Thank you, America!

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley 

head for the brexit

For my final broadcast to the nation on the eve of Britain’s Independence Day, the BBC asked me to imagine myself as one of the courtiers to whom Her Majesty had recently asked the question, “In one minute, give three reasons for your opinion on whether my United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union.”

My three reasons for departure, in strict order of precedence, were Democracy, Democracy, and Democracy. For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether.

Worse, the treaty that established the European Stability Pact gives its governing body of absolute bankers the power, at will and without consultation, to demand any sum of money, however large, from any member state, and every member of that governing body, personally as well as collectively, is held entirely immune not only from any civil suit but also from any criminal prosecution.

That is dictatorship in the formal sense. Good riddance to it.

I concluded my one-minute broadcast with these words: “Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.”

And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium.  At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.

The people have spoken. And the democratic spirit that inspired just over half the people of Britain to vote for national independence has its roots in the passionate devotion of the Founding Fathers of the United States to democracy. Our former colony showed us the way. Today, then, an even more heartfelt than usual “God bless America!”

All who have studied the Madison papers will grasp the greatness of the Founding Fathers’ vision. They were determined that no law and no tax should be inflicted upon any citizen except by the will of elected representatives of the people in Congress assembled.

They regarded this democratic principle as of such central importance that they wrote it down as Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States: “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Period. No ifs. No buts. No exceptions.

Except one. The Constitution establishes that foreign treaties ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate shall have the same force of law throughout the United States as enactments of Congress.

It is, therefore possible for any U.S. Government that can muster that Senate majority to ratify any treaty and thereby to thwart the central principle of Congressional democracy: that no Congress may bind its successors.

The Republicans, who are not always as lively in their understanding of the threat to democracy posed by supranational and global institutions such as the EU, the UN and its bloated climate bureaucracy, are too often snared or charmed by determined “Democrats” who fully understand and thirst to exercise the power to inflict perma-Socialism on their nation by bilateral, multilateral or global treaties.

It is astonishing how many of the GOP are willing to be cajoled and schmoozed into supporting monstrosities such as the Transatlatic Trade and Investment Partnership, which on its face sounds like a free-marketeer’s dream but is in its small print a series of outright Socialist measures which, once the Senate has ratified them, cannot be repealed. Its climate provisions, for instance, are highly dangerous.

It is no accident, therefore, that the bankers, the corporate profiteers, the Greens and the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland – the corporatists and the communists together – made common totalitarian cause and heavily promoted the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, that paradise of vested interests and their poisonous lobbyists.

It is likewise no accident that precisely these same national and global vested interests heavily promote the campaign to subject Britain and the world to various unnecessary and damaging measures whose ostensible purpose is to control the climate but whose real ambition is to curb capitalism, fetter freedom, punish prosperity,. limit liberty and deny democracy.

The necessity to protect the flagile flower of democracy from the scythe of Socialism is now surely self-evident. Here are two modest proposals to ensure that the will of the people prevails over the power of the politicians, the Press, and the profiteers.

First, every new treaty, and as many pre-existing treaties as possible, should be made subject to repeal by a national referendum – and not just by a referendum called by the governing party because it thinks it can win it but by the people via the initiative procedure. Britain would have left the EU long before now if we, the people, and not those who govern us, had had the right to put referendum questions on the ballot.

Secondly, the governing bodies of all new supranational or global bodies exercising real sovereign power or spending taxpayers’ money from the states parties to the treaty that establishes them should be elected at frequent intervals by the peoples of those states parties.

Otherwise every international treaty, being a transfer of power from elected to unelected hands, diminishes democracy. Britain’s membership of the European Union effectively took away our democracy altogether, so that three new laws in five (according to the researchers of the House of Commons Library) or five in six (according to the German Government in a submission some years ago to the German Constitutional Court) are inflicted upon us solely because the unelected Kommissars require it.

Till now, our obligation has been to obey, on pain of unlimited fines.

The vote by the people of Britain to break free from this stifling, sclerotic tyranny has sent a shock-wave through every major international governing entity. It was no accident that the the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Corruption and Devastation, and various world “leaders” including Mr Obama, broke with democratic convention by openly promoting a “Remain” vote in a flagrant attempt to interfere in Britain’s decision.

Mr Obama’s intervention was decisive. The moment he demanded that Britain should remain within the EU, the polls began to swing against it. It was only when, in his maladroit fashion, he had sought to interfere in Britain’s decision that so many undecided voters woke up to the danger that the maneuverings and posturings of the international governing class represent to democracy.

What will Britain’s decision mean for the climate debate? Of course, it will break us free from the EU, whose governing elite had seized upon the climate issue as a purported ex-post-facto justification for the now-hated bloc’s continued existence.

We are left with our own British governing class, which has until now been no less determined than the EU to damage our economic and environmental interests by shutting down vital coal-fired power stations and carpeting our once green and pleasant land with windmills.

Now that the EU and its devoted poodle Mr Cameron have been consigned to the trashcan of history, it is near-certain that any new British Cabinet will take a more alert and less acquiescent stance than the present lot on the climate question.

It may even occur to the new Cabinet to check whether the rate of global warming is anything like what the profiteers of doom had predicted; to count the number of downstream businesses – such as cinder-blocks made from fly-ash out of coal-fired power stations – that have been destroyed by the EU’s war on coal; and even to wonder whether the forest of windmills that infest our once beautiful landscape are now extracting between them so much kinetic energy from passing storms that they are slowing them down, causing far more flash flooding than slightly warmer weather would (if and when it happened).

In the past, there was no point in our politicians asking any such questions, for our policies on all matters to do with our own environment were set for us by the unelected Kommissars of Brussels, whether we liked it or not.

Now that our politicians are going to have to learn to think for themselves again, rather than acting as an otiose, automated rubber stamp for directives from Them in Brussels, perhaps the Mother of Parliaments will begin to calculate the enormous economic advantage that Britain will gain by abandoning all of the climate-related directives that have driven our coal corporations, our steelworks and our aluminum works overseas, and have killed tens of thousands by making home heating altogether unaffordable.

We, the people, are the masters now. Our politicians will have to reacquire the habit of listening not to Them but to us. Here, and in the rest of Europe, and eventually throughout the world, let freedom ring!

Thank you, America, and God save the Queen!

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
CodeTech

Brilliant! Thanks, Lord Monckton!
There is a very simple rule of thumb to be observed in all things political: if 0bama is for it, the correct position is to be against it. If, of course, you value personal freedoms and actual democracy.
I’ve been seeing and reading some horrendous examples of “personal freedoms and democracy” all day. A huge swatch of millennials feel that nobody older than them should be allowed to vote, because they all voted “the wrong way”. The indoctrination of the young has always been a very successful tool for fascists and dictatorships.

AlexB

Indeed.
There are 16–18 year olds who say that it’s their future and they didn’t get to vote, and the old people who aren’t going to be around that long screwed them over. I’m 30, I don’t think I’m shuffling off this mortal coil any time soon (although who knows what tomorrow will bring). I’m pretty sure it’s my future too. It also happens to be my present, the same as all those older folk who voted the wrong way. The kids haven’t experienced the real world yet, they don’t see how the EU affects those it doesn’t directly benefit.
I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m glad I couldn’t vote at that age. The stuff my head was full of back then makes present-day me cringe.

When I was 16 my R&B band played at a rally for LBJ’s announcement for his War On Poverty.
We see how that’s worked out, eh?
“The stuff my head was full of back then makes present-day me cringe”
Oh, that’s so true.

For anyone wanting to learn more about the arguments for the UK leaving the EU should watch Martin Durkin’s (Producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle) excellent film:
Brexit:The Movie

Russ Wood

But it has often been said that if you are not a Liberal by age 21, you have no soul. If you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no sense.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot too. As a 50 year-old who has lived and paid tax in Germany for over 10 years and having worked on the continent for 15, I have a lot of experience of the EU and Europe. I have also paid an awful, awful lot of corporation tax in to both the German and UK exchequer, in fact 5 times more than Facebook did to the UK government in 2014. Furthermore I’m white middle aged and highly skilled and belong to that generation that created that thing call the internet among many, many other things. So my suggestion would be to higher the voting age to something like , say 40 and weight the vote according to how much tax you have paid in to the system. Furthermore anyone voting on such an important issue as membership of the EU , should be forced to do some kind of pre-test , to verify they understand what is at stake. I’m sorry to say my experience of most of the so called educated under 40s who are not white and male is that they are shockingly ignorant.

@Poptech: Thanks for the link to Brexit: the movie. I hadn’t seen that before, glad I didn’t miss it.

RossP

The problem with many young people is those that were eligible to vote did not go to the polling booth. Figures I saw were 1 in 4 18-24 years olds voted but 4 in 5 over 60 year olds voted. The young can moan all they like, but if they don’t exercise the privilege to vote they have not right to criticise anyone. ( NB. This is an issue world wide –not just the UK)

Gabro

Nothing wrong with the young not voting. If they’re not informed, working and raising families, they shouldn’t vote.
Lowering the voting age to 18 was a mistake. It should be raised from 21 to 35, when the brain reaches full maturity. How did the Founding Fathers know that?

MarkW

Gabro, the founding fathers were keen observers of their fellow men.

JohnKnight

And themselves it seems to me . .

Lord Monckton, you really nailed it!
And Codetech, you did too. I’ve been saying for at least the last 6 years that 0bama really is running the most transparent administration in US history. All one must do is reverse everything he says and voila, you have the truth. Perhaps the simplest code ever.
It felt good this morning to learn that the British people had the slight enough majority to slip a monkey wrench into such un-democratic madness as the EU was actually always meant to be.
One can only hope that we can do something to check our own slide into such madness. I suppose we will see something in this regard in November.

Evan Jones

I suppose we will see something in this regard in November.
I hope so.
But, yea or nay, we get to decide.
God Bless America! says this atheist. (It’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it.) I particularly note, with great positive feeling, that melord credits the example of America — stand beside her and guide her with a light through the night from above.

george e. smith

Welcome back to the outdoors Lord M of B. We learned a lot from our Mother, and we (we as in I am) happy to have you back on the playing field of free peoples and ideas.
G

CraigAustin

I think you are saying that Obama is now “Yoko Ono” wrong. Not just wrong but exactly wrong, 2+2=-4 type of wrong.

Jeff Mitchell

Yes! I’ve always liked the joke that 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2. This makes it possible for 2 + 2 = 6 for even larger values of 2. And 2 + 2 = -4 if you remember the correct signs and parenthesis. (-2)(+2) = -4. They just don’t have their math structure down very well.

