• A second referendum: Walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

      1 comment

    Last night on BBC2’s “Newsnight” there was a lively discussion on the topic on Madam Mayhem’s “Brexit Deal” and the prospects/desirability of a second referendum. The journalist Jenni Russell aka Mrs Stephen Lambert, stated quite adamantly that given that a No Deal Brexit would be catastrophic it should NOT be on the ballot in a second referendum.

    There is a big problem here, and we are not referring to the big problem Mrs Lambert correctly fears, namely a No Deal Brexit. Again your Editor craves the reader’s indulgence by the use of yet another phrase; “Punching above it’s weight.”

    Ever since the week commencing Sunday 2nd September 1945 when the Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signed the Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri (BB.63), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has sought to maintain as far as possible it’s Great Power presence on the world stage. Each generation of British politicians – and this applies right across the mainstream political spectrum presently represented, on the left for the Labour party by such as by comrades Corbyn and McDonnell and on the right by such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Bernard Jenkin, have followed this policy in the manner of an addict, unable to give up the source of their addition. For that source is the most addictive of all: Power or as it is now, the perception of power. This is why, throughout the now long period of public spending cuts, both the Labour and Conservative governments have kept the policy of 0.7% of GDP spent on foreign aid. Because this 0.7% is the rent that the now denuded UK must pay to retain it’s membership of the so called Great Power Club and all the privileges that go with it: Membership of the G7/G8, retention of it’s Permanent Member status – with veto – on the UN’s Security Council AND having HM The Queen and her successor, HRH the Prince of Wales confirmed as Head of the Commonwealth. Another expensive addiction – one Comrade Corbyn is not addicted to – is the so called UK “independent” nuclear deterrent.

    These addictions have required the diplomatic/political support of the USA to maintain them. The USA’s concern about what started off as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, caused the US State Department to adopt the policy of advocating and later supporting the UK’s membership of the European Community/European Economic Community/European Union.

    Since that time, the UK’s politicians have come to the same realisation as French politicians – EC/EEC/EU membership actually assists in projecting their country’s presence on the world stage.

    Here is a FACT: There are THREE important EU member states. They are in order of importance (to the EU):
    #1: Germany
    #2: France
    #3: the UK

    Each country’s relationship with the EU is unique notwithstanding that legally (by the common treaties) they are essentially the same.

    For Germany, the EU acts in the manner of a cloak. Germany – for reasons that are fundamental to its politics and social cohesion and consensus – uses the EU as a vehicle through which to project it’s influence on the world stage. Here is a FACT: Germans who are not political extremists (the great majority) are very uncomfortable with the idea of an openly powerful Germany.

    For France, the very opposite applies! Much has been talked and written about the importance of the Franco-German axis. These two countries have indeed a special relationship. It is in many ways a relationship that is full of contradictions and opposites. Germany eschews open political power and is fervently “non nuclear”. France is the opposite and intervenes military in it’s Francophone former empire and has a truly independent nuclear deterrent and has most of it’s electricity generated by nuclear power. France not only has nuclear powered submarines but a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

    Then we have the curious case of the UK. To describe the UK’s relationship with the EU, one can be reminded the late Right Honourable Michael Meacher, the Member for Oldham West and Royton. Mr Meacher, a left wing Labour MP was sometimes jokingly referred to as “Tony Benn’s representative on Earth”. Well the UK can be considered as the USA’s and the anglosphere’s representative in the EU. The other very important aspect of the UK’s membership (and one repeatedly pointed out by UKIP members) is that the UK is punctilious for observing and enforcing all EU regulations and directives and of course, paying in more to the EU than it gets out!

    Here is another FACT: Some Remainers and Remaniacs suggest that the UK’s behaviour during the Brexit period has cause the EU to be pleased at the prospect of Brexit and will happily shout, Good Riddance! From the rooftop of the EU’s HQ in Brussels. There is a word to accurately describe this: BULLSHIT.

    Here is another FACT: The EU is the sum of it’s parts! The loss of the UK will weaken it, not only economically but politically and diplomatically.

    Thus as we can see, the EU is the vehicle whereby and through each country’s unique relationship with it, each country gets to project itself onto the world stage in the manner it and it’s people are most comfortable with: For Germany it disguises her power, and influence – much in the manner that a significant shareholder in a company uses a nominee. For France and the UK it is as a lens to magnify their power and influence. For all three countries there is a price to may: Loss of Sovereignty.

    For the UK, it’s politicians have an additional burden: it is illegal! The details of this illegality has been explained at length on repeated occasions by this organ and therefore we will not repeat them here.

    Much is talked by what are now described as “Brexiteers” and what used to be described as “EuroRealists” of how the EU is a recreation of the Soviet Union and is undemocratic.

    To describe the EU as a second USSR is again bullshit. However what has been called “the democracy deficit” needs to be dealt with. The democracy deficit is in fact a central part of the EU’s structure. Paradoxically however this has not been set up to diminish the Member States but in fact to enhance and preserve their influence! You see, democratically accountable power lies in the parliaments and the governments of the member states. That way, the government of each state exercises an influence on the governance and policy of the EU. Were as some Lib-Dem Remainiacs want, the EU was to elect it’s government that would reduce the member states to the status of provinces.
    Those of us who want to re-establish lawful sovereign government in the formerly sovereign United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, MUST be prepared to be A: Called “Little Englanders” by the Remaniacs and B: Accept that the UK can not have the role of “Great Power” on the world stage after Brexit.
    What we will detail here is the relevance of the second part of today’s title: Walking the walk and not just talking the talk. The phrase first used in June 1921 by the Mansfield News, an Ohio newspaper.

    Given the long established desire of the UK’s politicians to maintain their presence on the world stage, they have to address a particular issue: Hypocrisy.

    UK politicians regularly take assorted foreign despots to task for failing to meet proper standards of democratic due process and human rights. President Vladimir Putin is a frequent object of their attentions.

    If therefore journalist Jenni Russell’s suggestion that were the only two choices on the ballot paper of a second referendum to be either Madame Mayhem’s “Brexit Deal” and Revoking Article 50 (Remaining in the EU), doubtless President Putin will direct Russia’s state media organisations to point out the glaring democratic deficit inherent in this.

    Here is another FACT: Many in the Leave campaign – including every member of UKIP (except one – Moi!) – advocated leaving the EU without a deal. Indeed, it’s leader Mr Gerard Batten has advocated the desirability of a Brexit via repeal of the ECA 1972.

    This county proclaims it is a democracy. A key criterion of democracy is open debate and freedom of choice. This means that the wishes of millions of Britons – to leave the EU with no deal – should be on the ballot paper.

    Therefore the question should be: How should the referendum be structured. We already know it has to incorporate it’s own legal foundations as such the Act has to suspend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16). In our recent article (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2018/11/27/a-second-referendum-bah-humbug/) we suggested that for three choices (Madame’s Deal/Remain/No Deal) the Alternative Vote or Supplementary Vote is used. However, given the momentous consequences of a vote for a No Deal Brexit, there is a very strong case for employing the Second Ballot system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system).

    The disadvantages of the Second Ballot are time (two rounds of voting) and voter fatigue. It’s advantage is that the voters actually have the final say.