The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

mailing list
donate now
join now
shop

It’s not a People’s Vote we need – it’s a People’s Revolt

If - and that's a big if - there were a parliamentary decision in favour of a fresh referendum on the EU, how should the Leave majority respond? Let's ask recalcitrant Remainers to put themselves in our shoes. What incentive would there be to vote again? What faith could Leavers have in the system, if they overcame the odds stacked against them for a second time?

Some Brexit supporters are confident that a Leave vote would be greater than before, due to discrediting of Project Fear and the haughty intransigence of EU leaders. But believe me, the establishment would do everything it could – fair or foul – to ensure a desired verdict. A massive programme of propaganda and dirty dealings would ensue, funded by George Soros and the globalist elite.Foreign interference would supplement our Remain-addled institutions, including the Civil Service and corrupt Electoral Commission.

It's not the insultingly termed 'people's vote' we need – it's a people's revolt. Democracy is being overtly defied by the political and cultural establishments, their media lackeys, and the privileged middle-class who abhor the patriotic and traditional values of the common people.And by the indoctrinated younger generations, who have learned in school and university that the EU is their future, and that Leavers have stolen it from them. You can detect the Remain archetype by their pose and posture: the recent rally in London was satirised as the longest-ever queue at Waitrose.

Pro-EU fundamentalists hate the phrase 'will of the people' - not so much the will (an undeniable 52%), but the people. They do not want to associate themselves with the ignoramuses of Brexitland. The education gap between Remain and Leave voters is highlighted, although much of this difference is confounded by age, as until recently university was the preserve of a minority. Yet listen to most Remainers and you'll find minimal understanding of the EU and its workings. 'Name the EU Commissioners', I have sometimes asked, and rarely got more than two correct answers. How are laws created? Most Remainers don't have a clue. To be fair, most Leavers don't know much of these complicated mechanisms either, but why should they? They want nothing to do with it.

The intractable divide in society won't be resolved in the near future, whatever happens with Brexit. Rational arguments may be made for leaving or staying in the EU, but the emotive group-think among Remainers is immune to reasoned debate. The EU is regarded as a paragon of virtue, associated with the progressive clichés of 'tolerance' , 'diversity', 'multiculturalism', and a bulwark against nasty nationalism. If you point out the swelling populist movements across the continent, this will simply add to the certainty of Remainers that we need more EU. Idealism obscures the reality.

Brexit exposed a schism in society, with progressive globalists on one side, and grounded, socially-conservative patriots on the other (as in David Goodhart's conceptualisation of 'Anywheres' and 'Somewheres' ). The straightforward logic of democracy seems to escape the intelligentsia, as does the value of nationhood. Immigration good, borders bad. EU good, Britain bad. These are the people who are unperturbed by the problems of mass migration, unsustainable population growth, building over the countryside and cultural regression. And this is how we are ruled.

Arguably, this is not really intelligence, but educated stupidity. Or the Ship of Fools in the new book by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, subtitled How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. Truly, we are following the USA to a culture war (indeed, arguably we struck first, with Brexit). But unlike our American cousins, we lack a character like Donald Trump to 'drain the swamp'. We don't want a Great Dictator, but a Great Disruptor.

I am not calling for revolution, but a revolt against those who are effectively denying the rights of man and woman. How remarkable, in the much-commemorated centenary of universal suffrage, that the votes of women and working-class men are being annulled. An overdue resurgence of national spirit should be framed by Enlightenment values and the triumvirate of democracy, freedom of speech and equality before the law. A polity based more on Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill than the Frankfurt School and Foucault. We must free ourselves from the European Court of Justice, the subversive European Court of Human Rights and the petty Napoleons of the EU Commission. And we must remind politicians and the Civil Service that they serve us – not the other way round.

How to do this? Some tough choices must be made. First, habitual voting patterns must be abandoned. This has already happened in Europe, where the long-dominant social democrat and centrist parties in Sweden and Germany are in serious decline, and decimated in France and Italy. Our first-past-the-post elections favour the main parties, but as shown by the success of UKIP in forcing the EU referendum, the mainstream can be shifted. As the old political spectrum of Left and Right is fragmenting, voters should demand more of their constituency candidates, and remind those who are elected of their personal pledges. This could mean that a committed Leaver in Labour Party colours is preferable to a careerist Tory. I'm no Labourite, but I'd certainly vote for Frank Field, and would consider Caroline Flint, were they in my constituency.

What if this preposterous People's Vote were enacted? I would implore Leave voters to boycott this blatant attempt to reverse the referendum decision. It would have no legitimacy if two-thirds of the population stayed away from the polling stations. Politicians who called for this 'correction', when canvassing in future elections, should be asked: 'Why should I vote for you or your party, when you tried to overturn a democratic majority – including my vote?'Disenfranchise us, and we'll unseat you.

The 2016 vote was very close, Remainers say. But you cannot change the rules after the match was played. I would, however, suggest a concession. If Remainers could just let Britain leave, as decided by the electorate, the government could in principle offer a referendum on rejoining the EU. But that should be at least five years after we have departed, when the contrast between an independent UK and the federalist project will be interesting, to say the least. 

Lest We Forget
Single Market
 

Comments 10

Guest - James Bowen on Monday, 12 November 2018 12:26

"The 2016 vote was very close, Remainers say. But you cannot change the rules after the match was played."
The referendum was advisory, and this was made very clear in Parliament.

"The 2016 vote was very close, Remainers say. But you cannot change the rules after the match was played." The referendum was advisory, and this was made very clear in Parliament.
Guest - Dr Niall McCrae on Monday, 12 November 2018 14:50

No point in a 'people's vote' then....

No point in a 'people's vote' then....
Guest - Ed on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 11:04

It was only close if you look at the percentages. In actual votes (which is what matters) the difference was 1 269 501 votes which does not look very close to me.

It was only close if you look at the percentages. In actual votes (which is what matters) the difference was 1 269 501 votes which does not look very close to me.
Guest - Ken Hall on Monday, 12 November 2018 12:54

"What if this preposterous People's Vote were enacted? I would implore Leave voters to boycott this blatant attempt to reverse the referendum decision. It would have no legitimacy if two-thirds of the population stayed away from the polling stations. "

The only problem is this. Whilst there would be no moral or ethical legitimacy, there would still be legal legitimacy, and if remain, or the Chequers plan were to win such a referendum, because leavers boycotted the vote, then these options would still be enacted as "the people's will" in the minds of the remainers and the establishment. Boycotting the vote would be the most stupid thing we could do. That would be quitting the fight and rewarding remainers for their treachury, immaturity and lies. That is exactly what they want us to do!

Having the moral high ground whilst being enslaved to the EU will not give us the independence we have twice voted for already. IF there is another vote, we should use the illigitimacy of such a vote, and it's abhorrance to democratic norms, as a launching pad to get real democrats to the polls in record numbers to WIN the vote for a proper, full LEAVE.

We need to fight the remainers UNTIL we leave the EU. Every time they ask us to vote, we MUST vote, to leave. Again and again and again if necessary, until they get it through their thick heads that WE WANT TO LEAVE!!!

I knew when they called the referendum, that like EVERY other referendum across the EU which has gone against the EU, (and solely those which have gone against the EU) that they would scheme and lie and fearmonger us to another vote. So we must be ready for that and keep voting no! If it takes a thousand referendums, we MUST vote in all of them to leave.

"What if this preposterous People's Vote were enacted? I would implore Leave voters to boycott this blatant attempt to reverse the referendum decision. It would have no legitimacy if two-thirds of the population stayed away from the polling stations. " The only problem is this. Whilst there would be no moral or ethical legitimacy, there would still be legal legitimacy, and if remain, or the Chequers plan were to win such a referendum, because leavers boycotted the vote, then these options would still be enacted as "the people's will" in the minds of the remainers and the establishment. Boycotting the vote would be the most stupid thing we could do. That would be quitting the fight and rewarding remainers for their treachury, immaturity and lies. That is exactly what they want us to do! Having the moral high ground whilst being enslaved to the EU will not give us the independence we have twice voted for already. IF there is another vote, we should use the illigitimacy of such a vote, and it's abhorrance to democratic norms, as a launching pad to get real democrats to the polls in record numbers to WIN the vote for a proper, full LEAVE. We need to fight the remainers UNTIL we leave the EU. Every time they ask us to vote, we MUST vote, to leave. Again and again and again if necessary, until they get it through their thick heads that WE WANT TO LEAVE!!! I knew when they called the referendum, that like EVERY other referendum across the EU which has gone against the EU, (and solely those which have gone against the EU) that they would scheme and lie and fearmonger us to another vote. So we must be ready for that and keep voting no! If it takes a thousand referendums, we MUST vote in all of them to leave.
Guest - Mr. Scone on Monday, 12 November 2018 14:06

The second paragraph merely describes in opposing terms how the first referendum was one by external influences and money. Anyone playing the Soros card necessarily has to play the opposing card too, let's say Putin for the sake of argument, or Trump or Bannon, CA, Banks etc. It is almost as though you actually believe the referendum first time round was won fairly. How quaint.

The rest of the piece is very poor propaganda, setting out potential targets which don't exist in the way you think they do such as the "privileged middle classes" or calling pro-EU people fundamentalists. It is indicative that this piece bears no weight in reality and is another frothy, foaming at the mouth anti-EU rhetoric designed to stoke division.

The only true part of the piece is para 9 "How to do this? Some tough choices must be mad."

Mad indeed.

The last paragraph is also laughable "But you cannot change the rules after the match was played". Of course you can, that is exactly how an advisory referendum suddenly became cast in stone.

This is a very weak piece indeed and barely worth the read, other than for a quick chuckle at the inner machinations of the Bruges Group of flat earthers and climate change deniers. What a motley crew with a skewed message.

The second paragraph merely describes in opposing terms how the first referendum was one by external influences and money. Anyone playing the Soros card necessarily has to play the opposing card too, let's say Putin for the sake of argument, or Trump or Bannon, CA, Banks etc. It is almost as though you actually believe the referendum first time round was won fairly. How quaint. The rest of the piece is very poor propaganda, setting out potential targets which don't exist in the way you think they do such as the "privileged middle classes" or calling pro-EU people fundamentalists. It is indicative that this piece bears no weight in reality and is another frothy, foaming at the mouth anti-EU rhetoric designed to stoke division. The only true part of the piece is para 9 "How to do this? Some tough choices must be mad." Mad indeed. The last paragraph is also laughable "But you cannot change the rules after the match was played". Of course you can, that is exactly how an advisory referendum suddenly became cast in stone. This is a very weak piece indeed and barely worth the read, other than for a quick chuckle at the inner machinations of the Bruges Group of flat earthers and climate change deniers. What a motley crew with a skewed message.
Dr Niall McCrae on Monday, 12 November 2018 14:16

Mr Scone, your response is half-baked. Could you answer the question in the opening paragraph, on any incentive for Leave voters to vote again? Arguments to leave or remain in the EU were made, quite rightly, in the referendum campaign. There is no more argument unless you are claiming that 52% was illegitimate?

Mr Scone, your response is half-baked. Could you answer the question in the opening paragraph, on any incentive for Leave voters to vote again? Arguments to leave or remain in the EU were made, quite rightly, in the referendum campaign. There is no more argument unless you are claiming that 52% was illegitimate?
Guest - Jennifer Dainty on Monday, 12 November 2018 19:13

A further vote would be really unfair , older people tend to want to leave , and a lot will have died , whilst younger people who did not vote because they were not eligible because of age , may now be entitled . The original vote must stand.

A further vote would be really unfair , older people tend to want to leave , and a lot will have died , whilst younger people who did not vote because they were not eligible because of age , may now be entitled . The original vote must stand.
Guest - Frances Meehan on Monday, 12 November 2018 23:00

If we turn our back on the democratic vote to leave the corrupt EU, think we should not be surprised if we then experience a revolution.

If we turn our back on the democratic vote to leave the corrupt EU, think we should not be surprised if we then experience a revolution.
Guest - Adam Hiley on Saturday, 17 November 2018 18:31

I see great unrest if the corrupt 3 parties try and reverse the vote eutruth.org.uk

I see great unrest if the corrupt 3 parties try and reverse the vote eutruth.org.uk
Guest - Adam Hiley on Saturday, 17 November 2018 18:29

why don't the Remoaners and F off to Europe if they want just don't come back

why don't the Remoaners and F off to Europe if they want just don't come back
Already Registered? Login Here
Guest
Wednesday, 12 December 2018