Barry Soetoro may want the UK at the “back of the queue”
however “The Donald” disagrees. Hear him say so at the
opening of his newly renovated Golf & Country Club in
Scotland. Already he has invested almost $200 million
on the place, and yet the SNP “Government” despise him.
short excerpt from Trump’s one hour speech in Scotland.

The presidential Trump on display here. No one who voted leave for one minute believed the crap Obama came out with. This referendum has revealed a lot about who our true allies in this world our. Good luck Mr. Trump in your bid for the presidency and f*** Obama.

chev4575

QUOTE : America does not need gun control. It needs Muslim control.We
can either ban guns, box cutters, shoes,cars,underwear, pressure cookers,
underground volcanoes,DemocRATS and bodily fluids… or we can put a stop to the
terror tidal flow of Muslim migrants into America.
End of Quote…
Trump for President, Hillary for Prison – 2016

Hugh

That’s a great rule of thumb, CodeTech. Mine is a variation: “If Obama and Pope Francis are for it, it’s infallibly wrong”.

Reed Coray

Absolutely agree. Only I would extend the rule-of-thumb to say: if the democrat party is for “it,” the correct position is to be against “it.” I’m not a republican, but I staunchly an anti-democrat.

Sleepalot

Your anti Democrat, not anti democrat. That capital “D” makes a huge difference.

David A

Yet, and perhaps the only thing missing in C.Ms. excellent post is that a constitutional republic is designed to protect individuals against ALL tyranny, including democratic. (Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch, for example)

Joe Crawford

David A, you are absolutely right. It has always amazed me how many people don’t understand the difference between our republic and a pure democracy. But, I that’s what happens when the people teaching history don’t understand it themselves (I’d rather leave it at that than assume evil intent).

MarkW

I’ve lost track of the number of people who insist that any form of tyranny can be justified, so long as the majority wants it.

TG

if 0bama is for it, the correct position is to be against it.
I have found this to be the case 99.99999999% of the time. Obamaman is a real top down dictocrat, With his hammer, pen and phone he’s always looking for a way to nail the people and the economy.

David L. Hagen

Well said Christopher Lord Monckton
However, vitally more important than a “democracy” is upholding a Republic.
See The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy

Minority rights are protected from the majority in a Republic. A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense. In a Republic there is an emphasis on individual differences rather than absolute equality. Such individual differences are seen as a strength in a Republic rather than as a flaw under Democracy, which equates sameness as equality.

All States in the USA mutually required that their constitutions be “republican in form” because all classic democracies had descended into mob rule.
See further on why the Founding Fathers chose a Republic not a Democracy to prevent Mob Rule

george e. smith

Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution says that the ….. United States ….. shall guarantee to each State, a Republican from of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion …..
But yes our 57 Sovereign Republics do operate along generally democratic lines.
Too bad that ….. The United States …. is delinquent on that invasion prevention.
Note that Article IV , section 4 , is something the government is told they MUST do, not something they are told they MAY do, as in Article I section 8.
The UK will now also be able to put some efforts into their own invasion by peoples who start from the premise of rejecting the established laws of their country, and demands to substitute their own seventh century rules.
G

William Bradford Grubel

Don’t mock Obama. He’s the most successful gun salesman this country has ever seen.

Marcus

“The necessity to protect the flagile flower of democracy”
Lord Monckton, was that meant to be ” fragile” ??

george e. smith

NO !

Gabro

The frequently flagellated fragile flower of democracy.

Robin Hewitt

Hopefully not Flagyl

Gabro

You’re welcome!
Little Jimmy Madison

Janice Moore

Hip, hip — hooray!!!
We, the People, of the United States of America (if I may be so bold as to speak for us all) … 🙂 … accept your gracious thanks with pleasure! Oh, hooray, hooray, HOORAY for the United Kingdom!
SO HAPPY FOR YOU!
#(:))
**************
And Barack Hussein will now take a bow:

(youtube)
And, now, Barry Soetoro proposes a toast, “To the Queen” —
with “God Save the Queen”
as background music for his little speech:

(youtube)

Marcus

“Long live the Queen” !!

jorgekafkazar

Barack Hussein Obama was not bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, but to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, the highest office in Islam. Overcome with religious fervor, he lost control and bowed deeply. Then he had to bow repeatedly to other foreign, non-Muslim officials in an attempt to cover his gaffe.

Alan McIntire

After leaving office, President Fillmore visited Europe. He had an offer to meet the pope, but turned it down because he thought protocol required one to kiss the pope’s ring, and believed that such an action would demean the office of President of the United States. He later accepted the meeting when he found out that there was no such “kissing the ring” requirement.
President Fillmore had a lot more respect for the office of president than the current occupant. I think historians are wrong in ranking President Fillmore so low as a president.

Gabro

I guess that Fillmore gets lumped in with his pre-war successors, the Democrats Pierce and Buchanan, who usually (rightly, IMO) rank at the bottom for hastening and not heading off the Late Unpleasantness.
Many historians conclude that the Compromise of 1850 delayed the LU rather than contributing to it. But if so, the delay came at the cost of adding a new slave state in the territories and of passing the Fugitive Slave Act, which helped give rise to the Republicans and to destroy Fillmore’s Whigs.
Had the North and South gone to war in 1851 instead of 1861, the latter would have had greater relative strength in population and resources then as opposed to ten years later, so its secession might have succeeded. More Southern militias had participated in the Mexican-American War, so that section would have had more military experience. England and France too might have been more inclined to support the South earlier.
Fillmore’s also an article of fun and opprobrium for later running on the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Party (Know Nothings) ticket, although he apparently never joined before being nominated as its candidate for president.
[Egyptian cotton was not yet available to the English mills in 1850 in large amounts either …. .mod]

Gabro

Mod,
Good point.
So by sacrificing runaway slaves for ten years, Fillmore may have helped keep the Union together.
New Mexico was never going to have a lot of slaves, anyway.

MarkW

I remember one comparison between Clinton and Reagan when it came to the office of the Presidency.
It was said that Reagan wouldn’t even take off his suit coat while in the Oval office, out of respect for the men who had occupied it before him.
Clinton on the other hand …

Will Nelson

What does he do during his briefings? Maybe his trusted advisors need to quit playing video games all day.

TA

Obama doesn’t listen to briefings. He already knows everything.

JohnWho

“Janice Moore
June 24, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Hip, hip — hooray!!!
We, the People, of the United States of America (if I may be so bold as to speak for us all) … “

On this issue Janice, I’m more than happy to allow you to speak for me, too.
Which makes your use of the word “we” totally acceptable.

Janice Moore

Thank you, JohnWho, for telling me that. Good to know.

Janice you were speaking for not only the USA but : Canada, Australia New Zealand and the list goes on so thanks for speaking on our behalf! ( you took the words out of many mouths! how is your 4 legged friend?)

Janice Moore

Hi, Sybot (a),
Yes, yes, indeed — all liberty-loving (and honoring) peoples are represented by the comments in this thread. Good point!
Thank you for asking, Riley would like you to know that, while he will be 11 in August, he is STILL HERE. “I’m still here,” he said, with a little growl. Heh. The two German Shepherds are fine. Riley is not well, but, he’ll be with me at least another 2 or 3 months (or more!), I think.
Life is hard — but, God is good. All will be well…
I hope all is well up there in this busy growing season time of year.
Take care (sorry so terse, here, but, well, you understand…),
Janice

Evan Jones

You’re welcome, from Us the People.
(Hang in there, Janice.)

Janice Moore

Thank you, Evan, for your kind encouragement.

george e. smith

Only last April, Emperor Obama the first, decreed that upon exit, the UK could go to the back of the bus; excuse me, I meant to say queue. Now he is saying that nothing will change WRT the US UK relationship.
This is the same Obama, who opened his White House Oval Office residency, by excommunicating the bust of Winston Churchill; a gift to the US, of the British People.
He also added his emphasis to that sentiment, by arranging to have an official photograph of himself sitting in the Oval Office chair, with his boots up on the desk of oaken timbers from a British Revolutionary war battleship; also a gift of the British people.
And of course we all know that presenting the soles of ones boots , is the standard form of Islamic insult to one’s opponents.
Lo and behold within seconds, Lady Hillary issued her opinion of Brexit, in words that almost exactly matched and mimicked The Emperor Obama speech.
Hey Hillary, at this point what the hell does it matter (to you) what the freedom desiring British people want; what difference does it make ??
G

TA

Hillary is trying to keep her name on the front page.
Trump’s great speech and news conference in Scotland this morning sucked all the political air out of Hillary’s world, so she is trying to claw her way back into the public eye by sounding off on Brixet. Naturally, she says just the wrong thing.
Hillary has a lot of titles. But she has no accomplishments to speak of, and has made numerous really bad decisions on her watch that have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and the disruption of Europe by Middle Eastern refugees fleeing from the wars Hillary and Obama’s stupidity caused.
You could say that Hillary is partially responsible for Britain exiting the EU: The British are tired of playing cleanup to Hillary’s Middle East mistakes.
Trump is going to tear her record apart during the general election, and there is nothing she can do to stop it, because it is all true, and on the record.

Janice Moore

Well said, George! (great memory for all the facts about that poseur in the White House)

MarkG

“Now he is saying that nothing will change WRT the US UK relationship.”
Perfectly true. Obama hated Britain before the vote, and he still hates Britain after the vote. Nothing changed.

george e. smith

Well Obama had a venomous hatred for the British and Churchill in particular, because of Churchill’s action in quelling the Mau-mau uprisings in British Colonial Africa, where the (Kikuyu ?) tribesmen (some of them) went on a murderous rampage hacking farmers, black and white to death, and burning their farms.
His paternal grandfather was involved in that in some way, according to a report I have heard from a guy who researched it. Don’t recall the name of O’s grandpa, but there is a dingo in there somewhere, if my memory hasn’t gone all sour.
G

george e. smith

Might have got that ancestral name a bit pear shaped.
g

Leonard Lane

george, Hillary has to bow and scrape and fawn over Obama. He is the one who will have the final say whether she is indicted and tried as a criminal.

David A

LL, do you not think those two are engaged in “MAD” due to their extensive corruption. If the FBI finds the brass to indict, how long before there is a pardon, or does one have to be convicted to pardon?

AlexB

I don’t know about elsewhere in the UK, but where I am the back of the bus is the place the kids make a bee line for anyway.

george e. smith June 24, 2016 at 6:13 pm
This is the same Obama, who opened his White House Oval Office residency, by excommunicating the bust of Winston Churchill; a gift to the US, of the British People.

