The Referendum: A Reply to A.C. Grayling
[The philosopher A.C. Grayling has demanded that Parliament should ignore the result of the Referendum on Membership of the European Union.]
The aim of the EU was to destroy the UK, so pulling out of the EU is dodging UK suicide.
If I favoured the warmongering EU [which I never did but always held it in hatred] I would never say it was good for the UK as that is very clearly false. Its aim is a new nation where the UK is broken up as zones of the new super-state.
The devolution to break up the UK also broke the Labour Party, as it aided the SNP to take over in Scotland.
Despite his little book on the imbecilic Ludwig Wittgenstein being fairly good, Grayling seems to be rather weak minded himself.
Grayling says that the referendum is not de jure binding but he was told that MPs promised to honour it. So the MPs have a duty to honour it and the de jure meme is not relevant.
He was told the country decided to leave. He feels that only as only 72% turned out it was not the country that decided to leave after all but why should that be germane? The other 28% had better things to do. Often when England decided it was merely the King that did so.
Yes, the Conservative manifesto promised a referendum and to endorse the result but Grayling feels it also promised to go on with the national suicide of the EU membership too. He seems to lack the wit to realise that this means the latter was not thereby promised.
He says, falsely, that the result of the referendum was not clear. But it did clearly vote by a majority to leave the EU.
Clearly, there is nothing complex about whether the UK pulls out or whether it stays in the EU till the EU polishes the UK off. What Grayling imagines the people were unclear on is unclear.
The nature of the EU is clear enough, even though Grayling seems to know nothing about it. My guess is that he is pretending to be ignorant.
People who do not like immigrant know full well what they do not like about them. The main thing immigrants do is to destroy the sense of a proper homeland for the nation. They rob nationalists of their home. That is a massive external cost and it cancels out what many economists think of as the gains of mass immigration.
The government and the media have told one and all that immigration was an economic boon the last 20 years. 40 years ago they said the opposite. But lately they have forgot their old case against mass immigration but none seem to vie the two cases. Instead a blind eye has been used to look at the older case.
Where are the quarter of the population who do not feel the costs of mass immigration? Grayling seems to think if they knew what he imagines he knows then that cost might be worthwhile but that looks like his own ignorance, and even his crass bigotry, to me.
Ditto on the nature of the backward EU.
The state did run a long campaign to get the public to vote for the EU. They did say it was valuable for months. But Grayling wants them to do yet more.
What negative ideas of mass immigration were false? Grayling does not seem to know.
Why should ex-Pats vote?
If the 16/17 year olds had the vote presumably Grayling would today be on about the 14/15 years olds being left out.
The principle of no taxation without representation is sheer cant, as Dr Johnson made clear before 1776.
It is not absurd that the executive had the power to take the UK out of the EU without a referendum. Indeed, it is a de jure point on par with the advisory point on the result of referenda.
Similarly, the UK can pull out of NATO, the UN, the WTO and the rest of the backward organisations that Grayling imagines have merit.
The globalised economy is not tightly organised, its insecurity is one reason many fear it.
National sovereignty is not empty rhetoric.
Equality and Political Correctness is cant and empty rhetoric. So is the claptrap about the EU being about peace when its aim is for power and war.
Yes, we will abandon EU citizenship.
UK education does not look up to much.
Whether UK youth are locked out of the EU depends on the EU.
Why does the backward Grayling value those Orwellian super-states?
What does it matter that the UK is minor power?