Brexit Monday

Brexit’s opponents, including the Prime Minister and the Uncivil Service, have done an amazing job of ignoring what the people voted for while at the very same time telling them that “Brexit means Brexit”

They are skirting near bringing on something not seen since 1642, the English people taking up arms in opposition to their government. Think of how the entire modern world has been built since that date, and largely by the British, as well, without them getting sideways with their government. But now they are.

Dr. David Starkey is an eminent historian, although one I often disagree with, But recently he wrote in the £ Daily Mail and he is entirely correct.

Historians should avoid colourful predictions, however tempting they might seem.

At the moment I’m touring the country with a lecture called Henry VIII And The First Brexit, which compares the king’s eventual clean and triumphant break with the Roman Church with our own messy and humiliating attempts to extricate ourselves from the European Union.

But audiences really want me to talk about the present.

Henry VIII’s First Brexit is a very strong parallel which I draw often as well. And don’t forget that first Brexit led to almost everything in the world today.

‘What do you think is going to happen?’, they ask. I shrug my shoulders and explain that, since history only works by looking backwards, those historians who pose as prophets are charlatans.

My audiences think I’m copping out, of course – and they are right.

I haven’t always been such a purist. Three years ago, I published a book on Magna Carta to mark the founding document of our Parliamentary constitution, that had been sealed 800 years earlier in 1215.

In holding a medieval king accountable to his subjects – or some of them, at least – Magna Carta was a revolutionary step and is rightly celebrated.

But I ended on a note of caution. All is not well with Britain or our politics, I said. ‘Is it silly to think there is a touch of 1215 – a whiff of revolution – in the air?

And it came true in June 2016, with the decisive referendum vote to reshape our politics once again and leave the European Union.

The referendum was a very British revolution. And it’s been followed by a very British counter-revolution, which shows every sign of succeeding.

Don’t be deceived by the lack of violence or the comparative good manners of those now seizing control. This is a coup, and what is at stake is the nature and legitimacy of Parliament itself.

Ruled by comfortable, smug elites, Parliament is choosing to ignore the ordinary British people as they attempt to hold power to account.

It is no exaggeration to say that British democracy, which stands in direct line with Magna Carta, is now unravelling before us.

If today’s self-satisfied MPs and Ministers – I have already described them as a Parliament of Pygmies – have no time for the voters, they have little time for history, either.

Do keep reading, he’s well worth your time.

Along that theme, what they have consistently done all along is preach what we have come to call Project Fear, to attempt to frighten the British (especially the English) people into line. It has never worked, but like Hillary, they persist. Here is MP Peter Shore in 1975, before the vote that sadly took the UK into what was then the EEC.

Some things never change. And lions are not leopards and so have no spots to change.

And this:

I’ve said before, I was born an American, and would be one by choice, but if I had to be something else, It would be English.


 

In a slightly connected story, I was reading on the site of the Museum of the Bloody Hundredth, the 100th Bomb Group of the 8th AAF, which is on their old field, using the buildings, near Diss, Suffolk, England. Two things came to mind. First, who but the English would spend their time, and other resources, to maintain an installation of another country’s armed forces, sure we are friends, maybe cousins, the treatment we have received in East Anglia, from the dark days of 1942, right up to the present is simply amazing. And something else.

First, that’s an American military band, marching and playing in a small English city, and for all concerned, it’s pretty much routine. It’s an all American program as well, Bagley, Sousa, and Glenn Miller. and all old friends. And we are, Bury St. Edmunds isn’t very far from Dickleburg where the  100th’s museum is, and where on September 1, 1944, Glenn Miller and the AEF band played about an hour’s worth of a concert. Of course, Major Miller was lost over the channel that winter, but here’s a funny coincidence.

The band had played Tibenham Airfield, not far away, that afternoon, and another American officer you may have heard of was stationed there, and most likely in the audience, a guy called Jimmy Stewart. Not only would he become Major General Stewart, USAF, but 10 years later, he would play Major Miller in the Glenn Miller Story.

And I just can’t imagine the amount of time, effort, money, and love that goes into the efforts that the British make to commemorate the time when we more or less overran their country. Yes, it was a friendly invasion, but it was an invasion none the less.

Mostly an interesting story, but there are so many like it that somehow Britain almost seems like home to us, in a way that no where else in Europe does. Be a shame to lose that. And that too is something that Her Majesty’s Government risks.

A Stab in the Back: Brexit

Click to embiggen

Samizdata brings us “this twitter thread from Matthew Goodwin.”