Sorry George, but this didn’t happen, it’s outside the door of the president’s office, the Treaty Room.!

Gabro

Sorry, Phil. Wrong again!
Don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself regurgitating lies by the Administration and its MSM lackeys?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9436526/White-House-admits-it-did-return-Winston-Churchill-bust-to-Britain.html
Needed UK media to set straight the lies of Obama’s American cheer leaders and echo chamber sycophants.

Gabro June 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Sorry, Phil. Wrong again!
Don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself regurgitating lies by the Administration and its MSM lackeys?

Apparently you don’t understand english and didn’t read the article you linked to!
The post by George that I responded to said:
This is the same Obama, who opened his White House Oval Office residency, by excommunicating the bust of Winston Churchill; a gift to the US, of the British People.
The bust of Churchill which was a gift to the US in 1965 is still in the White House exactly where I said it is, outside the Treaty Room.
There was another bust of Churchill which was loaned to President Bush (do you understand the distinction between loan and gift Gabro?) by Tony Blair. As the ambassador, Sir Peter Westmacott, said, it was a loan for the duration of the Bush presidency and was returned to the Embassy at the end of that presidency.

Gabro

Phil,
The depths of your superficiality cannot be plumbed.
The post-9/11 loan was indefinite. Had Obama wanted to keep it for the rest of his term, the UK embassy would have been happy to let him.
http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/is-this-the-real-reason-obama-returned-that-churchill-bust
Dig deep or taste not of the Internet.

There is one more bust of Churchill that remains in the White House – this one is displayed outside The Treaty Room, but there’s little chance Obama will be hanging out there, considering he has little interest in actually discussing treaties with Congress.
Gabro, you really should start reading someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. President Obama uses the Treaty room as his primary working office.
http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor2/treaty-room/treaty-room-2009-sw.jpg

benofhouston

Now, this is ridiculous. The president can show respect and politeness. Gestures and wishes are one thing. It is the meaningful actions that concern me.

Jeff Mitchell

On this subject, you can speak for me too. Monckton hits it out of the park 🙂

What a pity Christopher Mockton is not in the running for Prime Minister, as Cameron just resigned. Is he inelgible, given his place in the House of Lords? I don’t know enough British law to know.

Steve Fraser

While a peer, he is not in the House of Lords.

Steve T

Tom, the Prime Minister is a position decided by the group who control the majority in Parliament. In this case the Conservative Party. It’s more of a process than a matter of law
The qualification for the post at this time is to belong to the party, make the short list selected by the elected MP’s of that Party and then be able to gain the majority of votes at the party’s annual conference this autumn.
They should obviously choose someone who supported the leave vote.
SteveT

Drcrinum

THANK YOU, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

Its a wonderful day for democracy and freedom Lord Monckton!

Marcus

..Outstanding sir !
p.s. congratulations on a well deserved victory !

Les Hunter

Wow! Well explained!

Bloke down the pub

A friend of mine asked what possible benefit could come from a vote for Brexit. I replied democracy, to which he said that it was over-rated. I knew at that point that I had to be more careful in future who I called a friend.

birdynumnum

With Scotlands attitude to all this I would suggest a close eye is kept on William Wallace’s grave for any signs of rotation. “Freedom!”
Remains to be seen.

Texcis

+1305

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

+1314 (exactly) [ well, except for the calendar change ]

stan stendera

Very astute reply.

expat

Love Scotland and it’s people, but sometimes I think all the industrious ones either emigrated or got shot up in the wars cause the people there now sure like “free stuff” paid for by others.

Ric Haldane

The Scots have turned to socialism in a big way. They may leave GB and join the EU whose days are surely numbered.

Owen in GA

Ric,
But Scotland is an economic basket case and thus would not qualify for EU membership. They could leave the union jack only to wander in the hinterlands without a sugar daddy to maintain their welfare state.
What ever would they do then?

I wonder if the Scots leave how much blue paint there is left? (Looks like that is what their government is going to wear )

Gabro

If they let in Greece, they’ll let in any socialist spongers. At least Scotland still has a few years of oil left. Not olive oil, but petroleum.

Steve T

Ric Haldane
June 24, 2016 at 7:49 pm
The Scots have turned to socialism in a big way. They may leave GB and join the EU whose days are surely numbered.
**************************************************************************************************************
Good luck to Scotland joining the EU. I’m sure that Spain and one or two others among the EU members will use their veto to stop them joining to discourage independence from the likes of Catalonia and regions elsewhere with similar ideas.
SteveT

jdgalt

@Owen: I predict that the next referendum proposal will be for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to secede from Britain together. That way the Scots don’t have to apply to join the EU — they will have never left, and as a bonus, the Scots won’t get to vote on the question. Instead, the rest of the kingdom will be the ones to vote on it.
If this is their intention it explains why PM Cameron did not send the EU an Article 50 Notice before resigning. The clock on negotiating the separation doesn’t even start to run until that notice is given.
Of course, Cameron may just intend to cheat the voters by never giving the notice. So Vote UKIP in the upcoming general election!

rw

They’e all over here.

Gabro

Scotland wouldn’t even exist except for the untimely death of King Edward I. Had he lived, his son, Queen Edward II, wouldn’t have lost the Battle of Bannockburn. Without that lucky win, Robert the Bruce wouldn’t have been King of Scots and Scotland today would be even less separate from England than is Wales.

Louis

“his son, Queen Edward II”
Is that a type-o? Or did Edward II self-identify as a queen?

george e. smith

I guess he used the Ladies Loo under the new principle of all 57 genders are equal.
g

Well Edward II may well have had a homosexual relationship with Piers Gaveston, Marlowe’s play makes very explicit reference to this.

Mario J Lento

Well said Lord Monckton –and will be posted in my Facebook account!

Doug S

Bravo Christopher Monckton!
Indeed, God save the Queen and God give us all strength to build upon the freedom our forefathers won for us through their sacrifice.

Will Nelson

I’m sure Packagerm will never happen though.

jorgekafkazar

God save the Queen, indeed.

Yes, indeed!

joelobryan

Lord Monckton wrote, “Mr Obama’s intervention was decisive. “

I immediately realized that at the time he did that back in April. Many other did as well. That man’s ego cannot listen to his better advisors to keep his socialist, nanny-stater yap shut. He cannot accept that it was his words that helped convince the good people of Britain that their future should be in their own hands, not in an unaccountable socialist bureaucracy.

jorgekafkazar

Advisors? He has advisors?

Gabro

There is but one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-white-house-aid-valerie-jarrett-obama/
In effect, the first female president.
Unless you count the second Mrs. Wilson, Edith Bolling Galt, who was the only person who could understand Woodrow after his stroke. Or claimed she could. So effectively ran the executive branch.
She was a “Red Bolling”, ie descended from Matoaka “Pocahontas” Powhatan. Most Bollings are “White”, but there are also a few “Blue Bollings”.

Texcis

LOL!

Analitik

Gore, Hansen, Mann, Jaczko, DiCaprio, …

Owen in GA

Oh I don’t know about Obama being decisive (if so it would be the first truly decisive thing in his term), I think that Junker’s comment about the British government being delusional to think there would be any further negotiations on the EUs structure was the death peg.

Philip

Agree. Doing it on the day before the vote seemed calculated. Britain was pretty much against him taking that position, I think he wanted an exit, and this was his way of helping that to happen.
He seems like a thoroughly unlikable and vindictive person.

AlexB

Not sure how many people actually caught that, with how close to the vote he said it. Between that and the EU position that Cameron’s reform agreement wasn’t binding, one would hope more people would have swung to the Leave camp.

typo ‘flagile’

george e. smith

Notso !
G

SMC

Congratulations to the UK.
I’ve been reading and watching some of the news reports and reading some of the blogs from the more ‘liberal’ side of the fence and, well, it’s interesting. Without fail, they all blame the poor, benighted, uneducated working class people for the failure of the Remain vote. They all feel it is the fault of nefarious, bigoted, unprincipled politicians leading the masses astray. Their condescending rhetoric is blind and sickening IMO.
While the UK and many of the rest of us celebrate this victory for freedom and democracy, we must remain cautious and on guard. The socialists have just suffered a major defeat and will not easily come to terms with this reality. They will oppose, perhaps violently, any opposition to their way of thinking. They will justify their opposition, perhaps violent, by some form of ‘The ends justify the means.’ They are currently in denial and I doubt they will ever reach acceptance. The road forward will be rocky and full of pitfalls, it always is and always will be. But, the issues that brought the UK to vote exit are still out there. There is still a powerful block of people that will do whatever it takes to see their dreams of power and domination come true. Unless they are defeated swiftly, relatively speaking, and in a decisive manner, then there will be more ‘battles’ and each will be more vicious than the last. Let’s do what we can to ensure these ‘battles’ remain in the realms of rhetoric and the ballot box.

That’s because the little people are too stupid to do the right thing…So we get nudged.
Actually, we also get lied to big time because we’re stupid.
Just ask anybody in Obama’s administration.
EPA, IRS, VA, Energy, Education, Justice, ask anybody.

rw

I agree with your assessment 100 percent. They’re already looking for ways to overturn the vote. These people have the tenacity of a Terminator robot. I hope enough people in the UK realize that.

And thank YOU, Christopher, for Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, the Beatles, and other good things from Britain.
I’m glad to see you mention TTIP, the evil cousin of TTP. Obama and his mostly Republican allies* are looking to shove democracy-killing TTP down our throats during the lame duck session. Perhaps you could arrange for Cameron to visit the US during the lame duck. We can at least hope for similar results.
* most TPA votes were by Republicans. TPA greased the skids for TPP.

joelobryan

I actually did wrote my Congresswoman (AZ-CD2, McSally) last year warning her of the dangers for her support and that of Republican Party in siding with Obama to give him TPA. They voted for it anyway. It still eludes her thimble brain that she won the closest Congressional district election contest EVER (by just 160 votes) because enough people wanted to see Obama opposed at his every step. She went to DC and snuggled up and canoodled with the GOP establishment.
Then Trump came along and showed the GOP establishment fools how disconnected they are from their base.

joelobryan

write. duh

You can join the Anti-TPP Git Sally Posse, preferably making wrangler and/or voteslinger pledges. Even if you’re a Republican, who can’t bring yourself to vote against somebody from the R tribe, you can still take and keep wrangler pledges. http://www.votersrevenge.org/follow/119/0 . The public is woefully ignorant of TPP – I’ve done my own (admittedly modest and statistically insignificant) polling. (See my facebook page “TPP Ignorance”, where I’ve documented some of this ignorance. http://tinyurl.com/j8rkuud Although I haven’t posted any recent ‘polling’ of mine, the results have been very similar).
Please do your own polling of neighbors. When you find out just how few of them know anything significant about TPP, you will hopefully be galvanized to change that. Obama actually classified the TPP docs (though Congress critter could read it, under draconian conditions) until after the TPA vote. The mainstream media blacked out the TPP, until TPA was in play, the only exception being Ed Schulz of MSNBC. (Who is no longer there. Hmmm. He is on RT.com).
PERHAPS CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON WILL USE HIS FATHOMLESS WIT TO HELP SET THE REPUBLICANS STRAIGHT ON TPP. CHRISTOPHER?

