PLEASE VOTE in the European Elections

Leave behind your stance on the European Union; shelve your opinion of the personalities involved; because this election is about Brexit. How we vote tomorrow is a signal to our government and the world - do we want in or out?

The strangest thing is that we already voted on this three years ago...

So actually tomorrow's vote is even more important than many people think. Dig below the smears and half-truths and we see that tomorrow is about democracy in Britain. Does our government implement the result of referendums or not?

33.6 million people, a huge 72.2% of the electorate voted in 2016. Between us we decided to Leave the EU. It was clear, legitimate and everyone accepted it. That's how democracy works.

Imagine if in 2014, the Scots voted to leave the UK. Three years later Westminster has not implemented independence and is actively thwarting it? There would be a righteous uproar! It would be braveheart all over again.

But then March came and went. The government broke it's promise to leave the EU. And then suddenly the Remain opinion leapt from the woodwork. Many who voted Remain changed their tune. No longer did they accept the result of the greatest democratic event in British history. This government, by breaking it's promise, has shown the entire country that it's ok to overturn a democratic result. That is pernicious, duplicitous and ultimately decadent. The values our ancestors fought for have become dust.

If we don't leave the EU in October you will know that your vote is as worthless as a vote in Turkey or China. I can't overstate this. Funding, milkshakes, posters, Farage and Cable - they're all irrelevant. The true question is this: Is our government democratic or is voting just a show to sell us the illusion of control? Voting for the Brexit Party is the best way to safeguard democracy in Britain.

It's that important. If we don't leave the EU this year that's the end of British democracy.

And since this is my last chance to influence anyone before tomorrow's vote I'd like to draw your attention to the rich irony in all of this: voting for MEP's is pointless. The European Parliament is the most magnificent, expensive and powerless legislature in Europe. So it is kinda funny that in this instance, voting to put our people in it has become a powerful symbol of democracy!

Let me prove it with the briefest research... The following quotation is from the European Parliament's own webpage entitled 'What are the European Parliament’s powers and legislative procedures?' 

'In areas such as taxation, competition law and Common Foreign and Security Policy, the European Parliament is “consulted”. In those cases, Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it, but the Council is not legally obliged to follow Parliament's opinion...'

'Although it is up to the Commission to propose new EU laws, Parliament can take the initiative by requesting the Commission to submit a legislative proposal... If the Commission refuses, it must explain why.' [lol]

So when it comes to the most important subjects the European Parliament is nothing more than a talking shop; neither can it force legislation on the agenda, and take it from me, they can't change existing legislation because that requires new legislation! Instead, the unelected bureaucrats in the European Commission, who like nothing better than suiting the needs of giant corporations, run the show.

It's no wonder that our average turnout for EU elections is 38%. We're instinctively wise to it. Everyone knows deep down that voting in EU elections is utterly inconsequential. I dearly hope this feeling doesn't infect our future general elections and referenda...

I could talk all day about the crazy iniquities baked into the EU, but let me finish with a big picture detailing what the EU has done for us:

When we joined the EEC [EU] in 1973, Britain had thriving industries: aerospace, cars, ships, steel, fish; you name it we had it. Our working class worked. But then the 70's became an economic catastrophe. In the 80's Thatcherite medicine was as bad as the disease. In the 90's London prospered. Tony Blair opened our borders to eastern Europe and gave away our sovereignty. In the noughties Gordon Brown gave all our money to the banks and more sovereignty to the EU. We are only just recovering and still our working class are bereft. There is no manufacturing in Britain because we are just a small region in the EU - Germany does all the making, London does financial services. The rest of us? The EU doesn't care.

In return for our cataclysmic industrial decline we get what? Passport free travel? What have we given up? Just about everything: control of our borders, control of our laws, control of our waters, incredible amounts of our money, and control of our economy. And if we're not careful and leave while we can, they'll have our democracy too. The soul of our nation is at stake - vote Brexit Party.

Rule Brittania 

My Brexit Story

June 2016: I voted Remain. 

I didn't do it because of any attachment to the European Union, I voted that way because it was the sensible option. I thought it was rash to make such a momentous decision in the fevered atmosphere of a viciously partisan referendum. I argued tooth and nail with friends, family and anyone who cared. I was utterly convinced of my righteousness. Common sense would prevail, I was confident...

Imagine my anguish when Remain did not prevail. It struck me like a physical blow. In a fit of pique I decided to ignore politics until Brexit happened. Nothing else mattered until it was finished. I was disgruntled, but I accepted it. So I waited.

General Election 2017: The main British parties both commit to delivering Brexit in their                                                            manifestos.

Over time the pain lessened and was replaced with anticipation. Britain's future and the path of its people was no longer a single highway. It had become a road-map, a plethora of paths from which we would choose. An independent, British future beckoned us all. So I waited.

March 2019: May's Deal or no-deal? 

When our politicians failed to do what appeared perfectly straight-forward i.e. Leave, I was non-plussed. When the 'deadline' was delayed once and then twice I was flummoxed. When it was pushed back to October, a full six months after we were meant to have left, I knew then that something was horribly wrong.

It dawned on me that our politicians might not do this.

They are betraying Brexit. They are cravenly and openly defying the democratic will of the British people. If you don't believe it I'm not surprised. I found the notion that our political class, minus some exceptions, would actively go against us is hard to fathom. Yet we all know subconsciously that these politicians have always pretended with us: The way they dodge questions, the way things happen despite widespread opposition (e.g. The Iraq War), the way promises are routinely broken. But ultimately we elect them to run the show, so we let them.

However, failing to leave the EU is the final ignominy. It is directly and obviously contravening the will of the British people. Every second we remain in the EU is treachery grown larger. They are betraying us all! If you doubt it now, what will you think if we haven't left by November? What will you think if we haven't left by the next General Election in 2022?

The notion that our government is accountable to us is in the balance. This juncture in our history is the most important since 1939. It's that fucking serious - no joke. I cannot convey strongly enough the gravity of this crisis. We all face this question: Who rules this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Is it several hundred Oxbridge graduates? Is it several thousand foreign bureacrats? 

No my friends, it is us. But we have to prove it. We must fight for Brexit to demonstrate that we, the people, are in charge of our destiny. Because if we give up, if we allow our votes to become meaningless, then we become slaves. This cannot be allowed.

Rule Britannia.

A Philosopher King, Democracy, and Aliens

Recently, I finished reading a book called, 'The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam', by Barbara Tuchman (1984). The book won the Puliter Prize twice and is lauded by reviews from eminent sources as The Times and Sunday Times. However, it is little more than a quaint work, aiming to do nothing more than bring into the glaring light, the great follies of human history. It is a book whose premise is wholly based on retrospect and superficial parameters. She chooses to focus on the Trojan Horse episode, the corruption of the Popes who presided over the road to Reformation, the British loss of America, and the Vietnam War.  The compelling narrative is somewhat lessened by the obviousness with which the author reveals herself to be American. Furthermore, much charm is negated when the occasional (probably unconscious) racial stereotype is thrown in unheeded. It is nontheless, an enjoyable read.

     Average though this tome may be, it did provoke some thought on the nature of human government. This seemed pertinent given the current circumstances at the moment, where the Coalition Government is taking a lot of criticism over its every manoeuver. Given that folly in government affects many more people than an individual's folly is ever likely to, should not those who govern us be particularly talented at not making and propagating mistakes, but also have nothing but the national interest at heart? Find me a politician who won't tell you they have the national interest at heart. Find me a politician who agrees with the other. Who is right? Or, should it be more important in a democracy for our representatives to actually represent the views of their constitutents? Are voters even qualified to pick between policies, or express their wishes in a format conducive to the machinery of government? Economics and social policy are not compulsory subjects for the electorate. Is our system, legitimated by history and imbued with Western Liberalism, ever going to produce consistent results? Or perhaps the fact that our politicians are mostly men of ambition and/or principle is an inherent obstacle.

     Election-time then, a cynic may conclude, is nothing more than a whirlwind of propaganda and empty promises. These people, desperate for power and/or change, march about trying to please as many voters as possible by making popular promises. When in government, they probably try to implement their promises but discover that the realities of government deny them. At least that's what they should say instead of spouting sophistry. (I feel sympathy for the LibDems, who have lost all credibility because of the realities of coalition and now have no choice but to hang on with the Tories in the hope that things get better). When the next election comes, the government is desperate to win either to retain power and/or continue its program. How are we to go on with governors who are cyclically subjected to the differing and melanged urges to power and continuity? And if a new government with new ideas comes in, won't that destroy the progress that had been made? And who knows if they're right? Only time will tell, but recurrent elections means continuity is not given the chance to pass the examination of time. Therefore, politicians are inclined to win votes by any means in order to safeguard continuity - so disenchanting voters along the way. It's helluva tough out there guys.

     So what of a solution to the paradox of our democracy, which both demands and denies honesty of its politicians? I think there is one system of governance which holds a secret and cherished place in the minds of many intellectuals - that of 'benevolent dictatorship'. Given today's connotations around the term 'dictator', perhaps a more palatable label would be, as expressed by Socrates and Plato, 'The Philospher King'. Such a King (or Queen), would be bred for ability, and taught the ways of philosophy in order to gain wisdom. Born to rule, their capacity would be undoubted, their intentions unquestionable, and their actions correct and good. It is an idyll both elegant and unreachable.

     Tuchman tells us that President Kennedy had a decent chance of pulling out of Vietnam before it became disastrous. However, he would not take the chance because election-time was drawing near and he could not risk a withdrawal provoking the political Right from excoriating him. It would damage his chances. Then his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, also refused to consider withdrawal. Despite consistent and mounting evidence to the otherwise, he refused to be the first President of the USA to preside over defeat. After much unnecessary death, the lessons of human pride and politics really ought to be learned. It would be a thankless glory for those politicians brave enough to sacrifice their careers and prejudices in the national interest. But what are we to utilise to govern ourselves if not ourselves? Aliens? Discuss...