THE post-referendum assault by the metropolitan elite on the people’s vote to leave the EU has been relentless; a brilliant PR operation funded by millionaires and billionaires and organised by the highest level spin doctors and global political operators, notably Tony Blair. Charles Moore listed the vast phalanx of Remainer activism in his Telegraph column:
‘Once you had featured Mrs May, Philip Hammond , Greg Clark, Amber Rudd , David Lidington , David Gauke etc, from the Cabinet, added the Grieves, Letwins, Boleses etc, from the Tory benches, thrown in the Right-wing members of the shadow cabinet, Sir Vince Cable, the Independent Group and the entire SNP, you would have to fit in the unelected ones – the governor of the Bank of England, a swathe of Whitehall mandarins, the CBI, the BBC , the university vice-chancellors, the TUC, the great majority of the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal, and even – nowadays – the Daily Mail.’
Given the enormous resources of this army, it is extraordinary that a positive argument for the UK membership of the EU, an unreformable and undemocratic bureaucracy, is still totally lacking. This army, moreover, claim that their Leave opponents are thick and uneducated, that they voted in ignorance, that the Remainers alone have the brains to steer the UK in the right direction. Insult and smear are their stock-in-trade, but never a reasoned case for membership of the EU project. The EU claims to be a matrix for a body of nations ceding their national sovereignty to the unelected central managerial administration year on year, albeit camouflaged, with the ultimate aim of a federal European state. That means that democratic accountability of nations gradually drains into the managerial control centre. And this is supposed to be a good thing for western liberal democracy. Remainers desperately want this and want it ‘for the future’, ‘for their children’. In effect they want a non-democratic future, and their children not to have ‘a meaningful vote’ but a vote for a pantomime Parliament not controlling their nation.
The case for this policy of ever-decreasing democracy is never articulated by our Remainer intellectual and moral giants. At the heart of their fanatically held euro-enthusiasm lies – a vacuum.
Janet Daley devastatingly lays bare the Remainer project: ‘The irreconcilable Remainers in the Commons are threatening to lay down their lives to advance the power of Parliament over the elected government in a way that makes a bonfire of our historic institutions – with the explicit goal of then handing that power over to an unaccountable European oligarchy. Meanwhile their supporters in the media who are sworn enemies of neo-fascist populism advocate something close to eugenics as a solution to the continued popularity of Brexit. It’s all very confusing.’
Morally the forces of Remain aim to subvert the very clear referendum result which expressed the decision of the people on the issue of our continuing membership of this EU rolling project. The disagreement had been rumbling on for years; at last the people were asked to decide, and they did settle the debate. There is no moral case for refusing to abide by this referendum. The Swiss are astonished at the turpitude of those obstructing and reversing the democratic vote.
There is a narcissism about the whole Remainer enterprise of killing the UK decision: that they alone are fit to make decisions about the future of the UK. One particularly vicious line of their attack is to accuse Leavers of being not only stupid but also old, as if the likes of Ken Clarke, Heseltine, the vast sprawling gerontocracy called the House of Lords were youthful and sprightly. The leave vote embodied vast numbers of young voters. Remain is creating a tribalist anthropology: ‘us and them’, the nice and intelligent against the dullards and ignorant. But again, where is their core rational and moral argument for the EU project of sucking power from democratically accountable governance into a monolithical bureaucracy of top-down power and control? Why are those who object to this project deemed stupid and ignorant whereas proponents are deemed enlightened and supporting the way of ‘the future for our children’ as being controlled by an unaccountable bureaucracy, a disenfranchised future – will their children really thank them for that?
All those luvvies, FT columnists, vast hordes of politicised civil servants, BBC pundits and ‘comedians’, Lords and Prelates, the ‘anywheres’, the elite, have they not a vacuum at the very heart of their assumed superiority? If not, what is their defence of the rolling project driven by Selmayr, Barnier and German bankers and car manufacturers, pauperising Greece and Italy and now, it seems, the ordinary people of France? Why is this project a good, rather than a quite deliberate gradual repression of freedom and diversity?
We ignorant and uneducated still await an answer from the robotic remainer geniuses.