Gabro

What, no fish and chips?
No bangers with fried tomato? No Cornish pastie? Or haggis?
No rotten NHS teeth?

george e. smith

Gots to be wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper to qualify as fish and chips.
g

Owen in GA

George,
So what do we do when the papers all go online? I loved me some fish and chips when I lived in England. Of course the EU was trying to run the chippies out of business with their fish limits on cod when I was there. Chicken Tikka Missala actually passed fish and chips as the most popular dish in England while I was there.

Gabro

That’s right!
Let us never forget that we have the Mother Country to thank for Chicken Tikka Missala.
And Shakespeare, of course, dead white male chauvinist that he may be. But not a racist. Remember the Merchant of Venice, Othello the Moor and of course the Dark Lady of the sonnets, Lucy Negro or Emilia Lanier.

Gabro

George,
Can no longer wrap fish and chips in newspaper, since newsprint consists of that evil poison, carbon!

@ george e. smith,8:04 pm, gots to be wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper to qualify as fish and chips. Does the Guardian qualify or is it banned?

In the interest of brevity, there were many, many omissions. Chief among them, methinks, is tea and strumpets, with the Queen!

“….tea and strumpets…”
So that’s why Brexit won.

What once was, is no more…
“In a recent World Health Organisation report of the dental status of children, British youths had fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth than those in France, Spain and Sweden. The United States, on the other hand, did quite a bit worse. At the age of 12, children in the United Kingdom have on average better teeth than their American counterparts.”

clipe

“Now that the EU and its devoted poodle Mr Cameron have been consigned to the trashcan dustbin of history”
As Donna Laframboise would have it.

Jeff Mitchell

I like “ash heap of history” personally.

afonzarelli

One has to wonder how much of this vote was purely due to the backlash against the EU climate change policies. Given time, liberalism is perfectly capable of destroying itself. Here in the states, we’re just a wisker away from having a republican president, congress and (importantly) supreme court. All this in the face of strong demographic head winds. Just let liberals be liberals and that will be the end of liberalism…

F. Ross

Excellent — and entertaining at the same time!

“England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

To which I can only say Hear, hear.

Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium. At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.

Deserves at least thirteen smily faces : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – ) : – )
Tea… milord?

Texcis

+1776

In th UK it’s +2016

Oops, I forgot.
Welcome back to the free world.

Next step: the United Kingdom of England and Wales…

Yep, it’s coming. Just us and Wales, and we’re very happy with that (since a female Welsh voice is the sexiest voice in the world!). People are already trying to think up a new flag.

Stephen Richards

UK will have so much spare money they won’t know what to do with it. Billions from EU, Billion from Barnet formula ~£10000/scot. Let the Venezuelan inspired scot nat party have their country.
Lord Monckton best wishes and thanks for all your efforts

george e. smith

Well all those Welshmen can sing. Them and their damn ” Dear Land of my (our ?) Fathers “.
That’s the only reason they won that game, when Wales beat the undefeated 1905 All blacks. Completely snookered our magic Haka, that was supposed to put the fear of god into them.
Anyway, our little Maori village still has a name that is longer than Llanfair ……………..
I’ll look it up.
G

george e. smith June 25, 2016 at 6:26 am
Well all those Welshmen can sing. Them and their damn ” Dear Land of my (our ?) Fathers “.

It’s ‘Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau’, and it translates as ‘my’. I sang it for the first time about 60 years ago in my school choir at the Eisteddfod.
That’s the only reason they won that game, when Wales beat the undefeated 1905 All blacks. Completely snookered our magic Haka, that was supposed to put the fear of god into them.
It’s always good when the All Blacks come up against the Tongans, get the haka and the sipi tau!

Willis Eschenbach

My dear Christopher, my thanks to you and all those who labored so mightily to bring this to pass. Well done, good sir, very well done indeed.
w.

Buckley

It seems that Lord Monckton has a keener grasp of the U.S. Constitution than ‘Constitutional Law Professor’ Obama.
Go Brits!

Ogcone

Except with respect to one issue; he has the Constitution right (treaties ratified by 2/3 vote of Senate alone), but trade agreements are not self-implementing, and they must be enacted by both houses of Congress. See http://conginst.org/2011/12/12/trade-or-treaty-why-does-the-house-approve-free-trade-agreements/ for an explanation.

stan stendera

Lord Monckton has a keener grasp of EVERYTHING than Obama.

TRUMP the establishment. TRUMP the Grumpy Old Party. TRUMP you Obama.
Obama is truly a tone and tint deaf moron. God Bless US Bitter Clingers.

Peter Sable

I think you saying “Thank You” for putting up with 7.5 years of socialist crap just so we could send its leader over in time to maladroitly throw your election for independence by several percentage points.
You are quite welcome. Hope you can return the favor somehow…
Peter

Texcis

Ditto.

I think the fact that the remain”s” tried to extend the registration for young voters by 48 hours also proved their undoing. A lot of young people saw the desperate illegal move for what it was , manipulation. The elite seems to think that we the unwashed are uninformed but social media proved to be their undoing.

Richard of NZ

I was very surprised at how much the electorate was gerrymandered. Not just British people were permitted to vote, but any-one resident in the U.K. Yes, that included such people as foreign embassy and consular people. I would imagine that all E.U. member states diplomatic members would have voted to stay, as would most if not all of the E.U. workers present in the U.K. Also the diplomatic staff of the U.S.A., who would vote against the desires of their prescient, oops, president. As we are told that there are as many as 1,000,000 Poles alone working in Britain then this would have biased the voting totals towards a remain result. That it did not shows that many real Britons still respect themselves.
The true result, if only Britons had been permitted to vote, would have shown a far greater majority for Leave.

Gabro

Richard,
They seem to have tightened up the eligibility rules for the referendum. A US citizen, I was shocked, when living in the UK in the 1970s, that I was allowed to vote.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/649517/EU-referendum-2016-Voting-Voters-Allowed-British-Irish-Commonwealth-Citizens-European
Scotland allows 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in Scottish elections, but they were barred for the referendum.

CD in Wisconsin

Ah yes, the European Union. I’m still waiting for that marvelous bureaucracy to pass a regulation for the changing of a light bulb. One person would be standing on a chair holding the bulb while four others would be standing on the floor turning the chair.
“…… the Organization for Economic Corruption and Devastation” ROTFLMAO.

pbweather

As simple as Mr Monckton would like you to believe it, this vote was not just about democracy it was based on immigration and xenophobia. Voting stats show that the vast majority of higher educated people voted to remain in Europe, whilst the lesser educated and grumpy retired people who still believe there is a British Empire voted to leave. Many have forgotten why Europe was formed in the first place. It was created after WW2 to stop conflict between european countries which had gone on for centuries and it succeeded in bringing 70 years of peace which in European history is unprecedented. Wars continue to this day in other parts of the world because of disputed borders and different cultural and religious beliefs. Europe had this too until the European community came together and started sharing trade, culture and allowing freedom of movement.
Far from being a great loss of democracy, Europe strengthen the UK both economically and culturally. I actually believe that the world will only ever be at peace when borders come down and cultures interwine, otherwise it will always be them versus us mentalty which leads to conflict.
Is 70 years of peace and the prospect of my children having the opportunity to live and work where ever they please within 28 different countries and cultures worth giving up some but not all rights of governance, I would say absolutely yes.

Oh yes. We must keep those peasants in their place, as they cannot be trusted with anything like democracy./sarc

MarkG

Can’t have the proles getting uppity and thinking they know better than the ‘educated’, can we? They should know their place.
Besides, most Britons with degrees only got them in the last decade or so with the massive expansion of the university scam, so they’re still young and naive, and probably took something useless like ‘trans-lesbian womyn’s studies’.
I just love the way the left is so loudly proclaiming its hatred of the working class. They won’t forget at the next election.

Tom Halla , pb seems to forget it was the peasants that fought for the so called peace 70 years ago. pb seems to forget that has been very little peace in the EU the past 70 years, ( pb , the Balkans, the communist take over of Hungary, ,Czechoslovakia and so on.) But then pb seems to be living in rose petal land. to me.

I also forgot to add that the peasants that fought ( and won WWI & II ) where led by the elite. While they were sitting in London and leading from behind, the few leaders that really led were the real guys, MacArthur, Patton, Montgomery and so on. ( I have to add that Rommel would have succeeded IF he was not removed)

Gabro

Dugout Doug MacArthur and miss all the main objectives Monty were hardly lead from the front types.

Nigel S

Lord Lovat (the handsomest man to cut a throat) lead from the front on Sword Beach with piper Bill Millin playing ‘Highland Laddie’.

PB weather
Let the proles eat stale cake?
Or perhaps only the young and those with degrees should be allowed to vote as everyone else seems to come up with the wrong answer?
tonyb

Texcis

I’m sure the Ottoman Empire was considered “peaceful” . . . by the “Ottomans.” Their slaves had “peace” so long as they worked their butts off for their conquerors or fought in wars for them.

pbweather

Ludicrous comparison and you know it.
The USA is another example of collective peace achieved with differing cultural and political beliefs. Imagine if California or Florida decided to vote to leave the USA. How would that go down amongst Americans? Not well I suspect.

afonzarelli

pb, that’s a whole nother can of worms. States are not countries. To compare Great Britain with California is a “ludicrous comparison”…

Gabro

This American would be happy to see parts of Florida and California leave the Union. Along with all, most or parts of New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. For starters.\

george e. smith

Well the US tended to be somewhat peaceful so long as its governments adhered to our Constitution, and our laws under that Constitution (and Declaration of Independence).
Now we have “immigrants” who come here with the full intent to install their own seventh century system of rules instead of abiding by their sworn statement that they would obey our laws and defend our Constitution against all enemies (including them).
G

expat

” will only ever be at peace when borders come down and cultures interwine, “(sic)
The intertwining of European cultures is one thing but allowing in millions of barbarians and their 6th century religion is suicide.
Long live Britain and their people.

pbweather

“Long live Britain and their people”
I rest my case.