One critical point about vote for #Brexit is that it marked the first moment when a majority of British people formally asked for something that a majority of their elected representatives did not want to give. It was always destined to lead us here

Contrary to popular claims, we now know from a dozen + studies that Leavers knew what they were voting for. They had a clear sense about how they wanted to change the settlement; they wanted powers returned from the EU & to slow the pace of immigration

We also know that for large chunks of the Leave electorate this vote -a rejection of the status quo- was anchored in high levels of political distrust, exasperation with an unfair economic settlement & a strong desire to be heard & respected

I do not think that it is hard to imagine what could happen if Brexit is delayed, taken off the shelf altogether or evolves into a second referendum that offers Remain vs May’s deal, which Leavers would view as an illegitimate ‘democratic’ exercise

We have evidence. (1) Professor Lauren McLaren has already shown that even before the first referendum people who wanted to reform the existing settlement but who felt politicians were unresponsive became significantly more distrustful of the entire political system

(2) Professor Oliver Heath (& others) have found that as British politics gradually converged on the middle-class at the expense of the working-class the latter gradually withdrew from politics, hunkering down and becoming more apathetic

This is partly why the first referendum was so important, where we saw surprisingly high rates of turnout in blue-collar seats. Because for the first time in years many of these voters felt that they could, finally, bring about change.

And we’d already seen an alliance between middle-class conservatives and blue-collar workers to try and bring about this change when they decamped from mainstream politics in 2012-2015 to vote for a populist outsider

So I think that we do know what the effects of a long/indefinite delay to Brexit, or taking it off the table altogether, will be. Either we will see a return to apathy & ever-rising levels of distrust which will erode our democracy and the social contract from below, or …

Another populist backlash, anchored in the same alliance of disillusioned Tories & angry workers who -as we’ve learned- are very unlikely to just walk quietly into the night. If anything, this will just exacerbate the deeper currents we discuss here

More on that thought later. But yes, this is very close to what I am hearing, almost entirely Brexiteer. Over at Law and Liberty, Samuel Gregg takes a close look at the politics involved and such.

That, however, is not how most of the British political class sees Brexit. As in the lead-up to the referendum, gloom-and-doom is being voiced from across the political spectrum at Westminster. This owes something to the fact that Prime Minister Theresa May’s tenuous hold on the House of Commons—not to mention her own Tory party—means that her government has to negotiate with multiple groups with wildly divergent views of what Brexit should be or if it should even occur. To say that this process has not been going well is an understatement. It’s further complicated by the fact that many government ministers and MPs from all parties, the majority of the civil service and large segments of the press opposed Brexit, have never accepted the referendum result, and resent the entire exercise.

Keep reading but my take is that Britain has the same problem that we do, the bureaucracy has revolted and taken over the joint with the acquiescence (often verging on outright support) of the legislators themselves. The voters no longer matter to many of these.

Dan Mitchell tells us that economically a Hard (I actually prefer WTO) Brexit will be far more beneficial to Britain than any deal, let alone the travesty of May’s withdrawal agreement. He’s right and he’s also where we found the picture that leads this article. More sense and more cartoons in the article.

My views on Brexit haven’t changed since I wrote “The Economic Case for Brexit” back in 2016.

It’s a simple issue of what route is most likely to produce prosperity for the people of the United Kingdom. And that means escaping the dirigiste grasp of the European Union.

And finally, Mark America takes a look at the Brexit situation noted in our first link, in an American historical context.  His conclusion is the same as mine.

What happens when a referendum is held, but three years later, the government responsible for enacting the results of the referendum has failed to comply?  We’re about to learn the answer to that question, as the people of the UK have been betrayed by their government.  The people voted for “Brexit” very nearly three years ago.  Their government promised to carry out their wishes.  They wanted to leave the European Union.  Instead, rather than accede to the lawful demands of the people, the government has conspired to ignore those results, spending most of the intervening time trying to re-litigate the case in order to convince the public that it should not “Brexit.”  At this point, given this coup d’etatagainst the rule of law, the people of the UK would be justified in any action undertaken to forcibly remove the current government, cast off the parliament, and reform government anew.

Keep reading, he makes the case as well as anyone I’ve read. Well, except this guy:

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

With his pen, Thomas Jefferson that day secured for America the support of about a third of Britain’s population. And now again, those same words call Britain itself, to hold itself to the higher standard that the English speaking world has always embraced. Will they? That is up to them. Remaining free, whatever the cost, is a judgment each of us must make for ourselves. But, I know what my decision would be. We shall see what sounds the Gales of April bring to our ears.

