Short of some Johnsonian deus ex machina, a last-minute fortuitous turn of events, or a glaring technical oversight (one can but hope), the third legally enshrined Brexit deadline of 31 October will pass us by and the UK will still remain, in one form or another, in the clutches of the EU’s anti-democratic tentacles, 3½ years after the referendum. SR readers will not be surprised. Disgusted, enraged, and horrified – yes; but surprised – no.
It is hard to fathom the depth of the parliamentary coup d’état that has overthrown our democracy. Even though the revolution has indeed been televised, the majority of people in the now redundant electorate seem blissfully unaware of the establishment’s coup de grâce administered to our democracy. Worse, many are aware but simply do not care, so long as their Remain side wins, by whatever foul means necessary.
Orwell’s dystopian future is manifesting itself before our eyes. It is bad enough that the media is under the control of the Remainer establishment, peddling politics disguised as knowledge, pretending to offer balanced reporting but deliberately failing to do so in their Newspeak of misleading labels, misrepresentations and sins of factual omission; it is a theatre of spectacle in which Remainer MPs are portrayed as heroically defending democracy while they are in the act of throttling it (‘War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength’). But now there are worrying signs that parts of the legal establishment are also playing their part in supporting the new post-democratic regime, with the Supreme Court having again seemingly nailed its colours to the anti-democratic cause. Any politicisation of the courts is a scary thing. Lenin. Stalin. Mussolini. Franco. Salazar. Hitler. All perfectly legal and approved of by the highest courts in their respective countries. The UK’s parliamentary coup looks as if it is being, or will be, endorsed by the country’s highest courts – which are, of course, comprised of unaccountable, unelected judges.
Have you ever met anyone who voted against the EU Commission in European elections? No. Nor has anyone else. Because there is no one to vote for. It is a variation of the one-party state system. From its foundations to today, the EU has been, and is, designed to be anti-democratic. In some ways Brexit is now just a sideshow of democracy: nearly 50 years of being in hock with the anti-democratic EU has so vaccinated the political ‘élites’ and their establishment acolytes against the ‘disease’ of democracy they are enthusiastically eradicating what little is left of it in Britain so the great unwashed – the unvaccinated – do not succumb to the democratic bacillus.
The 2016 referendum gives a clear result. Parliament blocks it. The General Election of 2017 gives a clear mandate. Parliament blocks it. How do they scupper these democratic mandates? They pass laws to do so. Every time they encounter the outcome of an electoral vote or other democratic processes they don’t like, they simply block it with new legislation. They can keep doing this until the cows come home – and they do. Only the votes they approve of are allowed. That is not democracy. That reeks of legislative dictatorship.
Remainer MPs hollowly maintain that they are defending their constituents from the inevitable calamity of Brexit, especially a No-Deal one. But that is merely a speculative assertion: no one can prophesise the future. And even in in the unlikely event that Brexit (should it ever happen) does turn out to be an economic disaster, then that is the price of democracy.
With Brexit and democracy being lined up in front of the new regime’s firing squads, what is there we can do? A boycott of voting? Our new masters would still take a majority of a 10% turn-out as a mandate and would anyway overturn any results they did not find congenial. Refusal to pay taxes without genuine democratic representation? The judges would be as keen to throw refuseniks in gaol as they are to prevent real criminals entering them. The establishment will confidently and smugly rely on the sentiment expressed by Samuel Johnson in Rasselas back in the mid-18th century commentating on the distance between rulers and ruled: ‘While courts are disturbed with intestine competitions, and ambassadors are negotiating in foreign countries, the smith still plies his anvil, and the husbandman drives his plough forward; and the necessaries of life are required and obtained.’
If Johnson cannot invoke that god – or, more likely, demi-god – from the machine, perhaps all we have left in the pending post-democratic age is that consolatory state described by George Eliot: ‘that mood of defiance in which the mind loses sight of any end beyond the satisfaction of enraged resistance.’
Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?