I’m with you expat.
Long live Britain and their people.
+

Akatsukami

Europe might strengthen the UK, but Dar al-Islam will destroy both.

Leo Morgan

@ Akatsukami
you used the Arabic term ‘Dar al-Islam’. I must ask, why use the Arabic term ‘the house of those who obey God?’
You don’t mean to convey that concept at all.
Yes, they call themselves that, but so what? You wouldn’t call Michael Mann ‘a victim of unjust persecution’ just because he chooses to call himself that, would you?
When you use the Arabic, you are creating a ‘dog whistle’* whereby you are announcing yourself to be an enemy of God. What else should any good religious person do but take up your challenge and oppose you, God’s self-declared enemy? Unless you really think Mohammedans are those who truly obey God, you shouldn’t use the term.
Yes, the Koran calls upon Mohammed’s followers to fight those who don’t share their faith, but the Bible calls on Christ’s followers to take up their swords. Yet both religions have people who are genuinely peaceful. Instead of alienating peaceful individuals with your Arabic dog whistle, why not use plain English? For example, call those you oppose ‘those who do evil in God’s name’.
Of course I infer that you think all followers of Mohammed do evil in God’s name. I think you’re wrong there. but whichever of us is right, at least use English so your meaning is clear to all your listeners, rather than heard one way by one group, and a different way.
Many others who stand against terrorist atrocities have also spoken as you do, declaring “We will never follow the right path, We will never obey God, We will never let this country be God’s country, The struggle for righteousness will never triumph'”
If you mean to say that, then fine, but if that’s not what you mean, don’t use Arabic words with those exact meanings.

    [And we will cut off further religious discussions at this point. Move it to a different forum if either of you wishes to continue writing. .mod]
Gabro

It’s better translated as “House of Submission”, to one concept of God, yes, but also to the dictates of a particular religion and code.

TA

“I actually believe that the world will only ever be at peace when borders come down and cultures intertwine,”
Radical Muslims don’t “intertwine”. Their objective is for them to set the rules and for you to follow their rules. Otherwise, it will go very badly for you. Your deluded view of the world might be the death of you, if you think you can “intertwine” with just anyone.

MarkG

“Is 70 years of peace”
Nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with hundreds of thousands of nuclear-armed US troops, plus an existential threat from the Soviet Union.

Owen in GA

That is also the reason for the economic successes of western europe. They never had to spend much of their GDP on defense, so they spent it on buying votes.

It was my impression “Europe was formed” by plate techtonics millions of years ago. Perhaps you meant the E.U.? It started out well enough as free trade agreements, but morphed into a dictatorial kleptocracy. One does not need that to have peace.
Then again, need I point out how many E.U. country’s citizens have fought and died in wars in the last half century? Perhaps you only meant that the right wars had been prevented, not counting those against brown people or in muslim lands? A very selective vision you have.
Per lesser educated:
So when those most comforted by privilege, position, and power are winning, those oppressed by the stupidity and greed of power ought to just shut up and take it? Those most propagandized by the socialist indoctrination of university can do no wrong as they make the approved choices, and those who actually need to make the economy work, and know how, are to be silenced? Your classism is showing along with bigotry.
FYI I hold a couple of degrees and rank in the Mensa range. I hope to eventually know as much as my Father, some day. He never finished high school. ( A small World War got in the way). He later built up three different businesses and ended life owning a half dozen or so rental properties. But you think him too stupid to know the world and how it works? Were it not for millions like him, you would not exist. You are incredibly nieve, no matter your education.

Well said.

Thanks E.M. Smith, could not have said it better.!

pbweather

Wow.
Once you remove the enormous chip off your shoulder you might want to digest that most people over 50 like me have parents who are not degree educated because that form of education was not freely available back then and yes my father fought in WW2 as well.
All I stated above is that the majority of higher/degree educated voted to remain in the EU and the majority of those with high school or below education voted to leave. This is fact. You can look at the stats yourself. Does this mean all the degreed people are wrong and all high school educated or below people are right? If so on what basis?
I would like to put forward this analogy. If you ever found yourself in a court case which may determine the future of your life. Would you rather have a person who is highly educated in matters of law and has judged many cases before on that knowledge or someone uneducated in law who is just as likely to judge you by your skin colour, mannerisms or cultural differences because they have little else to go on? “He looked guilty so jail for him”
I believe that the decision to vote leave the EU was mostly emotional and I know people with degrees that did just this without any other explanation. This is madness when it will potentially have long lasting affects on our children. It may not, but at least give a rational reasoning for leaving the EU, not just a gut feeling.

pbweather. You have to accept certain facts. Immigration doesn’t tend to affect the ‘well-orf’, or at least, it doesn’t affect them anything like it affects ordinary working people. The ‘well-orf’ tend to have had a better education. So what you’re doing is confusing one fact with another. Do you see? You think that the better educated have a ‘better’ handle on the UK’s problems due to the very fact of their better education. The better-educated may indeed have voted to remain. The young of ordinary (less-educated) people are having to compete with East Europeans in very ordinary jobs. There is a bidding system on housing (I’m going to guess you didn’t even know that). In my town, the High Street is like a foreign place. And (since we are, in fact, all bigoted to some degree) I don’t want to live among people who are nothing like me. Like I said, none of us do, we seek out like-minded people, but we’re too afraid to refer to ourselves as bigoted (I’m not). But the over-riding fact that caused Leave to win was/is immigration. Our population has risen by 500,000 in the past year. For how much longer is that sustainable? A year, two years, five? What’s strange is that the underclass, the poorer, the less-educated, understand this FAR better than the well-orf and the better-educated because they see it every day. When you live in a world of celebrity, fame and fortune, like some of the utterly worthless dribble that spouted ‘Remain’ to any watching TV camera, you cannot hope to understand how Britain is suffering from millions pouring in. You live in a different world, you see? There was no “emotional voting”, it was based on exasperation that those in power cannot see the plight of ordinary people because they move in different worlds.

ratuma

thank you for that explanation

pbweather: You didn’t read Lord Monckton’s brilliant essay atop this page, did you? Had you done so instead of going off on your socialistic rant, you would see the REAL reasons that most of us Brits voted to leave the EU. My own reasons were: sovereignty, democracy, law-making, immigration and climate rules and regulations (not necessarily in that order).
People who cannot see or understand the reasons why we fought two World Wars to save our country and its sovereignty, only to then later give it away willingly, must be lacking in common sense or plain stupid.

David A

Pb, what a bigoted reply to EM excellent post. You first defend the non educated vs the “educated(institutionalized into socialism) then throw them under the bus,
=================
“” or someone uneducated in law who is just as likely to judge you by your skin colour, mannerisms or cultural differences because they have little else to go on? “He looked guilty so jail for him”
=================
…thus proving EM point of your bigotry.

@bazzer1959
“Immigration doesn’t tend to affect the ‘well-off’, or at least, it doesn’t affect them anything like it affects ordinary working people. ”
Correct. I posted the following (or something very close to it) at correntewire.com, but the newish moderator, who is quite a nasty piece of work, deemed fit to censor it, en toto, due to the breitbart reference. Or so he says. (I have appealed to the blog’s owner for ‘uncensoring’)

Britain’s surge of EU “free flow of labor” have hurt their working poor. Anectdotal evidence: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/18/guardian-editor-im-voting-leave/
Statistical evidence: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Labour%20Market%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_0.pdf
“UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.”
Demographic studies of voters showed a “loose” correlation of voting, with area categorization by median income. Areas with poorer Brits tended to vote to Leave.
Meanwhile, I personally have more sympathy for poor people voting their pocketbooks, as compared to wealthier citizens. They are “closer to the edge”, likely have to deal with more crime; in the UK, the increasing likelihood of their well-regarded, but socialist health care system, getting cut and/or privatized due partly to the strain of supporting additional immigrants, has played a part in the debate. (Also, rents in some areas are sky-high). Downward pressure on wages, threats to healthcare they likely won’t be able to afford if they lose it, and higher rents – I don’t find it hard to empathize with a Brit living at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Similarly, in Germany, poorer workers are bearing the brunt of the Syrian immigrant surge. In many of the German states, the minimum wage was abolished, in order to absorb the Syrian immigrants into the work force: http://www.voltairenet.org/article189129.html.

PB should remember Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson’s remark about the manning of the Royal Navy, where the uneducated made up the crew (up in the f’oc’sle), and the officers (back on the quarterdeck) were usually the better-educated and elite of British society: “Aft the more honor — forward the better man.”

george e. smith

Then you would be fully familiar with the colloquial Mexican meaning of the word ” mensa ”
G

catweazle666

pbweather: “Wow.
Once you remove the enormous chip off your shoulder…”

Wow yourself.
Were you looking in the mirror when you typed that ridiculous, unnecessary rant?
You’ve some damn gall accusing others of having chips on their shoulders, sunshine.

george e. smith

Well I wasn’t there when the first one happened, but I remember (from afar) the second one, and as near as I can recall, the Uropeons did both of those all by themselves, without any help from the UK.
So it is they who need to learn how to live with each other.
G

pbweather

UK was heavily involved in the lead up WW2 and many previous wars so to say it was the Europeans and not UK is simply not true.

Robert from oz

Let’s put it another way , if your up to your neck in shit and it’s still coming do you want some toff in a suit to do the shovelling or someone who has done a hard days work !?!?