Grace, Jussie Smollett, and Atticus Finch

Actors Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Brock Peters as Tom Robinson in the film ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, 1962. (Photo by Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images)

Ben Domenech had some thoughts that started with the Jussie Smollett fake crime, but they didn’t stop there. All in all a very good Federalist piece.

The Jussie Smollett claims of surviving an attack by racist, homophobic, MAGA-hat wearing supporters of President Trump prompted a swathe of too-soon takes about what his reported incident says about the country, with an assist from all too gullible members of the media, and a few presidential candidates too. Now, with a bit of a remove and thanks to the dogged reporting of local Chicago reporters, the story of this botched attempt at a hate crime hoax takes on a very different character. John McWhorter argues that it’s an indication of the rise of “victimhood chic” – and he’s right. But there’s something else here, too – a lesson in the shifts in assumption about our political opponents, and the decline of grace in America.

Consider Aaron Sorkin’s twist on the dramatic tale of another race-focused hoax, in his Broadway version of ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’. As you may know, this Jeff Daniels’ led version of the story is meant to be the tale from an adult perspective, and Sorkin does a good job of explaining the differences in a recent sit-down with Marc Maron. Sorkin struggled with giving Atticus Finch a flaw – necessary for the iconic figure to have a character arc. From the perspective of Scout the child, Atticus can do no wrong. But this is an adult take, so Atticus must become Atticus over the course of the play.

The flaw Sorkin chose to inject into Finch is telling: that he shows too much grace and forgiveness toward racists. In the interview with Maron at around the 30 minute mark, Sorkin explicitly says that “There were fine people on both sides” is the same as “liberal high mindedness that we’re going to try and understand everyone” and that “it’s bullshit.” In Sorkin’s view, it speaks to the aggressive politics of the times – that Finch is too forgiving of the racism of those who surround him, and that “sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and fight.”

I, and I suspect you, can certainly sympathize with both sides here. We struggle to see the good in our opponents, just as we always have, even as we struggle with the old beast, that wants to take our revenge, even at the cost of the rule of law. That we so far have, is, I think, the mark of a very high civilization. It’s telling I think that in the United States, and in Britain, the forces of tradition display the prudence that Jefferson spoke of, while the French, the Germans, the Italians, and others take to the streets, in large numbers. But we, the Anglos-Saxons, who freed all Europe in the last century, stiffen our upper lips and fight off the urge to revolt, saying there are some fine people on the left. But as demonstrated in the past, there is a point where that forbearance has outlived its usefulness, and then the wrath of the Anglo-Saxons come into play. It is never a pretty sight, for then, these words become operative.

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on, His truth is marching

Cromwell, just as much as Sherman, would recognize those words.

Ben goes on to quote C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity to good effect.

“For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. . . . Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.

“Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.

“The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker.

“If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

He is, of course, correct. We can see it happening with the left, and we can feel the urge in ourselves to go there, as well. But, as Ben ends.

This is a question about whether we are going back into darkness. Belief that your tribe is good and other tribes are evil is what everyone thought for most of human history. The human heart tends toward tribalism before tolerance. We can go back to that world. It still lives in all of us. Fighting it is the challenge, particularly at a time when the most audacious thing you can do is show some grace.

Brexit, There Isn’t Really a Choice

Some of you are likely wondering why I have become so insistent on a clean WTO Brexit. Well, it’s pretty much in what the EU has written. This is a list of the clauses of the Lisbon Treaty which the UK will have to accept to remain in the EU, or indeed to take May’s cretinous withdrawal agreement.
, who pulled this together.

You only have to know the following about Selmayr and the EU.

Check out the Lisbon Treaty if you wish:

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen the move is fully cancelled but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation police
17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth
18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.; Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc
19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
20: The UK loses control of its international policy
21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

This is the future of what the youths of today think we stole from them?
They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons.

Want it in one line? Great Britain becomes a province wholly controlled from Brussels, of no account in its internal affairs, or even less in international affairs. Remember what happened in 1940? Yeah, me too.

What Parliament and the government are setting up here is not 1940 rewritten, but 1642, and the first of the Cousin’s Wars, and I note without comment that quite a few of the American Cousins went home to fight for their family.

This may be on point, one hopes. Because what Her Majesty’s Government are doing is selling the Throne of England, and all those other places we love so much, to Belgium, ultimately to Das Vierte Reich.

