RUTHFULLY YOURS

• The lack of concern for a ‘hard Brexit’ shown by both the voters and commentators during the referendum in 2016, was due to a few factors. Those who wanted out, the ‘Leavers’, were interested in only one thing — a clean break, whilst the ‘Remainers’ were so certain they would win the vote, they felt it unnecessary even to contemplate the ‘wrong’ result.
• In 1973, when Britain joined the ‘European Economic Community’, as it was then known – there was no similar referendum on joining Europe. The people were simply never consulted.
• After experiencing firsthand the broken promises and negative effects of an EU membership in which the British public had no say, it was an easy vote, when the referendum came around in 2016, to ‘Leave’. It was time to flee from an authoritarian system that had no direct elections, no transparency, no accountability, and no mechanism either for un-electing anyone or for leaving. It was, sort of, a Roach Motel: one can come in but not go out.
• Alarm began at the introduction of the Euro currency in 2002, and the eradication of our partners’ domestic currencies: these moves magnified the true aim of the European Commission — to control, and make uniform, every aspect of our lives.

What we have learned in Great Britain from the ‘Remainers’, and the US as well, is: there are a multitude of ways to snub the result of a democratic vote.

Britain’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson was accused by his opponents of staging a ‘constitutional coup’ by suspending parliament to block MPs from preventing Britain from finally leaving the Europe Union on October 31.

The Labour party’s leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, chimed in — claiming that the new prime minister is behaving like a ‘tin pot dictator’ — thereby inflating the hysterical reaction to Johnson’s bid finally to push through the will of the people.

It has been three years since Britain held a referendum on whether or not to remain in the EU. There was never any talk of a ‘deal’. The vote was simply: leave or remain. The nitty gritty, should we vote to leave, could supposedly be worked out in the run-up to the departure date.

The lack of concern for a ‘hard Brexit’ shown by both the voters and commentators during the referendum in 2016, was due to a few factors. Those who wanted out, the ‘Leavers’, were interested in only one thing — a clean break, whilst the ‘Remainers’ were so certain they would win the vote, they felt it unnecessary even to contemplate the ‘wrong’ result.

Like a parody of former Secretary of State’s Hillary Clinton’s expected success in the US presidential election the same year, they believed they would win the day — so what would be the point in thinking ahead? Also parroting the Clinton disaster, they have been crying about it ever since. The winning margin, they claim, was not overwhelming enough. The Leave campaign, they alleged, lied to the voters by diminishing the risks of leaving and falsifying the figures. Britain, they insist, simply must have another referendum.

In 1973, when Britain joined the ‘European Economic Community’, as it was then known — there was no similar referendum on joining Europe. The people were simply never consulted. There was a lot of fanfare — along with overly optimistic leaflets sent out to schools up and down the country during the drive to get us into the ‘EEC’.

After experiencing firsthand the broken promises and negative effects of an EU membership in which the British public had no say, it was an easy vote, when the referendum came around in 2016, to ‘Leave’. It was time to flee from an authoritarian system that had no direct elections, no transparency, no accountability, and no mechanism either for un-electing anyone or for leaving. It was, sort of, a Roach Motel: one can come in but not go out.

Added to that, if adding were needed, was not just the increased cost of living since Britain became a member state. The wish to leave was also not based on abandoning the familiar metric or decimal system that had been in place for so many years. The reason, furthermore, did not include the mentally defective instructions coming out of Brussels that dictated conformity in the shape of certain vegetables sold in the supermarkets: straight carrots and cucumbers, and perfectly round tomatoes, potatoes and apples. These petty directives served as aggravating factors, which contributed only in complicating the lives of the farmers and producers.

Alarm began at the introduction of the Euro currency in 2002, and the eradication of our partners’ domestic currencies: these moves magnified the true aim of the European Commission – to control, and make uniform, every aspect of our lives. That the UK opted out of the Euro, and managed to hang on to the pound sterling, was perhaps a sign of things to come. Not only did it seem wrong on an intuitive level, to get rid of the Italian Lira, the French Franc, the German Deutsche Mark, etc, it did not — as claimed it would — aid economic growth or political integration.

Either the Remainers have not noticed the detrimental effects of handing over our sovereign powers to Brussels, or they are afraid of change. Whatever it is, those who won the referendum by voting to leave now deserve their own crack of the whip. After enduring — and silently putting up with — the draining, damaging effects of EU membership for so long in the interests of fair play, it is surely time to retake our freedom and independence. Instead of fairness, however, these sore losers, the Remainers, seem to be choosing to flout democracy. Rather than accepting the result and joining forces to ensure a smooth transition, they still are doing everything they can to disrupt the democratic process by — somewhat patronisingly — stating that those who voted ‘Leave’, were confused, misled, or simply a bunch of racist low-lifes who should be ignored. Perhaps those in the Remain camp might learn to take a hard look at the disasters they have brought down on us, and accept the democratic process?

By turning their turned their back on the will of the people for three years and holding the public to ransom, they have given Johnson no other choice but to suspend Parliament. If anyone is looking for a coup, it is they, not the Prime Minister.

Andrew Ash is based in Great Britain.