Richard of NZ

To pbweather
June 25, 2016 at 12:24 am
Regarding WW2, the British were trying their damnedest to prevent a war, although the then current P.M. failed to realise that a lunatic cannot appeased in any way. He finally said “Enough” and gave a guarantee to the next probable victim which still did not stop the lunatic.
In the first WW, Britain again only entered because they had guaranteed the rights of a small country and were willing to fight to protect those rights.

catweazle666

“UK was heavily involved in the lead up WW2 and many previous wars…”
Ah, I get it.
You’re one of those.
‘Nuff said!

higher educated = wealthier, lesser educated and retired = poorer. The bigotry is painfully obvious.
There may have been peace between countries, but the *class* “war” clearly continues unabated. It really is not at all clear that the existence of the EEC then the EU had anything to do with the lack of war in Europe. England had a civil war despite being a single polity. The War between the States, arguably a continuation of the English civil war, was not prevented by the American Federation. Yugoslavia was a federation, yet fell apart in war. None of those wars were over disputed borders.
As for cultures intertwining, it is extremely easy to be on good terms with people you never see. It’s the people next door with their barking dog (that would be me) and their all night parties (that would be them) who get on each other’s nerves. In the ecological world, “intertwining” is called McDonaldisation, and is thought of as a Bad Thing.

drednicolson

Good fences make good neighbors, so says the old chestnut.

flicka47

Wow! I wouldn’t normally be this snarky, but your “version” of History is all screwed up!
EUROPE is a continent. The UN (United Nations) came into being after WWII, and has a whole galaxy of countries outside Europe as members…
The European Common Market came into being in 1973, so 43 years ago.
The European UNION was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force on 1 November 1993.
So, the EU has only existed for 23 years.
So, that has nothing to do with your so-called “70 years of peace” which DOES NOT consider Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, The Ukraine, or Georgia “wars” apparently…
I guess you CAN say Germany and France haven’t fought each other in 70 years, but that’s just about it.

pbweather

It is your history screwed up. First discussions on the EEC started in 1950 followed by the treaty of Paris 1951 then formalised in the treaty of Rome 1958.

pbweather

The Balkan wars involved countries not in the EU at the time and involved artificial Soviet enforced borders forcefully keeping multiple culturally different peoples together.
The difference with European multiculturism is that it is optional to live in foreign lands not forced. The Balkan countries post war all want to join the EU and are enjoying a relatively normalised period of peace even Serbia who are strongly aligned with the Russians. Surely they can’t all be wrong about the EU?
As for Ukraine, this was caused by Putin wanting to stop European expansion. EU has brought peace within the EU. What happens outside is out of the EU control and irrelevant to my original points.

gnomish

bwahaha
EU is a religion of peace.
all EU akbar!

Fred of Greenslopes

And you would no doubt have had your 70 years of peace if Britain had not won the Battle of Britain, possibly a lot more. ‘Peace at any price’ ?

The cogent bit is

For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars

Here’s a prescient link from a decade ago from my http://www.cosy.com/Liberty.htm page :

I’ve found “Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union.” , http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 , all too enlightening .

Yes, of course. But so many have been educated beyond their intelligence.
Besides, so much of university coursework is the 21st century equivalent of basket-weaving, including at least one that I taught.

stan stendera

pbweather. You sir are a fool.

pbweather

Thank you for your reasoned debate. Yet another who voted on emotions it seems.

drednicolson

“Reason”
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

stan stendera

I reasonably decided you are a fool.

Jeff Mitchell

Troll might be a better word.

catweazle666

“pbweather. You sir are a fool.”
I think you’re being a bit hard on fools there, actually.

Terry Gednalske

@pdweather: “Voting stats show that the vast majority of higher educated people voted to remain in Europe”.
Statistics will show anything you wish them to show, and by “higher educated”, I believe you mean, “more thoroughly indoctrinated.”
“… the world will only be at peace when the borders come down and cultures intertwine…”
That’s what brought us mass shootings in Fort Hood, Paris, Santa Barbara, and Orlando; to name a few examples of the idiocy of forcing primitive cultures to “intertwine” with civilization.
It was the thorough defeat and destruction of the Nazi, and facist states, by Great Britain and the US, followed by the Marshall Plan that brought 70 years of peace to Europe. It was the prosperity established by the Marshall Plan; along with Britan and America shouldering most of the cost of the Cold War, which enabled Europe to initiate EU experiment.

I think you will find that Europe has been around for hundreds of years. You have no idea of the history of the Common Market and its undemocratic transformation into the EEC and then the EU.

gnomish

eu is responsible for peace?
wtf?
i thought it was family food fights until WW1 knocked them in the dirt.
royal blood – racism at its finest.
then there was the aftermath – still playing out.
nobel peace prizes to anybody who can deliver the usa on a platter! any more takers?

Gary Pearse

Pb weather
Deluded! Looking to Brussels to lead you! Like the Nile crocodile you don’t know you are being saved. You will think very differently when you realize that the designer brains you had implanted in you by the new world order “core subjects” (or whatever they call them) programmed you to not think at all. You are young and you think like a retired person from an earlier generation. Get some pi55 and vinegar in you and feel the exhilaration of adventure. The fear instilled in you will wear off. Oh and Europe’s continental wars are over. It’s a silly notion and rather naive. Cheer up.

Nigel S

There aren’t any voting stats of course only surveys since the ballot paper did not record age or education (60+, Engineering 2:1 from Trinity, Cambridge in my case). My neighbour left school a little earlier than me but we were both proud to stand with the 17,410,742 who saw off yet another European anti-democratic dictatorship (including James Dyson, Anthony Bamford (JCB), the Queen probably and even God possibly based on the weather). Jeremy Clarkson and David Beckham were Remaniacs of couse so make of that what you will.
For what they are worth here are some referendum day vote survey stats from a sample of 12,369 (voting leave by age, 18-24 27%, 25-34 38%, 35-44 48%, 45-54 56%, 55-64 57%, 65+ 60%). 43% of people with a university degree voted leave which is hardly a tiny minority. With age comes wisdom so I would have hoped you would have spotted that there are more than 28 countries in the world and that it is NATO that has kept the at times fragile peace with the EU being responsible for much of the mayhem and unemployment that is damaging Europe. Good luck to your children getting a job in Greece. My passport issued in December 1961 recorded unaccompanied journeys through Europe in the early 60s (Universal Aunts to get me across London to the boat train) long before UK joined EEC.
This article by Charles Moore (also a Trinity Man although only 59) deals with the issue very well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/the-european-elite-forgot-that-democracy-is-the-one-thing-britai/

Nigel S

A bit more analysis of the voting survey. About 30% of 18-24 year olds voted, about 50% of 25-34 year olds voted, about 95% of 55-64 year olds voted. Over 4 million 18-24 year olds did not vote. About 400,000 55-64 year olds who did not vote. The 18-24 year olds could have changed the vote to Remain if they had bothered to vote (even allowing for some being inelligible)! They’ll be in serious need of a safe space when they work that out.

Stephen Richards

You [snip] You have exposed your complete lack of understanding and membership of this planet. Working in any of the 190 countries of this planet requires only the fare and a work permit.
Freedom and democracy are far more important than any other concept you could muster in that tiny constricted little thing you call a brain. Yes immigration is a problem especially when it is enforced by law not of your country, and especially when your country is an island, and especially when you cannot deport murderers and rapists back to their own country because a foreign court, not made up of judges, tells you so.
How the hell can any country be stronger in a dictatorship? Look at the USSR. All the satellite countries, and that’s what the UK was to EU, are now wealthier, more democratic and peaceful.
70 yrs of peace is not the result of something that has existed in its current form for just 30yrs. It is the result of NATO and British armed forces and the past willingness of the USA to intervene when asked.
1.000.000 polish in the UK doesn’t strengthen the British culture it destroys it you halfwit. Immigrants change their host culture into their own. Look at the Muslims blocking roads in the UK to pray.
People like you should have the vote remove as in Europe but fortunately we don’t mind you voting because there are not too many idiots like you in this world although enough to give us fright.

RT

“1.000.000 polish in the UK doesn’t strengthen the British culture it destroys it you halfwit. Immigrants change their host culture into their own. Look at the Muslims blocking roads in the UK to pray.”
Makes me want to tell the story of my son’s wife’s inlaw and his brother: Their parents came from Poland, the father died while the kids were young, their mother without education struggeled in two lowly paid jobs in London East End. The kids did well in school, they had very little money, but both were able to get into university, courtesy of the Royal Air Force, and are now serving there as a civil engineer and as a medical doctor.
This story makes my greatly admire the people involved, and even much more the UK.
But I dont admire you Stephen Richards!

Bellman

How the hell can any country be stronger in a dictatorship? Look at the USSR. All the satellite countries, and that’s what the UK was to EU, are now wealthier, more democratic and peaceful.

I keep seeing these comparisons between the EU and the soviet block and it’s laughable and insensitive.
If live in the EU is so much of a dictatorship, why has the EU not built walls to stop the people escaping? When has the EU sent it’s troops in to quell rebellions? If the UK government does finally decide to invoke article 50 do you think there will EU tanks rolling in to Downing Street, or will there be a negotiated exit?

“Educated People” as a demographic, have some of the most unwise persons.
Un-educated means never having attended university, therefore un-indoctrinated.
The school-of-hard-knocks, working life, WILL instill wisdom in a person
Who do you want to follow, The Educated or The Wise.

Combat Dave

Europe was formed after World War II. LOL!!!

Chris Wright

@pbweather,
Yes, the over 65’s strongly voted for Leave. That’s almost certainly because older people have more wisdom and world-experience, and they have had more opportunities to see the EU for what it is: a job destroying, incompetent and anti-democratic entity that is almost certainly doomed to well-deserved extinction.
I’m sure all the Establishment “experts” are well educated, whether they are economists or climate scientists – but that doesn’t stop their predictions from turning out to be hopelessly wrong, time after time. I’m quite well educated (I have a physics degree and hold several US patents) and yet I have always opposed the EU. You would think that scientists, of all people, would base their conclusions on the cold analysis of data and evidence. But, sadly, they all too easily give in to vested interests and group think.
And how do you explain James Dyson, who came out strongly in support of Leave? I don’t think I’d describe him as lesser educated and grumpy.
.
You seem to think, almost touchingly, that the EU gave us decades of peace. Complete and utter nonsense. It was NATO and democracy that gave us peace and security. The EU did nothing to stop the wars in the former Yugoslavia, it was NATO and the US that finally made a difference. Europe is slowly tearing itself apart, largely because of the destructive failure of the euro and the EU elites’ willingness to destroy Greece in order to save the euro.
I put my faith in democracy, the very thing that the EU seeks to destroy. Off-hand, I can’t think of a single real shooting war between two genuine democracies.
If you think the EU has saved us from war, please tell me which two member countries would have gone to war had it not been for the EU. Probably all civil wars are basically a fight for freedom.
One thing that has caused wars throughout history is the loss of freedom and democratic accountability, the very things brought about by the EU.
If you think that binding countries together somehow guarantees peace, how do you explain Yugoslavia? And I seem to recall that both the US and the UK had devastating civil wars.
.
In the second world war, our soldiers didn’t fight for the establishment of a supra-national body that would somehow bind the countries together and therefore enforce peace. No, they fought for freedom and the right of self-determination. My uncle served on HMS Hood and also on the Arctic convoys. But in his later years he was bitterly opposed to the EU, because it was taking away the very freedom he fought for. My mother once told me that he said that he didn’t know what he had fought for.
.
Now that Britain has voted for freedom, I am sure that our country has a bright future, despite the pitfalls on the way. I have always looked outwards to the world and not inwards to Europe. All those claims from the Establishment about every possible doom that would visit these shores is pure propaganda designed to make the British do what they wanted. They called it a leap in the dark, and then, all of a sudden, the Treasury was able to calculate the results of Brexit to the nearest decimal point all the way out to 2030. These morons would make excellent climate scientists!
.
One remarkable result: on Friday the FTSE100 fall of a cliff, as to be expected. But it recovered so the day’s fall was – drum roll please – around 3%
Amazingly, it actually ended the week 2% up!
And, yet, I can sympathise with people who believed in the EU dream, however mis-guided, however disconnected they were from brutal reality. It must be almost unthinkably terrible to see your dreams of decades shattered in a few hours. One of the most memorable sights of the TV coverage was Keith Vaz with tears in his eyes. I do actually feel sorry for him.
But there is another side to this particular coin. For most of my adult life I have been forced to watch our country steadily giving away its freedoms without a shot being fired. I have suffered a lot of anger and depression year after year because of this. And now that nightmare is over.
.
We should give credit to David Cameron for giving us the opportunity to finally vote on this. But, by using all the resources of the government to scare us with all kinds of doom, he blew it. If he had given us the referendum and then simply sat back to let the people decide, then he could stay as PM until the next election, as he had planned. But the result meant that the great majority didn’t believe him and so his position was untenable.
I would like to say a huge, huge thank you to Christopher Monckton. It looks like we have won one battle (the EU) but the other battle (climate change) is far from won. But in a sense the enemy is the same: the Establishment. I fervently hope that the new government will do something completely amazing: base their climate change and energy policies on the actual science and on common sense.
.
Christopher was, I believe, Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor. Perhaps the same post might be available to him under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has expressed some sceptical sentiments. What a dream team that would be!
.
Trump has welcomed Britain’s choice of freedom. I hope that in January we have Johnson and Trump in No.10 and the White House. Who knows, the British PM and the most powerful man in the world might both be climate sceptics. That would be a huge step towards victory in the climate war.
.
We live in interesting – and hopeful – times!
Chris

