It almost went unmissed. Following the election result more than one of the haute-remainers popped up in the media shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well, we'll have to accept Brexit now". These were not minor fools and trolls, the silly chatterers, luvvies and C-listers who filled the press with their whining for more than three years but the most senior actors in our State, formerly Privy Council members, former Ministers of the Crown. That's the first demarcation we must make - between those who, however hard they had campaigned for 'Remain', said "Well, we'll have to accept Brexit now" on 24th June 2016 and those who only said it after 13th December 2019. Only the former are truly reliable; the latter are risks to our democratic health, who have demonstrated scant regard for democracy and cannot wholly be trusted ever again.
Words and actions have consequences. Oh, no one gives a fig for the lunken-headed luvvies who have made such idiots of themselves or for the millions of the masses so energised by the democracy-deniers. But for those with whom we entrust our democratic power, or those who exercise economic power over our lives, their actions since June 2016 must inevitably colour their post-Brexit futures.
I think for instance that the CBI is now finished as a credible voice for British business. For over three years the organisation was an enthusiastic participant in Project Fear, using the resources of its wealthiest Globalist members to sabotage, undermine, devalue and oppose the Referendum result. If the CBI thinks it can now just shrug, grin sheepishly and resume its pre-2016 role, it is deeply deluded. There are already calls for a replacement organisation to represent British business. (the 'Financial Services Industry', despite the most wishful thinking of the CBI, is not in fact an industry)
Labour are about to offer the country a Leader and a shadow cabinet whom, it now seems certain, will all to some extent have refused to accept the Referendum result from 2016. They intend to ask the country to entrust them with our democratic power in 2024. But can we ever, ever again trust those so ready to disregard the clear instruction of the ballot box? How can they ever be trusted?
In contrast, those on whom we should bestow especial trust and regard are those who fought hard for Remain during the Referendum contest and who subsequently opposed efforts to frustrate the outcome. They are true democrats. They indeed are the Righteous Within the Nation and they can be safely trusted with our votes and the power we lend them.
We must go forward as One Nation, but words and actions have consequences. The most fervent amongst the democracy-deniers can not now be surprised that they are no longer trusted.
24 comments:
There is a complete difference between accepting the result of the referendum and believing that it is a good thing.
Your piece confuses these positions.
No it does not. Try reading it again after you've had your cup of tea.
Up to a point, Raedwald.
But those who campaigned enthusiastically for Remain and then, post-Referendum "accepted" the result includes a very large number who "accepted" it and did their utmost to deliver a BRINO.
That wasn't acceptance of the result; it was trying to neuter it. And I'm afraid those individuals are, in my opinion, no more trustworthy than the anti-democrats who blatantly tried to overturn the result. Cameron told us a vote to leave meant leaving completely (SM, CU - all the institutions). Suddenly, the Remainers-who-"accepted"-the-result were saying they accepted we should leave the EU, but we should stay in the SM and CU.
Robert Taylor writing in the DT is right: The Guilty Men who blatantly tried to overturn Brexit will never be forgiven. Those who simply tried to neuter it will never be trusted.
It is unacceptable that so many in both camps are safely ensconced in the House of Frauds, where they can still participate in the law-making process, immune from electoral accountability.
The problem is that "referendum result" means different things to those who believe different things.
For instance, those who believed Hannan and many others would expect to be in the single market and customs union now.
Others thinks that even Johnson's WA is treason.
The point is, the ballot paper was silent on the UK's relationship with the European Union once it was no longer treaty-bound, that is, once the result was satisfied, as it now is.
It would you appear that you libel anyone who does not share the same view as you as to what the post-exit relationship should be as a "democracy denier".
If ever there were a vote on that, and they opposed the result, then you would be right. There has never been, however, and there is unlikely to be one.
@JPM
"If ever there were a vote on that, and they opposed the result, then you would be right."
I remind you that the major parties all said that they respected the result of the Referendum in their manifestos for the 2017 General Election... but then significantly diverged from that position. Theresa May had a set of Red Lines that she backtracked upon.
In my opinion there were only comparatively few MPs that honoured the Referendum - but the rest were subject to continuous undermining by Civil Servants and other parts of the Establishment plus the steady drip drip erosion by a mostly anti-Leave media.
I suspect that Boris is correct to set short timescales to achieve implementing Brexit and the subsequent relationships with the EU27. Allowing plenty of time will allow the gentle saboteurs room to manoeuvre once again.
Democracy in action, not blunted by the elite perhaps?
@JPM
So what should the question have been then?
Why ask me?
I always thought that the whole thing was a stupid idea.
You've got exactly for what you voted - years of problems and arguments.
But you own it 100% now.
In order for the CBI to continue with the word “British” in its name it needs to prove that it really does represent British industry.
