The Coming Brexit Betrayal

It’s getting difficult to escape the subject of Brexit.

James Delingpole:

The Remainer Deep State is killing Brexit.

Just consider for a moment the last few days’ shenanigans in and around Parliament.

First the concocted hysteria about the barracking of Remainer MP Anna Soubry, designed to recast ordinary Brexiteers as mindless, fascist thugs.

Next two extraordinary pieces of ad hoc legislation rushed through in the last few days, eagerly ushered in by the Remainer Speaker of the House John Bercow, and voted through by a Remainer-dominated Parliament, designed with the sole purpose of frustrating the “No Deal” Brexit that is now Britain’s only way of getting the full Brexit it voted for in June 2016.

The corruption, the abuse of process, the partisanship, the betrayal of the democratic process, the lies, the cant, the play-acting, the skullduggery have been so shameless and blatant as to beggar belief.

It’s no wonder the ordinary folk who voted Brexit are growing increasingly restive and bitter. The Remainer Establishment — or Deep State, if you prefer — is snatching Brexit away from them; and it’s so arrogant, so complacent, so contemptuous of the public that it’s scarcely bothering even to hide its tracks.

I’m not in the least bit surprised by any of this. It’s what I expected. The political class is deeply attached to Europe, and they were never going to let a referendum detach Britain from the EU.

It only remains to be seen exactly how Brexit will be annulled.

But I don’t think it’s going to make much difference in the long run, because there’s a nationalist populist revolt rapidly mounting all over Europe against the EU and its political class, and it’s set to sweep them all away. For example, Germany’s rapidly growing AfD:

‘It’s time for Dexit!’: Germany’s AfD party say the country should consider following Britain out of the EU if Brussels ‘allows the Islamization of Europe’ to continue

The AfD said it would back Dexit if its demands for reform are not met by 2024

A party manifesto ahead of May’s EU elections called Islam a ‘danger to Europe’

The document said the EU had become ‘undemocratic’ and could be dissolved

The about-to-be-completely-discredited (after they’ve thwarted Brexit) British political class is going to find that Britain has simply managed to remain in a rapidly disintegrating EU in which there are nationalist populist governments in nearly every country. For them it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire.

In Britain the Brexit betrayal will likely see the emergence of new political parties, and very likely the decay and extinction of most (if not all) of the old ones. I expect to see Nigel Farage as the leader of one of these new parties.

The EU globalists will hereafter be fighting a long retreat from all the institutions they now control.

And, if the EU doesn’t completely disintegrate, the coming new Europe will be one in which national sovereignty will be returned to all EU member countries (Britain included), and the Brussels bureaucracy dismantled, the euro currency discontinued, and the European court disbanded. All that will remain of the old EU will be some sort of Council of ministers to consider pan-European concerns.

One small blow to the EU delivered by the Trump administration over the past few weeks:

The European Union’s super-state aspirations have suffered a setback as Brussels realises its “ambassador” in Washington D.C. was downgraded without notice…

Its pride has been dealt a blow by the realisation that the Donald Trump administration in the United States has downgraded its diplomatic status without notice — something it only realised when its so-called “ambassador” stopped being invited to certain important events.

The EU is going to die a death by a thousand such unkind cuts.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Coming Brexit Betrayal

  1. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Fortunately the “generous” nanny state tobacco prohibitionist bullies of the Australian government are extending urgent international aid, so the UK will be saved the dreadful imposition of devising post Brexit propaganda pack “shock horror” quit or die images…obviously a major priority.
    The article describes introducing shouty government propaganda positively, evidence of their warped and perverse beliefs. 🤯

  2. Timothy Goodacre says:

    We should abolish Plain Packaging after Brexit or at least revert to sensible Swiss style packaging.

  3. Joe L. says:

    OT: I happened upon this article: As cancer mortality declines, gap between rich and poor emerges, which claims that deaths related to 4 major cancers are down as compared to ~1970, but have decreased more among the rich than among the poor. And (of course) the article claims these declines are due to … you guessed it:

    The declines in the 4 cancers are mainly due to less smoking and advances in early detection and treatment, Siegel says.

    However, take a look at the graphs that they use to support their claims:

    Note that 3 of the 4 cancer mortality rates appear to be down among both rich and poor–all except lung cancer. In fact, lung cancer mortality rates have actually increased among the poor since 1970, and have stayed exactly the same among the rich. So, first of all, their claim doesn’t match their data, because clearly not all four of the cancers mentioned have seen declines in mortality rates, not even among the rich. Also, isn’t it quite strange that lower smoking rates would supposedly be responsible for the decrease in mortality among these other cancers but would not have any effect (actually a negative effect, in the case of the poor) on lung cancer mortality?

    The author goes on to “explain” this anomaly as follows:

    The 4 major cancers — lung, breast, prostate and colorectal — all show declines. (Lung cancer deaths have decreased since 1991, but the Axios chart above shows an overall increase since 1970 due to the majority of women smokers picking up the habit later than men.)

    Let me try to get this straight. They claim that lung cancer death rates have actually been decreasing since 1991 despite the fact that the numbers show the rates are still increasing today–that’s just because women started smoking later than men. WTF?!?

    It gets better. In the same article they actually admit that lung cancer mortality rates have, in fact, not improved:

    Survival rates for most cancers have improved, except for lung and pancreatic cancers, which tend to be diagnosed at a more advanced stage.

    So which is it???

    This article isn’t about some rich vs. poor “health inequality.” It’s just another poorly-concocted lifestyle hit piece full of lies presented as “science” in order to convince people that Antismoking tactics have been worthwhile and also to encourage applying these tactics to the next group of Health Heathens:

    And deaths from some cancers, mostly related to obesity, continue to rise.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Empirical evidence is ignored when it doesn’t;t support the antismoker ideological biases. True believers don’t want facts to get in the way of dogma.

    • Lepercolonist says:

      Well done, Joe L.

    • Philip Neal says:

      Male and female smoking rates have been equal since at least 1970 and the supposed 30-year lag between male and female lung cancer rates refers to women taking up smoking from around 1930. Supposed differential smoking rates between the sexes cannot possibly explain differential lung cancer rates over the past 50 years.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.