Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The logical course now, in the opinion of many, is to have a general election or
another referendum. But in the opinion of many others, this would be
undemocratic as putting the original decision, by 17.4 million people, in
jeopardy. In any case, there is no guarantee that it would resolve the impasse:
more votes may mean still more division and sclerosis – and more passion.
A radical solution would be the break-up of the United Kingdom, allowing, for
example, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which both voted to stay in the
European Union in 2016, to make their own decisions and make their own treaty
with the Union, while Wales and England, which voted to leave, would similarly
make their own decisions. But where would that leave London, which, unlike the
rest of England, voted to remain? And would the European Union agree to
negotiate with what were now in effect separate countries?
We are reminded of the Lord’s words: “A house that is divided cannot stand.”
Believers in democracy claim that it is the panacea for all division, a way of
resolving conflicts in a peaceful and just manner. But the present situation
proves that this is not always the case. In the past, democracy failed because the
people unwisely voted for a person or power bent on destroying democracy –
such as the revolutionary socialists in Russia in 1917, or the national socialists in
Germany in 1933. Today, as far as we can tell, there is no Lenin or Hitler waiting
in the wings to take over the rule of Britain. And yet democracy has manifestly
failed.
Democracy is based on a fiction: that there is such a thing as a single will of the
collective organism called the people, as opposed to the many wills of many
individual people. Of course, it is a useful fiction and serves a useful purpose in
very many situations. But it remains a fiction, and it is important to understand
why it is untrue.
The historian Norman Stone has expressed this important truth as follows:
“Hitler’s democratic triumph exposed the true nature of democracy.
Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the principles
of the people who operate it. In the hands of liberal and tolerant people, it will
produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a
government of cannibals. In Germany in 1933-34 it produced a Nazi
government because the prevailing culture of Germany’s voters did not give
priority to the exclusion of gangsters…”
But the Leavers care less about economics than about political sovereignty
and national identity. They argue that Britain in the European Union is no
longer a sovereign nation in that decisions passed in bodies such as the
European Commission and the European Court of Justice can overrule
decisions passed in the British parliament or the British courts. In other words,
Britain is a vassal state whose real ruler is no longer the Queen in parliament
but the (usually unelected) institutions of the European Union. This is not
disputed by the Remainers, who argue that political sovereignty is an
outdated concept in today’s globalized world whose problems can only be
solved by global or at any rate regional “super-nations”. Moreover, there is the
strong feeling among Remainers that the European Union represents
modernity, and that if Britain wants to be part of the modern world and
prosper in it she must integrate herself into it and not “miss the train” as it
leaves the station for a radiant if indeterminate future. But Leavers see this as
integration into a socialist super-power that exercises a despotic dominion
over its member-states. As that notable anti-socialist Margaret Thatcher said in
her famous Bruges speech in September, 1988: “We have not successfully
rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them re-imposed at a
European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from
Brussels.” And, as Norman Stone writes, “she said, about the tired metaphor
of not taking the European train as it was leaving the station, that ‘people who
get on a train like that deserve to be taken for a ride’.” 1
In the end, for the British citizen this argument comes down to the
question: do you feel yourself to be primarily European, and only secondly
British (or English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish), or primarily British? Remainers
see Brexit as a threat to their European identity, while Leavers see it as
reasserting their British identity. It is this question that particularly divides
the generations. Older people, who were born before Britain joined the
European Union (then only the European Economic Community) in 1975,
grew up in an independent Britain feeling Britain, not Europe, to be their real
home; whereas younger people, having been born into the European Union
see it as their real homeland. As Anthony Seldon writes, this issue of
1
Stone, The Atlantic and its Enemies, London: Penguin, 2010, p. 596.
“membership of the EU goes to the very heart of national identity. It is not
just about what people think or where they perceive their economic interests
to lie; it is about who they are.”2
Now the American president in 1990 was George H.W. Bush, who saw
European unity as the model for world unity, while the core of that unity
would be the United Nations: "I see a world of open borders, open trade and,
most importantly, open minds; a world that celebrates the common heritage
that belongs to all the world's people.... I see a world building on the
2
Seldon, “J’Accuse!”, New Statesman, 29 March – 4 April, 2019, p. 23.
3
Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), N 15, 1992, p. 16.
emerging new model of European unity. ... The United Nations is the place to
build international support and consensus for meeting the other challenges
we face.... the threats to the environment, terrorism... international drug
trafficking... refugees.... We must join together in a new compact -- all of us --
to bring the United Nations into the 21st century."
Like Marx and Lenin, today’s globalists believe in the march of history.
There is no arguing with History – if you do not want to be crushed by it and
cast into its dustbin… For, as Roger Bootle writes: “European integration has
had an air of inevitability about it. It seemed to be the summation and healing
of the past and the way of the future. Nation states were on the way out, passé.
A united Europe would embody the best of European traditions while
securing Europe’s future in the modern world.”4
But “what is the point of the EU? Is it to link together countries and peoples
that are ‘European’? Is it to link together countries and peoples that are
geographically close together? Is it to link together countries that conduct
themselves in a certain way and are prepared and able to obey EU law? Or is it
simply to carry on expanding as far as it can, because bigger is better, so that
the EU can be regarded as an early progenitor of global government?
4
Bootle, The Trouble with Europe, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2015, p. 31.
5
Bootle, op. cit., p. 42.
There are other issues and nations threatening to undermine the unity of
Europe. The four “Vishegrad” countries of Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and
Hungary have set their minds firmly against uncontrolled migration and the
undermining of their Christian civilization by Muslim immigration; they are
defying ne the EU’s four major principles, that of free movement. These are
very important concerns that are felt in Britain, too – it is generally agreed that
the main motivation for the original Brexit referendum result was fear of
uncontrolled immigration.
And there are other incipient rebellions. Italy now has a government which
is openly Eurosceptic. France has a powerful anti-European party led by
Marine Le Pen. Germany’s AFD party is rapidly increasing its membership
and influence, and its leader recently made a powerful speech in the
Bundestag sympathizing with Britain and blaming the EU for Brexit. So-called
“populist” movements are spreading throughout Europe and threatening the
security of its centralizing elites.
There is a more than symbolic importance in the fact that the first country
to vote to leave the EU apart from tiny Greenland has been Britain. Was not
Britain the first country to build a truly global economy through its control of
the seas in the nineteenth century? And was it not Britain that first formulated
and popularized the principles of laissez-faire economics and parliamentary
democracy that the globalists pay lip-service to even if they disregard them in
practice? How then can this founder-member of the New World Order want to
leave the NWO? What does this tell us about the NWO?
The globalists do not want to face this question squarely, for it would
undermine faith in the radiant future of the globalizing movement, the
twenty-first century’s equivalent of the twentieth century’s Comintern. They
didn’t mind that tiny Greenland wanted to leave. But Britain must not be
allowed to leave. Or she should be allowed – but at such a cost to herself that it
would put off any other potential leavers. Otherwise, the whole global
experiment might be in jeopardy. So the Europeans continue to assert that the
problems of Europe can be solved, not by a reassertion of the sovereignty of
the nation-state, but only by “more Europe” – that is, the tightening of the
screws that bind the states of the European super-state together until the
nation-state is suffocated completely…
6
Drapper, “Why we MUST leave the European Union! Part One”, The Red Pill Report,
February 15, 2017.