And an update: If you would like to know why Britain must do this now, Timothy Bradshaw, writing in The Conservative Woman explains it.

Hell Is Too Good for Some People

We don’t speak here a lot about fake news. One reason is because it is so pervasive that it carries a whiff of carrying coal to Newcastle about it. But in a world in which the US sells rice to China… And there is also this: Fake news maliciously hurts people. Witness those kids from Covington, who behaved better than many of us would, and whose lives and families are being threatened because, not in spite of, but because, they are better people than their detractors.

But it is not only the US as this from Bruce Bawer at FrontPage Magazine shows.

I heard the news last week during a quick headline break on Nigel Farage’s daily call-in show. Fifty-five men in West Yorkshire – fifty-five! – had been arrested and interrogated in connection with rape-gang allegations.

That was that. The story was summed up in a couple of sentences and lasted no more than a few seconds. Then it was back to the show.

Later I looked online for more details. Finally I found a 200-word item in the Mirror. But that seemed to be it. I couldn’t locate anything at all about the rape-gang arrests in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, or Guardian.

Think about that, a press so jaded that the story of 55 men arrested for organized gang rape of junior high girls over a period of years, and then trafficking them into prostitution and drugs, with the connivance of the (at least) local government and police, just like thousands of other men have been, leaving who knows how many families broken, is not worth a single word in Britain’s largest papers, left or (sort of) right, or on its state propaganda agency, the BBC . How many families hurt and girls destroyed by that conspiracy. By government and press acting together to suppress the law. Certainly an instance of fake news. Then there is this:

Take the case of Bailey McLaren, a 16-year-old working-class boy from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. In November, footage of him jumping Jamal, a 15-year-old Syrian-born classmate, in the schoolyard, apparently in October, went viral. Although nobody was seriously harmed in the fracas, the British media rushed to report at length on it. Because Bailey held Jamal down while pouring a bottle of water on his face, he was described as having committed an act of “waterboarding.” Because Jamal was Syrian, Bailey’s action was characterized as “racist.”

In fact no context whatsoever was provided along with the video; the reason why Bailey did what he did was unknown. In the video, he can be heard saying only two words – “You bastard!” – which suggest not prejudice but personal grievance. In any event, what Bailey did do, even though it was arguably uncivilized and even if it were to turn out to have been utterly unprovoked, was no worse than any number of other donnybrooks that occur every day in schoolyards around the world.

Yet the British press went bonkers over it. The Mail, the Standard, the Telegraph, and the Sun were only a few of the papers that ran long, highly charged accounts. The Mail called the video “distressing” and “sickening,” saying that it had “shocked the country.”

Naturally, the police brought Bailey up on charges. Top public officials, too, got into the act. A Member of Parliament named Nadine Dorries “called for ‘serious action’ over the bullying and added the UK should ‘open its arms’ to those facing persecution.” Another MP, Tobias Ellwood, tweeted: “This bully, his parents, the school where this occurs and the onlookers who fail to step in, all have big questions to answer.” Ellwood told BBC Newsnight: “I worry that we are becoming a ‘walk on by’ society where we’re allowing space for these things to happen.” […]

On December 5, Tommy Robinson, who in the midst of his own personal drama had admirably sought to uncover the facts of Bailey’s story, released a video in which he maintained that Jamal is not the innocent victim painted by the media. A woman told Tommy that her daughter, a pupil at the Huddersfield school, had sustained serious injuries as the result of an unprovoked attack by Jamal. In addition, Tommy interviewed the parent of a boy whom Jamal had also allegedly bullied. Tommy even spoke to Bailey himself, whose own testimony was persuasive and moving.

On January 18, Tommy provided a video update. Tommy said that Jamal had threatened Bailey in class just prior to their contretempts and that that, not racial or religious prejudice, was the motive for Bailey’s assault. Tommy accused police of seeking, after the schoolyard video went viral, to relocate the McLarens to a “Muslim ghetto,” specifically to a Muslim-owned B&B populated by drug addicts and prostitutes (an action reminiscent of Tommy’s own transfer, last summer, from a relatively safe prison to a more heavily Muslim one).

According to Tommy, the McLarens wisely refused to move into that B&B; instead, Tommy and some friends helped set up them in a secret location. But what to do now? At this point, practically speaking, the boy and his family are refugees – only, as Tommy put it, they’re not receiving anything like the kind of sensitive, compassionate help that the British government routinely grants refugees (however dubious their refugee status) from other countries.

