Second referendum a negation of democracy

By January 11, 2018February 18th, 2021No Comments

If you value free speech, as I do, then you ought to oppose further immigration from the Third World and Eastern Europe, whose societies have no very long history of respect for it. Leaving the EU will at least restore Britain’s ability to curtail immigration from Eastern Europe and that will be a huge step forward on the road to ending and reversing the mass immigration of culturally foreign people to the country. Terms such as ‘closer union’ are meaningless platitudes designed by cynical Establishment politicians and bureaucrats to mislead the inexperienced and unwary. The opposite of ‘closer union’, in the context of the EU, is not ‘division’, as they and you, it seems, would have us believe, but, rather, freedom and democracy.

Again, the label ‘far right’ is designed by those same antidemocratic and foreign elitist elements within the countries of Europe to elicit an emotional response of fear, as a consequence of which debate may be avoided and freedom of expression, including free speech, closed down. The parties which the rotten Establishment fears may not yet have the support of the majority, but the substantial support they do have is growing fast, while the support of the Establishment parties is dwindling equally fast.

It is the younger people, born after 1973 when Britain joined the EU, who have never known what it is like to live in a free country. None so enslaved as those who do not even know it.

I used the term sensible in the sense of being aware and informed, as few who knew the facts, as opposed to publicly funded propaganda, can have been in any doubt as to the desirability of leaving the EU and regaining our independence.

The referendum was, as you say, not legally binding but this is a technicality and a trivial point since referenda are usually not legally binding but advisory. Their results are morally and politically binding upon the governments who hold them, just as governing parties’ manifesto commitments are not legally binding but morally and politically binding. The May government and/or any successor, must fulfil the mandate given by the 2016 referendum result or lose all democratic legitimacy. Yes, the views of the electorate change over time but that cannot justify holding a further referendum on the same question before the result of the first has been implemented. That would be a negation of democracy and the ultimate vindication of those, like myself, who condemn the EU as antidemocratic.

Once the decision of the people, sovereign in any democracy worthy of the name, has been implemented by their servants the law-makers and the beneficial effects of freedom from EU tyranny become evident, then and only then should the question of a further referendum be raised, if there is any appetite for it. After all, it was 41 years after the first referendum on whether to remain in the EU that the second was held. On the basis of this precedent a referendum on whether to rejoin the EU should be held no earlier than 2058.

You still appear to believe that the views of ‘youngsters’, presumably because they are expected to have more years of life ahead of them, should carry more weight in a democratic contest, such as a referendum, than those of older people who have more experience of life. This seems not only ‘ageist’ but to border on ‘hate speech’ against those of more mature years, no longer green in judgement.

My invitation to ‘join us and help make it happen’ was not directed to you alone but also to other of my countrymen who read this.

WTO rules and no divorce bill