↓
 
Home » The anti-democracy Remainers: keep having those referendums till the stupid people finally get it right

The anti-democracy Remainers: keep having those referendums till the stupid people finally get it right

The New Neo Posted on by

See this for a discussion of what’s going on with Brexit at the moment.

[NOTE: Regarding the first sentence of the linked article, I used the “Hotel California” reference for the attempt to leave the EU back in March. I doubt I was the first to use it, though.]

Comments

The anti-democracy Remainers: keep having those referendums till the stupid people finally get it right — 22 Comments

  1. The “do-overs” are part of the EU political framework but as the last elections in UK for the EU parliament showed, Brits are willing to vote in a radical manner. This elected led to Brexit party, which was formed mere weeks before the election, winning most of the seats. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48403131

  2. Indeed. I love this quote: “In EU-land, it’s perfectly normal for referenda to be ignored.” This is what I’ve been saying for years. As one EU technocrat [I think it was Juncker] said after a failure to ratify the EU constitution: “We will have a vote. If we win, that’s good. If we lose, we move forward.”

    Serfs in the EU get the vote for MEPs, but MEPs have about as much power as members of the UK House of Lords. MEPs don’t write the laws; they don’t enforce the laws (i.e. write regulations); and they don’t control the money (i.e. have the “power of the purse”).

    The EU is NOT a democratic institution.

  3. Those “do-overs” remind me of post-election recounts in which the Republican candidate is ahead, but not quite safely ahead. Do it (recount) till ya get it right.

    “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
    — widely attributed to the USSR’s Communist leader Joseph Stalin

    As an example, consider Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken in 2008.
    [Franken was destined to be the crucial sixtieth Senate vote for Obamacare.]

  6. Britain invoked Article 50 of the EU treaty on March 29, 2017, by which it would leave the EU on March 29, 2019. Nearing that deadline, a two-week extension was granted to April 12, 2019, to give Parliament time to consider the agreement on withdrawal conditions, On April 10, 2019, the 27 EU members granted a further extension, to October 31, 2019. The withdrawal conditions require only a majority vote of the EU members, but any extension of the withdrawal period requires unanimous agreement per Article 50, Section 3.

    It is unclear whether the unanimity requirement means that Britain could vote against any further extension. Even if it is decided that Britain cannot vote on the matter, some writers have suggested that President Trump could put enormous economic pressure on some of the Eastern European EU members to vote against any further extension. Given that these newer members have recent memories of life under authoritarian rulers, and seeing the EU’s lack of democratic processes, it is conceivable that they would be persuadable.

  7. A much better, longer and more thorough Brexit commentary is in the current (Summer) edition of the Claremont Review of Books, pages 33 to 42: “Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened?” by Christopher Caldwell.

    If you don’t read that publication, you should!

  9. “It is unclear whether the unanimity requirement means that Britain could vote against any further extension.” – CapnRusty

    I have been wondering about that; so far, I haven’t seen an answer.

  10. Parliament is supreme. Referendums are non-binding.

    Representatives who opposed Brexit have no obligation to vote for it because of the referendum…anymore than electors who opposed Hillary Clinton had an obligation to vote for her once she took the popular vote.

  11. “…some writers have suggested that President Trump could put enormous economic pressure on some of the Eastern European EU members to vote against any further extension.”

    It seems unlikely that it would take much pressure to persuade the Hungarians, Poles, and/or Baltics to get Merkel a kick in the teeth. Her ‘refugees welcome’ policy has annoyed quite a lot of people.

  12. A much better, longer and more thorough Brexit commentary is in the current (Summer) edition of the Claremont Review of Books, pages 33 to 42: “Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened?” by Christopher Caldwell.

    If you don’t read that publication, you should!

    I agree entirely. That was a great article.

  13. Most disappointing was when the Queen signed off on legislation she has to know was NOT what her people voted for. There’s no longer any good reason for the UK supporting a historical monarchy or an unelected House of Lords. The Magna Carta has been turned on its head.

  16. Can you imagine how bad it would be for the EU—and probably billions of stakeholders around the world—if the UK was seen to break away and achieve even more success outside the organization? The EU community would be terrified. And they probably are now getting becoming anxious.

    There is no way they are going to let this happen without an excruciating battle. Read the terms they gave May. They are the conditions a parent would give a child. Boris has got to be a really badass to get this done.

  17. “. . . keep in mind that we are supposed to believe that the Brexit battle pits Brits against a united Europe that is horrified at their effort to shatter the European Union.” [Thomas Lifson, American Thinker]

    See the speech by Alice Weidel of the Alternative fur Deutschland Party addressing the EU. Spoiler: She is not kind to Brussels or Paris.

    “We will have a vote. If we win, that’s good. If we lose, we move forward” [see rcat @ 4:07 pm above]. I am reminded of a quote that I see often on Instapundit: you can vote yourself into socialism but you must fight you way out.

    The link:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/the_best_speech_on_brexit__from_a_shocking_source.html

  21. a reminder of a reminder of a reminder

    Friday, 08 October 2010
    The “New European Soviet”

    This article, originally published on September 6, 2004, was written by noted Lithuanina-American journalist and author Vilius Brazenas for The New American.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8607-the-new-european-soviet

    it starts I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story.

    Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

    However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

    Ergo, they cant leave, they mustn’t leave ever… it would be like the Baltic leaving the Soviet Russia, or Ukraine, etc…

    When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika.

    It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.

    [much like we are and dont really have a reference to realize it]

    Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’tat: the most spectacular coup d’tat in history.”

    It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’tat in the Americas.

    [which Trump either put into phase II or broke it and put them back… ]

    The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

    In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations.

    Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.'”

    The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty.

    Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc.
    The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

    now you have a name to read about: Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak
    and
    more about those murky EU birth at the article… might make things clearer… a lot clearer… or not

  22. Artfldgr on September 10, 2019 at 3:33 pm said:
    a reminder of a reminder of a reminder

    Friday, 08 October 2010
    The “New European Soviet”
    * * *
    Many thanks for your excellent eye-opening research.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