Donald’s position in the office of President is secure. This seems wrong in so many ways. Donald lost the popular vote. His mandate is therefore open to question. His supporters are openly trying to rig the result with procedural challenges.
The disturbing issue is that there has not been nearly enough public anger about how Donald got into office despite only gaining a minority of the vote. There should be more demonstrations, more protests, not fewer. This issue should not go away. People should not accept this. The elevation of Donald to the position he occupies is an affront to representative democratic politics. It exposes the political system that he leveraged to obtain office as a sham in terms of how it actually listens to the concerns of ordinary people.
Sharp tactics have been used in the voter registration process to increase the support of what he stood for, to no avail. He still lost. In numeric terms he came second in the vote and that is what counts, nothing else. There are still parts of the country that are trying to reverse the electoral result based on a geographic division of the vote that was set down for reasons of administration, ignoring the national vote. This is not true democracy as we understand it.
Donald Tusk is, of course, only one of the five Presidents (plus two others) of the European Union that British voters rejected in the referendum on June 23. Five Presidents, dear reader, who have rather stealthily been foisted on us and over whom we have no direct say. The only other president most people can name is old soak Jean Claude Juncker, the Luxembourgois corporate tax-dodge facilitator who is President of the European Commission. Tusk is President of the European Council. This is not to be confused with the President of the Council of the European Union, which itself should not be confused with the Council of Europe, which is something completely different. Here is a picture in pretty colours that explains all this.
Britain’s membership of the EU has been reducing the value of a Westminster vote for years as power has been quietly surrendered to unelected bodies in Europe. It has not been offset by the introduction of voting rights for the European parliament. Voting in Westminster and Strasbourg has limited ability to change the direction of travel of the European Union. It cannot vote out Europe’s decision-making bodies. We could not even control immigration to our shores, and our country is a very attractive destination for migrants thanks to a national culture that has for centuries promoted wealth, safety and freedom much better than any other country in Europe.
We wanted this loss of democratic influence over policy to be put into reverse. This is what we voted for. This is what we are getting.
Other European voters have also realised this as well. The consequence has been that any opportunity to halt the EU in its tracks is being taken. The most recent was in a referendum that wanted to curtail the powers of an elected national parliament in Italy. Denied the chance directly to affect EU decision-making, the voters are voting against this undemocratic unreformable body as a whole.
The exceedingly well-paid unelected technocrats in Brussels have blamed popular voting as the root cause of Europe’s anguish in the first half of the 20th century and thus have decided to impose a currently benign form of diffused bureaucratic dictatorship, where the popular vote has no effect on policy. To do this without fuss, the EU avoids directly altering national policies on hot-button issues like health, education and defence, and instead focuses on economic relationships, regulating and controlling commerce and energy use. However, if you control a man’s economics, you control the man. This also applies to energy usage, which is why so many people with communistic desires work through the Green Party.
The reaction of the losing sides in the USA and UK votes have been similar. They have stated that the results have given comfort to right-wing extremists who now feel empowered. The activity of morons are being exploited for political gain. A loner with mental issues is denounced as a fascist terrorist and a harbinger of future disorder instead of being the loner he actually is.
To paraphrase Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, if they don’t like it they kinda stick a swastika on it. This is simply part of the sport of swastika-throwing. Suggesting that some imaginary National Socialists somewhere in time and space might possibly approve of an outcome somehow does not mean it is a bad outcome, unlike the Left’s fawning over Castro and the blind adulation over the slow death of Venezuela at the hands of its demented leaders.
This does not stop the Left from talking up a fascist takeover by stealth and the rise of Brexit and Trump as part of it. The journalist Rachel Shabi asks in a video address posted today on The Guardian’s website ‘If fascism arrived tomorrow, would we recognise it?’
The Left in this country is promoting hysteria over democratic votes with their usual paranoia over non-existent National Socialists. I suspect the reason why this is a video address instead of a posted or printed article is that if it was written down, it would be too absurd even for The Guardian to publish. As it is, commenting on the article is disabled even though The Guardian does practise censorship, probably to avoid the inevitable ridicule that Ms Shabi’s wild and unfocused opinions would attract.
But, wait a minute. Mass demonstrations in city streets against democracy but in support of an unelectable leadership? Hyperbolic denunciation of political foes? Targeting of identifiable political enemies accused of secret plots and protocols to destabilise society, and just waiting to pounce? Promoting fear and uncertainty as the result of an open democratic vote? Exaggeration of events for political advantage? Overt censorship of opinion in radical journals? This is becoming increasingly recognisable. Surely even the most naïve but vigilant Guardian reader can see what is going on here?
(Image: David Holt)