Bailey’s sisters, who are eleven years old, have been inundated with rape threats and haven’t been able to go to school for two months. (Tommy noted that they’re living in a city, Huddersfield, where “sixty Muslim men” have been put on trial in the past year for raping girls of around that age.) As for Bailey himself, he celebrated Christmas by trying to take his life with a drug overdose. After he spent several days in a hospital being nursed back to health, Tommy personally took him “to see mental-health teams” because the authorities hadn’t done so.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” is an aphorism almost always attributed to Voltaire, so we will too. In any case, it is very apt here, where we speak of a country where it is anathema (and a hate crime) to criticize anything a Muslim says or does.

And so we see a perfectly fine young man all but destroyed by the government, police, and press for a schoolboy brawl against a bully. While thousands of Muslims rape, drug, and sell underage English girls consistently and in an organized manner, without even publicity, let alone sanction by the authorities.

Who is in charge over there? Cause it sure as hell is not the people who are the same kind and decent people they’ve always been. And don’t even imagine that the American press is any better because it is not. Pitchforks are far too kind for people who cover up such things.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

The Price of Freedom`

Ever have one of those days, where you just don’t have anything to say? A pain, aren’t they? I’m having one today, as always there are multitudes of things to write about, none of which appeal to me. It happens, especially when you write every day.

So, what to do. Well, how about this, Gavin Ashenden, the Queen’s former Confessor, wrote the other day about the price of freedom. It’s an excellent article which I agree with completely, and you may have missed. So here it is.

“I have nothing to offer you except ‘blood, toil, sweat and tears’ ” promised Winston Churchill when he stepped in as Prime minster in 1940. Churchill warned that retaining freedom would come at a high and sacrificial price. The people heard, agreed and paid it.

“Brexit would be bad for my diocese because it might temporarily turn Kent into a lorry park” threatened the Archbishop of Canterbury this month. He was urging people to give up their freedom and repudiate Brexit for the sake of convenience. Kent is a beautiful place. It was a very worthy convenience, but still a convenience. […]

What has surprised and shocked me on the other hand are the threats and fears a no deal outcome has had on people. When the Archbishop warned in his grim tones of the danger of his diocese being turned for a while into a lorry park I wanted to reply “but what price are you willing to pay for you and your church’s freedom”?

And there lies the weakness of democracy. At every election politicians bribe the people with the promise of further comforts and advantages if only they will vote for them; but it ought to be the other way round.

At times of election we ought to have politicians asking for our vote on the grounds that they are going to make life more difficult for us. More difficult because to achieve some valuable or noble goal.

It might be redistribution of income; it might be tightening our belts in the face of overspending. They could ask us to forego certain conveniences in order to protect the ecosystem.

And that’s where the weakness of democracy (the least worst system for government we have) lies. It an increasingly comfortable culture votes can only be bought for self-interest instead of won for virtue. […]

Do the ‘young’ know or remember anything of the BSE crisis in 1996, where responding to European demands we killed and incinerated a million healthy cattle, only to find they still refused to lift an export ban on beef? Even the Euro-friendly Government of the day suspected this had turned into a secret attempt to wage economic warfare against a trade competitor rather than putting health issues first.

(See Archbishop Cranmer’s excellent article :-

http://archbishopcranmer.com/brexit-beef-eu-faithful-bse-trusted-liberty/ )

Have they read anything at all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago where the historical realities of an anti-democratic modern, brutal and murderous Left wing regime was allowed free rein?

Freedom to travel without inconvience is placed the top of their political bucket list, but what are they prepared to pay to retain their democracy and freedom of speech and movement?

There doesn’t seem to be much awareness that freedom comes with a price.

Freedom to vote and to practice democracy and freedom of speech have come at the price of imprisonment in some places and torture and death in others.

It will be a pity of the price of passing our own laws, choosing our own values, guarding our own freedoms come at the slight inconvenience of filling in forms, or paying £10 for a visa to visit another country, but maybe that is one of the choices we face; inconvenience or acccountability?

Do read it all at Freedom costs. Are we willing to pay the cost of being free?

It’s not a question only for the Brits, although Brexit makes it clearer there than elsewhere. It’s a question that all men and women have to answer for themselves. I fear that many Americans, like the Remoaner Brits, have forgotten that, and are willing to sell our glorious heritage for crap, and not much crap at that.

One hopes they wake up before it’s too late.

%d bloggers like this: