By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
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!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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. ”
This is a brilliant plan.
Treaties dictating our domestic energy production, educational standards, mining of coastal waters and even small arms treaties have been signed. This is done with more and more impunity. For example signing a treaty to reduce our coal use (caling for a great transformation) right in Beijing is totally outrageous. Every one is on drugs, plainly.
We should through initiative and referendum be able to repeal it.
Nevertheless, many unscrupulous politicians and judges still use unratfied treaties as a basis for decisions calling it Common International Law. And it is hard to raise awareness about what unratfied treaties contain.
But the us making a secret deal (TTIP) with this same European commission that Britain is leaving is the real folly of the whole situation.
My step-father in the UK, a staunch conservative, is extremely disappointed by the vote, voted remain, now he won’t talk about it.
“Conservative” in the UK is a lot different from conservative in North America. I often converse with friends in the UK and they are “conservative”, but once in a while they spew something out that is right out of Marx… and don’t get me started on the Aussies and Kiwis…
Wonderful people all, don’t get me wrong! But some of what they “know for a fact” is so far off the mark I sometimes wonder who to congratulate for the brainwashing.
It’s not known as the EUSSR for no good reason. And yet our dumbed-down left-wing education system means that the vast majority of 18-24 year-olds voted to remain in its clutches.
“remain in its clutches”, excellent wording.
73% of about 1.7 million voted to remain but 4 million 18-24 year olds did not vote but they’ll still “thcream and thcream ’till they’re thick”.
Thank you Lord Monckton for your kind comments about my country. Hopefully, by November we will be able to celebrate the renewed independence of both of our countries. I was born, not in a democracy, but a republic. I wish we had kept the republic, but now we have …. Obama. It is some consultation to know that our president may have inadvertently proved himself useful by inspiring more “Leave” votes.
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!
Wasn’t that what Wat Tyler said, before he was executed and his people rebellion dissolved into nothing.
A tactical victory, but the war continues.
An independent Britain cannot be allowed to succeed.
Its all very 1940. Britain against the world, as usual.
No, Britain leading Europe, as usual. We’re the first out, to lead by example. Denmark will surely follow, as will Sweden. Then…watch. The EU will fall because of one very simple reason…it is undemocratic. All undemocratic systems fall, some taking longer than others.
And it redistributes wealth through its undemocratic system. Once the realm of money becomes corrupted, the system won’t remain.
Reminds me of Dunkirk, a tactical retreat.
We can always go back on rationing down here, too many obese anyway.
A win,win situation.
Much is being made of the fact that the young voted to remain, implying that if taken later, the vote would be to stay. It was ever thus: people wise up as they age. Repeat in 40 years and you’d get the same result.
Exactly. And every generation thinks they alone have all of the knowledge that their predecessors don’t. It was that way when I was 20, it was that way for the boomers in the 60s.
But… I was wrong. They were wrong. Millennials are (mostly) wrong. Funny how that works.
All of the world’s knowledge is on the internet, but they spend their time twittering and sending cat pictures back and forth.
Knowledge, yes. Wisdom, no. I’m sure many parents wish that their teenage sons and daughters would just listen to their advice, informed from 30-40 years of experience, instead of learning “the hard way”. It would save them so much frustration and heartbreak. A few will, but most will defiantly bang their heads on the same old rocks their parents did, just positive that -they- will be the exceptions to the rule. And all a mother or father can do about it is think, “Hope they come to their senses sooner than I did.”
Lived experience isn’t something you can Google.
Ron: Other than the results from a doubtful survey of voter intentions – which would probably make Lew’s paper look academic – there is no way anyone can tell the voting patterns of the millions who voted. OK, I accept that it is possible to assume that those old enough to have made the mistake in ’75 of voting for the EEC would want to correct that now (as I did), and have children who voted Remain (as mine did!) but voting patterns are otherwise not discernible. EXCEPT: It would be fascinating to see the pattern of the postal votes of some inner London constituencies, especially those where cultural conventions often mean that one ‘community leader’ can tell his (usually a man) ‘community’ how to vote.
Over 4 million 18-24 year olds and over 4 million 25-34 year olds did not vote. They know who to blame!
Over 72% is high turnout, but millions of older people also didn’t vote.
Had 18-34 year-olds voted at the same rate as the general population but at the Remain proportion of those who did participate, it still would not have made up the ~1.3 million vote difference.
There are a lot of very bitter “Remaindears”. And quite nasty with it. I spent a few happy hours winding some of them up on Facebook. According to them we Brexiteers are “the great unwashed and uneducated”!
‘Remaindears’ is very good, I also liked ‘Remnants’ we need a list of the best insults.
I favour “Remainiacs” – especially for the frothier ones.
I don’t see why they should be bitter – they’re free to leave, aren’t they?
Actually, as a point of US law, where absolute rights have been vested, there is no congressional authority to revoke them. To do so would be a bill of attainder. This is true in property transfers, or in vesting the protection of the constitution over a territory, state, or possession. That vesting of property takes all interest out of the Federal government’s hands, and the same is true of state governments. As rights are an individual form of property (as property is the right to dominion and control over the thing, not the thing itself) one can easily be said to have a right to the rights themselves, thereby the rights being an intimate and inalienable form of property. As the Federal government is forbidden bills of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, and ex post facto laws, such was to be utterly outside of the powers of civil government. By banning targeted law, against individuals or classes (by inclusion or exclusion) it was hoped to bind the interests of the new government, and the people together, for they were to both labour under the same yoke, all articles affecting the people to affect the congress, their protectors, their friends, and the whole of society equally. It failed due to slavery.
This is the only real means for one congress to bind its successors, and then only on articles at interest that are within the powers of Congress to vest, or recognize the protected property interest within, such as civil rights under the civil rights act of 1871, pursuant to the powers involved in the 14th amendment. Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
Further, no US treaty can override the constitution in any fashion, the constitution requires treaties made in pursuance of the powers granted to the federal government, and can go no further. (Reid v. Covert). A treaty being a form of law, congress is equally bound to adhere to the forms and protections of the constitution, no matter their natural predilection of mischief, and attempts to bypass that constitution are a form of treason, as the constitution is both the foundation (constituting the powers of treaty themselves), and the limits of that government.
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [Footnote 32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [Footnote 33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 267, it declared:
“The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the
Page 354 U. S. 18
government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.””
The sovereignty of the United States is a bit different from that of the Queen, or of parliament. It is a set of powers delegated under a charter, constituting a new government, dissolving the then-extant states and reestablishing them under a new constitution. It was done by, as the writing goes, ‘we the people’, as the states had no authority to give up, or give away any of their delegated power.
Perhaps the best definition is under Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case on the limits of arbitrary power.
“When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
Page 118 U. S. 370
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth “may be a government of laws, and not of men.” For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”
The problem, by and large, comes in as lack of adherence to principle. We are not allowed to, collectively, do those things which are criminal individually. It is an extension of the old maxim that criminality does not reduce the more that are involved, similar as no conspiracy is reduced in its import by the number of members. As co-holders of that sovereignty, we have no authority to attempt to diminish that of others, save in self-defense against actual aggression, and then only until that aggression ends, and restitution is made.
Attempts at redelegating that delegated authority is an act of aggression. It cannot be achieved without first going back to the original delegating authority, dissolution of that delegation, then reinstitution under a new charter via amendment or full reconstitution.
But yet… our congress too oft ignores its own limits, as does our executive, and our courts.
My apologies for the long-windedness, but I prefer to be accurate and precise.
As for TL:DR, Congress can’t actually modify their authority with treaties, nor may they seize vested properties without falling afoul of their limits. They cannot engage to declare something of no value, and seize it, but must pay full market value, and there is no proper valuation for things of infinite value, such as rights and civil immunities.
Outstanding post!
Thanks for putting it all in a form of legalese, that we peons can actually understand. I can read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as ordinary English language; but never got the gist of things such as “bills of attainder”, so I just considered it funny language instead of some deliberate meaning.
So tell me, why do people mention the 10th amendment all the time, but never say anything about the ninth amendment.
As near as I can tell, the ninth amendments simply says that ANY AND ALL rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, are retained by the people. So that would include the right to privacy as being an absolute right of the people, since the Constitution does not specifically limit such a right, so privacy would be just another of those unalienable rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
Yet Judge Robert Bork asserted that there was no (constitutional) right to privacy, when talking about the Roe v Wade decision which the SCOTUS made on the issue of a right to privacy.
Seems to me that SCOTUS erred in accepting that the procedure under discussion in Roe v Wade could be considered private in any way, with all of the persons having knowledge or participation in that event. Only thing lacking is publishment in the newspaper society social pages.
I would have put the Bill of Rights Article Nine first on the list, rather than ninth.
G BTW IANAL, so I know nowt about it.