mwh

What an arrogant thing to say from an obviously poor loser. The borders are still there – the violence is still there otherwise why are all these people dying at our (Europes) borders and fighting to cross them. The EEc put up the biggest barriers to trade ever when it formed and when the UK joined it had to desert the associations struck with the commonwealth over a century or more – talk about pulling upthe drawbridge – at long last we are lowering it again to the free trade we had before the EEC. Talking about peace do you think our intervention in the Ukraine will be seen as peaecable or the attacks on Libya and Syria or the war in Yugoslavia. Nato of course and our post war relationship with the US had nothing to do with it. Without that the EEC would never have had a chance in the first place

Steve T

pbweather
Voting stats show that the vast majority of higher educated people voted to remain in Europe, whilst the lesser educated and grumpy retired people who still believe there is a British Empire voted to leave.
****************************************************************************************************************
Voting stats show no such thing. Voting stats show that a million and a bit more folks voted for leaving than voted for remaining.
While there may be an element of truth behind the reasons for some people voting out, the only confirmation to support this is what some say when asked why they voted the way they did (actual voting is anonymous). Is it possible that some educated people would not want people to think they were racist/bigoted so would not admit to voting leave?
Could it be that the “lesser educated” are generally not so well off and suffer more from the effects of large numbers of migrants descending on sometimes very specific local areas/regions where they can often tip stretched public services over the edge (I’m thinking health/social services/education) which can easily be made more difficult with unplanned numbers.
As for 70 years of peace – really? Other posters have mentioned Hungary/Czechoslovakia/Greece/Bosnia/ Serbia etc. Could it be NATO that has really stopped major wars from occurring?. Once everything is peaceful, following others interventions, the UN can always be counted on to move in and take credit giving out provisions etc.
The only rights of governance left are the ones you want to make which agree with the elites program – for now. There are whole areas in Brussels with well paid, privileged bureaucrats deciding how you live – which light bulbs are allowed; how powerful your vacuum cleaner is and how long you have to wait for your kettle to boil (2 out of 3 so far). Don’t tell me this is to combat waste. Each month, they move the whole shebang to Strasbourg and back in order to pacify French pride at being involved.
They can’t find an audit firm to sign off their accounting figures (since the early nineties, I think) because so much money is missing each year.
And you think it is the uneducated who can’t see all this. Perhaps the better educated are only so in your imagination.
Good riddance to the EU, oh and by the way, we will try to jam the door open on the way out!
SteveT

catweazle666

“this vote was not just about democracy it was based on immigration and xenophobia.”
Ah, you’re a Remainiac, clearly!
And what is more, you don’t know what you’re talking about, 70 years of peace has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union which only came into existence after the Maastricht Treaty, it is a result of around 160,000 US/UK AKA NATO troops stationed in Europe to stop the French and Germans ripping each others’ livers out every few decades.
And you might ask yourself, what did the EU do when the nastiness struck up in the Balkans – once again sorted out by the US and UK.
Funny how you lot inexplicably seem to have forgotten Srebrenica, for example, isn’t it?
As for your children, I have children and grandchildren too, and I am absolutely certain they will be able to travel and work freely in Europe, just as I was before the advent of the EU.

Gary Hladik

We appreciate your gratitude, Lord Monckton, but didn’t the US get most of its (classical) liberal ideals from our mother country? You should be thanking your ancestors, as well.
Good luck with the Brexit. Nearly half of those who bothered to vote favored EU membership, and I bet they won’t take this lying down. You folks have a lot of work ahead of you.
So do we.

Bellman

Good luck with the Brexit. Nearly half of those who bothered to vote favored EU membership, and I bet they won’t take this lying down.

And Leavers wouldn’t have taken it lying down if 52% had voted to remain – as Nigel Farage made clear.

catweazle666

Heh, another poor loser!

Mike Smith

Excellent. I wonder if the good Lord might consider drafting a brief statement that encapsulates these principles for posterity.
It might be titled “A Declaration of Independence” and start with the words…
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
It might continue:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Texcis

+1776

Sceptical Sam

Mike Smith said:
“I wonder if the good Lord might consider drafting a brief statement that encapsulates these principles for posterity.”
No need, Mike. It has already been done. Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s ancestors did it in 1215.
Magna Carta; the fundamental underpinning of British freedom and democracy.
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html

Gary Pearse

And don’t forget the founding father’s were British intellectuals!

Paul Revere did not say “The British are coming!” He said the “Redcoats are coming”.
They were all British.

gnomish

or it might be elegant in its simplicity:
FoF

Bruce

I would add my praises to Lord Mockton if he had chosen the word Liberty instead of Democracy in this article. Our founding fathers were skeptical of any form of tyranny, including Democracy, so choose to form a democratic republic instead. The word Democracy was carefully excluded from both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the very good reason that the framers of both intended that the federal government be based on rule of law, not on the will of the majority.
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Madison – The Federalist Papers #10

IIRC Plato also rated democracy among the bad forms of government. How it came to be pushed as good so much eludes me. It is not stable, rarely lasting longer than 50 years, has lousy minority rights, and ends in tyranny. “Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for lunch” sums up the problem.
What works best is a democratic Republic, which is what most of us have. A republic of laws, with feedback from the people via election of representatives. Not a democracy in the original sense.

Read Popper on “The Open Society and its Enemies”. Plato got a whole volume of that to himself. Plato was an oligarch and photo-totalitarian. It is to Plato that we owe the concept of the Noble Lie. If Plato was against something, that speaks well of it.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

“It is to Plato that we owe the concept of the Noble Lie.”
Plato’s Foundation Myth was presented as a “magnificent myth” not a “noble lie”. We owe the idiots, and in this case that would include Popper, who have bought into the conventional but mistranslated phrase “noble lie” (ironic, no?). Every nation has their mythology including America. Popper’s insistence that mythology is necessarily religious makes me suspect he never read comic books. America’s battlefront today is a battle between mythologies.
Conservative mythologists will do what they can to preserve and keep in the public mind and spirit the first principles handed down by the Founder’s, many of whom have served as iconic mythological figures.
Progressive mythologists will do what they can to denigrate the old mythology and replace it with a new ideal for the public’s mind and spirit.
Plato’s Republic has its flaws, and the Foundation myth is worthy of criticism, but Plato wasn’t selling calculated lies, he was selling justice and protection of that justice by instilling in a guardian class a “magnificent myth” that will inspire them to not only watch over the other classes, but to watch the watchmen. Whether this is an effective strategy or not is up for debate, Plato’s praise of calculated lies, however, is unfair criticism.

Alan McIntire

Aristotle said there are three good forms of government, and three bad forms. The three good forms are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The three bad forms are tyranny, oligarchy, and mob rule Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the difference.

mwh

A democratic Republic is a democracy.

rogerknights

To Aristotle, Democracy was selection by lot and selection by election was a form of Aristocracy.

John Harmsworth

Not to mention that democracy would’ve implied votes for women, blacks and unpropertied white people. Hard to make out the truth from up on the high horse?

drednicolson

Nirvana fallacy, much?
Denigrating a good thing because it wasn’t done perfectly (in the eyes of the denigrater).

Another Ian

Sounds like that bingo call “Number 9 the party line”
Try
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/fuding-brexit/

Happy congratulations to our British friends. Maybe this event will serve as a wake up call for us to take a close look at the UN, an unconstrained bureaucracy that is getting bigger and more intrusive.

Stephen Richards

I voted for her at our last election BUT only because she was the only option to stop the EUSS being formed. Le Pen and her family have other rather less than savoury ideas that will prevent her from becoming president although she will almost certainly win through to the deuxieme tour at next years election. 2017 is going to be another exciting year with elections in spain, Germany and france.
However, it is clearly an objective of the commissariat to forbid all future state elections. We will be allow our imaginary democracy every 6 years voting for our regional councils but they already have no power.
Those in the UK who are now fretting over their vote to leave, Don’t. Your decision is the correct one. It is possible that you will haved forced the EU to change a little but you have certainly raised the heads of everyone in france to see what has been happening out of their sight.
Many french did not know or understand the EU and its objectives. It has always been kept fromp us unless you could speak English. Now they know and they voted against many aspects of the EU before so this should make them more determined to see the end of this disgusting socialist annexation.

coolclimateinfo

One battle down… so many more to go.
Among the people who can be thanked for helping push this through are two stalwart Brits certainly familiar to CMonckton – climate skeptics/bloggers Roger Tattersall, https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/this-is-the-big-one-brexit-for-britain/ and Piers Corbyn, http://www.weatheraction.com/.
It’s high time we Americans took our country back from the globalists – they do not own us.
Let’s start by terminating AGW forever.

Well done Christopher!
“And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”
Be not in a hurry to go Lord Monckton! There is yet much for you to do, and a long while performing that duty.
“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
“Britons never will be slaves.”

God Save the Queen!

Good form, Monckton, good form!
My cousin’s Bulgarian wife put it very well, saying countries in the EU are like competent adults still living with their parents. She also pointed out the enormous corrupt diversion of EU funds in her own (now EU) country.

Scott

Three Cheers for the UK!….Striking the first international blow to the one world order of the EU’s Orwellian dream.
Perhaps Western Civilization is finally fighting back.

TA

I’ve been watching coverage of the vote to leave the EU all day on tv and I can’t tell you how many times I have laughed with pleasure today. 🙂

Resourceguy

I was amused today by American reporters labeling Brexit as trade protectionism, and nothing more. Clueless runs deep in some circles.

John Harmsworth

Deep? In TV news it’s bottomless!

CodeTech

It’s intentional disinformation, and it’s not cluelessness, it’s a calculated damage-control measure.

The NARRATIVE has shifted. Now all the pundits are saying Britain is suffering a massive “I’ll never do THAT again” hangover or “buyers remorse”. I’m picking up a great deal of psychological denial from mainstream media. The globalists have no clue about the resentment of the public to the “status quo”

Jean Paul Zodeaux

“It is, therefore possible for any U.S. Government that can muster that Senate majority to ratify any treaty and thereby to thwart the central principle of Congressional democracy: that no Congress may bind its successors.”
This argument is based upon a misconception of U.S. federal law. While international treaties do become a part of U.S. law, but an international accord that is inconsistent with the Constitution for the United States is null and void just as it would be for an other federal law. Further, because the treaty has become a part of U.S. federal law, that makes the treaty subject to repeal, or modification, just as it is for any other legislative act.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

I should add to my comment above that the constitutional restraints placed upon international treaties is a not a product of “democracy” and would not be voided or repealed because of “democracy” but because of the republic. Democracy’s can just as easily vote themselves horrific impositions and denials and disparagement of their own rights, but America has a republic in place to prevent that. Even the popular mandate, technically speaking, could not impose policies inconsistent with the federal constitution.

JohnKnight

“Even the popular mandate, technically speaking, could not impose policies inconsistent with the federal constitution.”
Sure it can, if it is popular enough . . since the Constitution can be amended. That is glossed over these days, by our (to my mind predominantly) anti-populist propaganda media, which promotes “doing something” about various supposed crisis by executive fiat, but it remains a perfectly legitimate democratic option.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

John Knight,
The amendment process has not been “glassed over”, you are pretending that passing an amendment is as simple as apple pie. Where is the amendment to “overturn Citizens United”? The reason it is difficult to pass an amendment is to restrain the popular will.

JohnKnight

I’m not pretending anything, sir, it’s been done many times.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

“I’m not pretending anything, sir, it’s been done many times.”
Oh, you are most assuredly pretending. You’re the one who argued that an amendment could be passed allowing international treatise not consistent with the constitution to override constitutional constraints. Pure pretense. That amendment will never see the light of day.

Mark T

Thank you. I’ve called Monkton out on this misunderstanding before, but he refuses to understand.

Bruce Cobb

Perhaps it is you that misunderstands. The word “democracy” is often used in a looser sense, meaning as opposed to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Not all democratic forms of government are created equal and can change over time if care is not given, towards more authoritarianism and less democracy. Some would argue that has happened in the US. The EPA and the TSA are examples of that.

Mark T

Excuse me? What does that have to do with the way treaties work according to the US Constitution?
You are welcome to apologize for your ignorance any time now.

Also Monckton states that the senate ratifies treaties, that’s not true, the senate advises and consents to the President’s ratification of the treaty.

Steve Fraser

…and that ”consent”, via 2/3 majority vote of the Senators on the Resolution of Ratification, is the manner in which the Senate ratifies the treaty.

TA

Steve Fraser June 25, 2016 at 6:07 am wrote: “…and that ”consent”, via 2/3 majority vote of the Senators on the Resolution of Ratification, is the manner in which the Senate ratifies the treaty.”
Yes, the treaty is already ratified when the president signs it.

“The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).”
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
“There are five stages in arriving at a treaty. In the first stage, the president prepares instructions about the terms of the treaty. The president assigns a representative to negotiate the agreement with counterparts from the other nation or nations and president then signs the draft of the treaty. In the second stage, the president submits the treaty to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate can consent to the treaty; reject it, block it by tabling it; or consent with reservations. If the Senate consents, the president proceeds to the third stage, known as ratification. In the fourth stage, the president exchanges ratifications with the co-signing country. The U.S. Department of State and American diplomats abroad typically handle this step. In the fifth and final stage, the president proclaims the treaty the law of the land.”
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804271.html

Gunga Din

Jean Paul Zodeaux June 24, 2016 at 7:57 pm
“While international treaties do become a part of U.S. law, but an international accord that is inconsistent with the Constitution for the United States is null and void just as it would be for an other federal law.”
It certainly reads that any “constitution” that a treaty overrules is a State’s Constitution, not the US Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

It appears to me that you seem to think you have somehow rebutted my argument. To clarify, you have not.

Gunga Din

I think one or both of us misunderstood the other.
What is in my “blockquote” is a quote from the US Constitution itself.
I put it up in support of what you said.
As I read that quote, a treaty may overrule the constitution or laws of an individual State, a treaty does NOT overrule the US Constitution itself.
True, the amendment process can add amendments or change amendments or The US Constitution itself.
But a treaty can’t.
A Supreme Court that can’t read or ignores what it written might rule otherwise. But that’s where the 2nd Amendment comes in…in light of this from The Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The founding fathers of the US came up with the US Constitution with the Bill of Rights in an attempt to for a “Government” to achieve those ends.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

I had attempted to write a longer more nuanced comment that allowed for either or but my internet was wonky that day and it took me forever to type just one word, so I went with that clarification. The problem that you’ve highlighted, however, goes right to the issue of pot legalization in Colorado and Washington states. This last April the International Narcotics Board of the United Nations weighed in urging the federal government to challenge these state initiatives because they violate international treaties.
As you’ve since spoke to the iffy situation regarding the courts, it has long been my opinion that the SCOTUS fallaciously found the drug prohibitions that led to the most ill advised “war on drugs” – a war on the people – to be constitutional. Because of this, foreign agents such as the U.N. have a legal claim. It would be more than tragic if the federal government honored those treaties and attempt to reign in Colorado’s and Washington’s rebellion.
To make matters worse, not just because of treaties to foreign agents have a valid argument but also because it was the U.S. that led the charge for global drug wars. Of course, Holland led the rebellion charge, and the U.N. has cried foul with that state, and have been able to effectively target the pot growers in an effort to suppress Amsterdam’s casual regard for pot prohibition. The Netherlands have been navigating this mess since 1976, turning a blind eye to pot use while dealing with the International Narcotics Board.
Some treaties are just made to be broken. If it takes states lacking the same primacy as the federalist form to lead that charge, as more follow, and more will, whatever valid arguments of treaties violations will go up in smoke. It is, in my opinion, not a direct step from remedy denied in the name of deference to the legislature to armed insurrection. There are several more steps that can and should be taken, as has Colorado and Washington on this single issue. Their shots across the bow were heard by the entire world.

Jack

As usual the Common Market started with good intentions, then the left parasites slid in and perverted it, so that is became a dictatorship and enormous flows of money, unaccountably spent or delivered.

Mark T

Don’t be fooled. The good intentions were a smoke screen just like they were for the UN. Socialism is insidious and patient.

Resourceguy

Please try to limit the number of U.S. companies moved to London for tax reasons. A form of “stay campaign” has been run in the White House to alternately condemn and ignore such moves out of the country. The UK could become a powerhouse if it copied some of the tax policy of Ireland.That involves a rational look at the budget and the special interests though.

From The Guardian: “EU parliament leader: we want Britain out as soon as possible”
I think that’s a great idea. The sooner the better.
Thanks Lord Monckton…

RockyRoad

…yes, they could cause a mutiny amongst all the other prisoners in that abhorrent ship of state..

John Harmsworth

That’s exactly why the Brits need to take their time and court others in Europe who are likewise dissatisfied. A reformed EU is a much stronger bulwark against Russia. Those idiots are still playing the 19th Century “Great Game”.

anna v

” Here, and in the rest of Europe, and eventually throughout the world, let freedom ring!”
I expect you will be equally enthused for freedom in case Scotland votes to leave the “united” kingdom .
My point is that in any body made up of nations, individual nations partially yield sovereignty and freedom in the sense you wave it.
The statement that the EU is not structured democratically . is correct, but the dissolution back to medieval kingdoms is the same as “cutting off ones nose to spite ones face”. ( in Greek we say : “head hurts, cut off head”). One should fight for a democratic federation, similar to the US you so admire.

Gabro

IMO the US is no longer a federation, and needs to be broken up.

I believe it is possible for England and Wales to exit without invoking Article 50. That could be accomplished by England and Wales exiting the United Kingdom.
Scotland and England would amend the Act of Union so that England and Wales leave the Union, thereby leaving the rump–Scotland and Northern Ireland remaining in the EU as the UK.
This would preserve the status of Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as UK overseas territories (such as Gibraltar) vis-a-vis the EU.
It would also open the door for a new citizenship to be created for England and Wales, leaving UK nationals the rights they now have within the EU. People domiciled in England and Wales would have dual UK nationality and English citizenship. The rights of dual nationals would be subject of negotiation with the EU.
Some of the offshore islands, such as the Jersey Islands, are not part of the UK and would presumably maintain their status quo.
I do not have any doubt that England and Wales can prosper as well as several other European states, such as Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland. Population and area are no measures of quality.

Sleepalot

I don’t think the Queen would want to give up England and Wales.

David A

Anna, what “dissolution back to medieval kingdoms” are you talking about, and if so you are alone.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the latest scenario is that, given how prolonged and tortuous the ‘divorce’ will be, and how difficult Brussels will make it for the UK, it is anticipated that at some time during this process the UK electorate will be asked the question: do you really want to go through with this?

RockyRoad

I’m actually surprised the Kommissars of Brussels haven’t convinced Obama that NATO forces should be used to bomb Great Britain into submission. (Tell me the head Kommissar isn’t some descendant of King George). /sarc

Thank you for your eloquent words, Lord Monckton. This was the second Battle of Britain. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed to so many by so many.

Well said indeed. I applaud you, Lord Monckton and I applaud Britain.