At the moment the CBI refuses to publish its membership list or how it is funded although we do know it receives UK taxpayer funds via the EU for its “reports”. I know this to be the case because I have spoken to the CBI to check the position.
Those who attempted to “negotiate” with the EU behind the backs of the UK elected government, asked the EU to make a WA where the UK would be a vassal state of the EU with no exit and now continue to support the EU rather than the UK in the forthcoming trade and relationship negotiations should be described as “traitors”.
JPM 10:12, "You've got exactly for what you voted - years of problems and arguments.
But you own it 100% now."
I know, those problem and argument free 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s are a sweet memory.
I expected huge problems after the vote, almost nothing materialised. Everyone I know who voted Leave thought the same. GBP exchange came to where it probably should have been (where we are almost at again) and everything else has been all good news (BBC viewers, sorry, didn't you know?). If the shit hits the fan I will happily own it as it will be OUR mess.
You really have no clue why people voted LEAVE do, you?
John Brown 10:59. I thought the CBI represented less than 10% of British businesses; perhaps that's why they don't want to 'open the books' again. That said, the 8% they have in number terms would probably be ALL the big boys so the monetary value as a percent would be a lot higher.
Well given that it does seem to be an obsession of yours it doesn't seem an unreasonable question.
You make terry christian seem like the Oracle at Delphi!
The classic fate of the turncoat and the traitor is to be distrusted by both friend and foe and to be treated with contempt by everyone.
Span, Leave voters on comment threads across the web have told us millions of times why they voted Leave.
Usually those claimed reasons were wrongly attributing problems to European Union membership, such as difficulty in seeing a GP, or low pay at work, or bogeyman stories about the evil conspiratorial aims of an organisation, about which they evidently knew nothing at all.
I think that they were rather excuses, and not reasons, however.
You few in your little echo chamber here give away those though, I think.
Yes that's true Cheesy, I voted to leave because I did not want to lose that fleeting glimpse of what we like to call democacy and that the British had managed to wheedle out of the British establishment only to watch Heath removing it for what he thought was European Gold.
But was really just Danegeld.
@JPM
From a poll of 12,369 people who had just voted in the 2016 Referendum:
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Now you may continue to call the voters uninformed but the pre-Referendum debate went on for months. Perhaps the Remain echo chamber concentrated too much on Project Fear and not enough on the benefits of membership?
Oh, so you can fact-check when it suits then, DJ?
Lately, the main reason that commenters have been given for voting Leave seems to have changed though.
It seems to be all about teaching the "patronising metropolitan elite" - whoever they are - a lesson for "insulting us".
Doesn't it?
Cracking rugby result yesterday, btw :-D
@JPM
You are too kind. I always think it worthwhile to check your 'facts' JPM.
Yes, well check you own, and the rest of your fellow commenters', as well as the various premises of their posts, eh?
Despite their pretentions otherwise, the "patronising metropolitan elite" do not own the electorate or make decisions 'in their best interest'.
The majority demanded a referendum, got a referendum and WON the referendum.
Yes, the majority 'own' the consequences of winning - they accept that (challenge). Shame those that refuse to accept the result or refuse to accept the consequences of losing - as they rightly should - are incapable of acting like adults about it.
Petulant, childish tantrums and yah-boo comments expose your pathetic attitude.
Grow the fuck up JPM.
The "majority" didn't demand a referendum actually, Dave, not that I'd care if they did.
The Tories and ukip offered one in a General Election, and the Tories won that election with a minority of the total votes cast.
So we then had a referendum, which in turn was won by about a quarter of the population, or by thirty-seven percent of the electorate.
Yes, you won it, but give over with the "majority" nonsense.
Now, apart from living in a shitty country, what are these "consequences" of losing?
Leave voters and Remain ones alike have EXACTLY the same standing in law. You might not like it, but we do.
Cable sinking.
@JPM.
The Conservative Party campaigned in the General Election of 2015 with on a manifesto of holding a national referendum on whether to remain in the EU or leave. They won the election with a majority of 12 seats.
And yes then approximately 37% of the electorate voted Leave in the Referendum of 2016. But only approximately 34% voted to Remain.
You may not have liked the result (there's a few clues in your various postings) but a National Referendum is as close to real democracy as we are likely to get nowadays.
All the main parties promised to honour the Referendum in the 2017 General Election. The Brexit Party won 29 seats in the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom (through a proportional representation vote). The Conservatives won the 2019 General Election with a majority of 80 seats with the policy of 'Get Brexit Done'.
To endlessly try to reinvent ways elections or referendums *could* have been carried out to give a different result just seems sad.
JPM 12:50, "Yes, you won it, but give over with the "majority" nonsense."
Nonsense? Do you know how elections, votes, referendums and the like actually work?
Post a Comment