Bills of attainder (From the latin, attinctus, blackened, or stained) are any bill that deprives a right to a class or individual group. The british Writ of attainder after criminal conviction, upon sentence of death, was the means by which a felon’s rights were removed, his very humanity was forfeit, and he could be executed as a monster. The Corruption of Blood extended this civil death for three generations without the execution. Lesser bills of deprivation attacking a known, easily defined class or persons, was known as bill of pains and penalties and is likewise prohibited. The penalty may be inflicted absolutely, or conditionally, may be accompanied by expurgatory oaths, actions, or affirmations, ‘proving’ to the legislature that you are ‘innocent’ of the taint or danger that they believed existed, such as fees of licensure, or tests oaths for religious reasons.
It was to bind, as was said in the Federalist 57, the Congress to the exact same law as the people.
“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”
Effectively in such cases, the Legislature takes on the mantle of the judiciary, without authority, declares a danger or perceived danger, defines a class, and targets that class. The federalist 44 also talks about that danger.
The federalist 84 speaks of the fact that the bill of rights may distract from other rights contained in the constitution, and give excuses to those future legislators, to take up powers that would allow them to do such things, as they’d be not so vigorously excepted if they were not within the powers to otherwise do them.
“We do not hold today that Congress cannot weed dangerous persons out of the labor movement, any more than the Court held in Lovett that subversives must be permitted to hold sensitive government positions. Rather, we make again the point made in Lovett: that Congress must accomplish such results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied. Under our Constitution, Congress possesses full legislative authority, but the task of adjudication must be left to other tribunals.
Page 381 U. S. 462
This Court is always reluctant to declare that an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, but, in this case, we have no alternative. As Alexander Hamilton observed:
“By a limited constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [Footnote 40]” — US v Brown
As per the 10th amendment, versus the 9th, it’s because many children today are educated that their rights come from the state, rather than are protected from it.
The article 4 constitutional privileges and immunities encompassed, as a term of art, all the things that were within the bill of rights. Privileges, in that term of art, were rights shared by the class of citizens, but not necessarily by other groups. They were not something to be given or taken away, limited, or worked around by legislative proclamations, they were part of the rights accruing to that title of ‘citizen’. Immunities, on the other hand, were things that belonged to the whole of the people, citizen or not. They were things that were utterly outside of the scope of legislative, executive, or judicial authority.
Not many people know what they were, but there is a great deal more in the judicial history than most would think on the subject. The fear of those of African descent gaining those rights were the reasons for the old Black Codes, and later the Jim Crow laws.
You can find them in Dred Scott v. Sandford on pages 60US 416-417. Too long to put in here. The same were at issue in the much earlier Prudence Crandall case on the education of free-born persons of that descent.
The right of privacy was core to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. The quartering of troops or agents in a home to listen in, the listening at the windowsill or rifling through the private papers, etc.
As per the Roe v. Wade point, all that would do is distract the issue, but in my opinion, allowing the coercive power of the state to intrude in a person’s life, to force them to bear a child because another believes it is wrong for her to not do so is a far greater wrong. To say society has more right to her body than she does, more right to her future than she does, is to establish powers that can and will be easily abused, and utterly destructive.
We must adhere to principle even in the most painful times, or it is no principle at all.
Thank you, Petition and Remonstrance! This thread NEEDED that comment! Thank you for taking the time and for so generously sharing all that legal research (that was not compiled in a short time!). Well done!
When Obama talks others walk . Free advertising for the “leavers ” . Thanks big O .
Hopefully he will speak in favour of Hillary’s campaign too .
You know… the earth has a fever and a carbon tax will make things all better after Hillary shuts down coal
coal miners and other fossil fuels . Any questions ?
Not only has Obama already spoken in favor of Hillary’s campaign, but he will undoubtedly prevent Ms. Lynch from calling a Grand Jury to address the criminal complaint the FBI will very likely find against Ms. Clinton regarding her mishandling of emails. (Clinton’s unethical behavior regarding the Clinton Initiative is another matter, however.)
But really, can we expect any other behavior from a president who has acted unlawfully (and hence impeachable) in at least 15 specific aspects of his administration?
Thank you, sir, and God bless Christopher Monckton, I pray.
http://www.philippedevilliers.fr/Le-phenomene-Villiers-Valeurs-Actuelles_a190.html
who gave orders to : Schumann – Monnet and Delors ????
I take exception to Monckton’s position on Treaties passed by the Senate. They are not a way to by-pass our Constitution when as the courts have already stated, said treaty(ies) violate that same Constitution!
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html
Unless stealth tyrants succeed in ‘stacking’ the court. Then it’s rule by man, not by law.
I feel like the country has shed it’s beer gut! Go Britain!
I voted to leave the EU, as did other member of my family. However. in my area of the UK there is a plethora of Pakistani immigrants who voted remain, because they want unrestricted immigration & HMG handouts. Since the 1970’s Muslims have doubled their numbers every 15 years in the UK. In the 2011 census, there were 2.7 million. In 2016, they number 3.4 million; well on the way to 6.8 million in 2021. This demographic change is due to multi-culturalism. The multi-racial Roman empire expanded by imposing Pax Romana by conquest, but declined & fell when it became multi-cultural.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do” was good advice, but the empire was overwhelmed by race change. It wasn’t that the native populations (that is, the early Latins, Etruscans, Celts, etc.) who changed their basic temperaments. Something very different happened. These areas of western Europe were deluged by great influxes of peoples from other areas of the Roman Empire, notably from the east. It wasn’t the temperament of the people that changed, it was the race.”
http://www.askelm.com/people/peo011.htm
http://www.askelm.com/people/peo014.htm
In conclusion.
David Cowling, the BBC’s head of political research, in an internal memo…
“It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current situation. There are many millions of people in the UK who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledged and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist. Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan political class, confronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond (“who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?” doesn’t really hack it). The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughout this 2016 campaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance.”
Cowling is WRONG! It was never about Europe. It has always been about the un-elected EU Commie tsars.
H/T Quote of the day, Guido Fawkes.24/6/2016 http://order-order.com/
Perry, so you blokes threw the switch just in time. Given a little longer, and the invaders would have reached the tipping point from which no peaceful recovery could be made.
The USA perhaps still has an American majority who can still throw the switch here and stop the fifth column Trojan horse.
Ted Kennedy’s legacy is the destruction of the former sound US immigration law and policy.
G
How does being in the EU effect immigration from Pakistan? Or government handouts?
Perry, thank you for illustrating so clearly the ignorance of the typical Brexiteer. Of all the myriad issues you could raise, you talk about Pakistani and muslim immigrants that have nothing to do with the EU. This illustrates perfectly that it is xenophobia and not real issues that fuel the brexit fire. Thank you.
Land that I love.
“… land that I love…” (Evan Jones)
(youtube — Composer: Irving Berling; vocalist: Celine Dion)
Thank you, France, for that beautiful statue. … Thank you, Great Britain, for our legal heritage. … Thank you, immigrants from all over the WORLD (Germany, Holland, Ireland, Poland, Italy, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines, Brazil, Haiti, India, … and Luxembourg), for your wisdom and can-do spirit and beautiful personalities…
We are so blessed.
***.***.***.***.***.***
And thank you, Anthony Watts, for a place to say it.
***.***.***.***.***.***
Dear Christopher Monckton,
“… my final broadcast…” …
As another commenter wondered above: Are you okay?
Hoping the answer to that question is “yes,”
Janice Moore
Irving Berlin (oh, brother, trying to make it rhyme, I suppose…. :P)
Thanks, Janice.
so do I
I’m so pleased to see that someone else has the same concerns as I. As an example of this effect, look at the downstream side of a wave-powered generator: A darn sight smoother water than the upstream side.
It is always good for the people to win one. I hope the elites don’t figure out a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on this issue. Secession from the EU was a great victory for the people regardless.
It is horrible to witness unelected regulators and bureaucrats make the lives of the people miserable just so they can feel to joy of exercising power. The EU will end just as the USSR ended; but I don’t know if I’ll live to see it. Perhaps.
But I do have to take exception to all the joy over restoring democracy. Democracy has had a bad reputation since the time of the ancient Greeks at least. It is 7 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. The USA was originally designed as a republic with a written constitution to restrain the government. That constitution has become ever more worthless as a constraint on the power of the central government as time has passed.
Perhaps it is time for the various states of the USA to also consider an exit.
Re-Form to reform.
IMO, the US should shred all legislation EXCEPT our Constitution. Common Law would prevail until new statutes are passed; this time with absolute deference to the Constitution.
Allow me to reiterate: ” Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium.”
!
The best one I’ve seen so far is “Copenhatin'”.
“Czechout”
I saw “Austria la vista” on the news yesterday. Best said with a thick German accent and “baby” at the end. 🙂
Rex Murphy: Results of the Brexit referendum is a rebuke to Western elites
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-results-of-the-brexit-referendum-is-a-rebuke-to-western-elites
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/24/thank-you-america/comment-page-1/#comment-2244768
Rex Murphy: Results of the Brexit referendum is a rebuke to Western elites
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-results-of-the-brexit-referendum-is-a-rebuke-to-western-elites
[excerpt]
The often-ignored, sometimes quite rudely deplored British people have spoken and, to the horror of enlightened opinion, respectable party leaders, the ever-guiding liberal intelligentsia, have decided they don’t want “in” the European Union. The vote comes as a mighty shock to broad-minded continentalists and supranationalists everywhere, but particularly the high elites of British politics. The Guardian’s readership will need special help — grief counsellors are already overwhelmed.
The EU vote is the most dramatic illustration to date of how the “guiding elites” of many Western countries have lost the fealty and trust of their populations. Of the gap between ordinary citizens, facing the challenges of daily life, and the swaddled, well-off and pious tribes of those who govern them, and increasingly govern them with a mixture of moralistic superiority and witless condescension.
Here here!
Congratulations to Britain who will once again lead the way and show the world that freedom and liberty over the tyranny of the Marxists must be the path we take.
Marxists ????
Many warmist watermelons are indeed Marxists, of whatever variety: Trotskyites, Leninists, Harpos, Grouchos…
Some of the Eurocrats are indeed Marxists, but all are surely tyrants.
We finns would not call it Finish, the EU is so broken and messed up, se the better acronym would perhaps be Fixit.
Fixit (latin) means “spread.” May I assume that you intend for democracy to spread at the expense to the EU Commisariat?
Thank you Lord Monckton, for this brilliant article which shows clearly what actually the glorification of a disaster, foolishness and stupidity is.
The British have just gone down on record very clearly as a nation that can at any moment jeopardize its own economy and that of its economical partners and allies in a “single moment” by playing the freedom and democratic card irresponsibly.
Enjoy your independence as long as you can, but is hard to think, very hard actually, that after this the Britain can seriously think or imagine a possible serious economical relation with any real significant other economy in this world unless is prepared to surrender its freedom and its independence and take a position of a vassal, as no any other significant economy out there will really take the chance and gamble in an equal basis economic relation or partnership with Britain any more for a long time to come till the record established now is changed.
Neither, America, EU, China or any other potential economies can afford such a gambling.
So enjoy your freedom, your independence and your democracy in to your isolation, for as long as it lasts.
Wish you really all the best, regardless.
Maybe you guys there need to have a hands on experience and really know how it feels for once to be a proper economical vassal, and the “beauty” and the “independence” of the isolation in this modern era..
At least through your free will you guys got what you actually wished for……..
It is weird Lord Monckton, isn’t it, even you I think did not really believe that it will come to this kind of result of the referendum and democracy……very weird indeed…:)
Wish you and your country all the best, and hopefully I am wrong and you are right.
cheers
Whiten, you speak as if Great Britain has been a vassal of the EU for centuries; obviously, it has not. This short-term experiment in collectivism/Marxism has been a burden to givers and a boon to takers in the EU. Of course, the attitude you display is exactly what endears you to the Kommisars–they don’t want freedom-loving, positive people since such are difficult to control and abuse. I’m surprised you’d equate freedom with isolationism, for the very opposite is true.
RockyRoad
June 25, 2016 at 6:34 am
Whiten, you speak as if Great Britain has been a vassal of the EU for centuries; obviously, it has not.
—————————————————
Rocky, I do not see where you got the idea expressed in the above selected statement of yours.
Actually from my point of view is the other way around.
If there was a vassal in the EU- Britain economic relation that vassal was EU, not UK.
In most economic relations of the past UK always has managed to be in control, not a vassal, or at least equal on its position.
UK even through its force managed to keep its own currency, the Pound versus Euro…….and for a long time managed to milk and extra profit in the expense of Euro and the EU economy , through that “trick” forced on the EU vassal, till the tables turned around at the moment of the last global economic shock or crises, when actually the EU economy could not offer the buffer for the Pound which at that time did put the UK economy under the consequences of the isolation clause.
Instead of extra profiting the UK economy starting to “bleed”……..
Strangely enough very soon after the prospect of a referendum on the UK-EU relation is offered as a democratic means to the British, and now there is its result…….
Definitely Cameron and the British government did not intend to have such a result, I think.
cheers
The UK is not, has never been and never will be isolationist and not one of the ‘Brexit’ politicians is suggesting that we ever should be. We have been a mid Atlantic trading nation for a very long time and that is why such a small country has the fifth largest economy in the world – if anything the single market and rule from Brussels has done its best to take this position away from us. Brexit is not isolationist it is freedom. Why would you suppose that the nations that benefit from our trade would suddenly not want to trade with us – a large part but not the majority of trade is with Europe, the larger part is with the rest of the world – without the trade restriction imposed on relationship with the rest of the world I for one cannot see how we can fail to prosper
‘the fifth largest economy in the world ‘
Actually, dropped to sixth or seventh yesterday when your pound collapsed on forex markets. That’s Brexit for you – enjoy it as there’s more to come.
mwh
June 25, 2016 at 8:13 am
Sorry mwh,
You people have just voted out of anything….
No one can help you for some time to come as you already in free-fall and in no man’s land.
Actually no up to you any more. Your credibility over night disappeared.
You end it up from a five star country to no star country, 0 stars.
No matter what you may wish and want after this, you will not have it for a time, is not up to you actually.
You may want to play but the main players no matter how much will want to play also, can’t as you are in no man’s land till your negotiation of your exit from EU is done and you out of it.
Your tag prize is a volatile one till than, no one will want to risk.
You can not have it both ways..
You are already in isolation, even while it may take a while for you to realize it, and be aware of your foolishness.
The best way out you may hope and wish is a fast negotiation with EU and a fast exit for you, so you can be back in an economical relation with EU again ,but as a vassal this time. with no vote or veto rights, with no any real independence.
You “ffucked” badly with your neighbors, put them in a very bad and difficult economical position, And the same neighbors are the kindest of partners that you can have in the future.
Is in their best interest that you get supported out of your isolation….but you see, you did it to your self…. and bizarrely can’T realize that you actually voted pro isolation……
Sorry mate, I wish it could have been different, reality at times is sad.
cheers
Whiten is a perfect example of the delusional world of the liberal left !
@ur momisugly Hoplite Interesting that someone who uses a name that was that of a lance and shield armed foot soldier in ancient Greece should be weighing in on economic issues. The Greek GDP ranks behind those of such economic powerhouses as Portugal and Bangladesh.
Thanks guys, the 2 responses rather belittle themselves. I am confident that the UK has given my children the best chance for a decent future unshackled by the monstrous bureaucracy that is the EU. I just hope that this signals a bout of deregulation and backing off of the ‘nanny state’. Its hard to believe (in the Brexit film above) that some 10,000 EU bureaucrats earn more than our Prime Minister, and I wonder how many ‘remainers’ if asked on polling day would be able to name their current commissioner or even their MEP – seeing as the commissioner is the only person who can suggest Laws to be voted in (so long as the commission agrees) by the Parliament. The Parliament itself is completely powerless as it cant propose new laws or repeal old ones. Korea has trade deals worth over 10 times the amount that the EU has with the rest of the world and we dont need deals as a nation to trade with the rest of the world – Politicians who are keen on meddling generally just mess things up.
mwh,
Clearly neither of the two replying to your comment watched Jimmy Haigh’s link to the Watson commentary on Brexit.
But that’s OK, I don’t think they’d get it. Apparently they didn’t read Lord Monckton’s article, either.
Published last March:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/claim-britain-leaving-the-eu-endangers-the-paris-climate-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-2169685
Britain should leave the EU, because:
The EU is a ridiculously bureaucratic organization that drains the life out of its economies through its many dysfunctional policies, of which global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense are major components. Many EU countries are quietly retreating from green energy schemes as fast as their masters can politically do so, without admitting that they have been utterly fooled by green energy scams that are not green and produce little useful energy.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
A humble suggestion:
Establish an international trade organization to include those countries that follow British Law, descended from Magna Carta, now 801 years of age. This would include Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and some others.
I suggest we could feed Britain much better and less expensively that Europe can, without all the ridiculous bureaucracy that typifies the EU. I suggest the British people would fare much better under this organization, and would avoid the eccentric policies that the EU frequently imposes on its citizens.
The EU is a failed experiment, the result of decades of policy-making by scoundrels and imbeciles. Britain should leave the EU before íts people suffer further harm, in terms of rising costs and reduced energy security.
I would extend this to a United Nations of the truly democratic nations of the world. A quick reminder of who sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council quickly demonstrates why. Among the stalwarts of human rights are China, Cuba, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam and too many African countries to sort out.
QED
Very good point RayG
About 90% of the countries in the world have no real Human Rights and no real Rule of Law.
Having done business on six continents, I have no illusions about this reality.
The UN has become a Shakespearean farce, and a tragedy for humankind.
Best, Allan
Be Strong
Be of good courage
God Bless America
Long live the Republic!