-spiral and also reduced the long-term life expectancy of the EU as it is now.
Everything since then has been the EU and to a much lesser extent the UK acting in Oh Shit, We're Going To Die avoiding the disaster mode. Or, as we ought to call it, Rincewind Mode.
Rincewind solves disasters by running away from them. The EU cannot run away, so it procrastinates. It will continue to do so, until it cannot.
Post a Comment