Remainer Refuseniks are still not prepared to emerge from the jungle over six years since the Referendum. Lt Hiroo Onada of the Imperial Japanese Army finally ‘surrendered’ in 1974, nearly 30 years after his government had capitulated to the Allies. He probably fancied a change of location having spent 29 years in the Philippine rainforest. I’m sure Remainiac last-ditchers will last longer even than that. Mind you, a secluded country estate near Chipping Norton is somewhat more bearable. You will have noticed how for them Brexit is solely responsible for every ill that besets our country: empty supermarket shelves, travel chaos, inflation – you name it, Brexit is to blame. Global events are not allowed to taint the purity of their thoughts.
But one new example of this surely takes the biscuit: Brexiteers and their ilk are responsible for the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, thereby curtailing abortion opportunities in America. Yes, you read that right. That left-liberal organ, the London Review of Books, recently published 15 large pages of reaction to the Supreme Court decision. Nearly 30 contributors offered their opinions. In the true tradition of the liberal commitment to diversity, all the contributors were women and all were of the view that the court’s judgment is ‘a very bad thing’. In an earlier, less tolerant age, we might identify these ladies as bluestockings; certainly, many of them are of genuinely intellectual and cultural standing.
The one that caught my eye most is the distinguished British historian Prof Linda Colley, who teaches at Princeton University. Apparently, the campaign to overthrow Roe .v Wade ‘shares points in common with the pursuit of Brexit. Both were spearheaded by activist and focused minorities, Bolsheviks of the right’, no less. ‘Opposition to Roe v. Wade came not just from conservative evangelicals, but also from those hungering’ for a godly, nostalgic America. ‘Many who cherish such notions – like many of those who supported Brexit hoping it would enhance prosperity and sovereignty – will be disappointed’. Er, that’s a really tenuous link between the two, isn’t it? Are we equating individual human life and motherhood with an anti-democratic political institution hellbent on expanding its power? Oh, apparently we are.
She’s not finished; According to the professor, ‘the parallels between Brexit and the politics of abortion have to do with government systems as well as people and ideas’. Gosh! The deeply anxious prof worries that, ‘it is hard to see how stability and a valid level of democracy are to be secured without, on the one side some measure of compromise between the UK and the EU, and on the other, some negotiated levels of secure access to abortion across the whole United States.’ In other words: democracy doesn’t work when the other side wins.
For good measure, Prof Colley ends with another dig at ‘the poor quality of the organisation and thought involved in the Brexit referendum’. That’s your fault, you bunch of knuckle-dragging rubes. Of course, the Remainers ran a just perfectly civilised and erudite campaign. Er, only they didn’t. Their campaign slogan might as well have been: ‘If you vote Brexit, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!’ Oh – and they lost.
Anyway, now you know: Brexit is the source of all that is wrong with the world (or at least the liberal view of it). Such is their fantastically muddled thinking, there will still be some Remainiacs shouting that out from their jungle fastness 29 years from now.
‘Opposition to Roe v. Wade came not just from conservative evangelicals, but also from those hungering’ for a godly, nostalgic America.”
— This statement is wrong. People don’t oppose Roe v. Wade because they yearn and hunger for a “godly, nostalgic America”, rather they oppose Roe v. Wade because they believe in states rights. They understand that you cannot have centralization and liberty; the two are incompatible. The Federal Government has no business telling state congressmen what laws they must pass. If you believe in self determination, then you must oppose Roe v. Wade. If you support big central governments with unlimited power, then you support Roe v. Wade. There is nothing prohibiting Alabama’s congress from making abortion legal.
The reason Alabama will most likely ban abortion is because the people who live there don’t like it. They don’t agree with it. They believe life begins at conception or quickening, and the laws will reflect their wants and desires. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
This decentralization is the primary difference between the U.K., and the United States. It’s why the U.S. has historically been less totalitarian.
And btw, this is true about Universal Health Care. There is nothing prohibiting New York from implementing in their version of Europe’s health care system; they reason they don’t, is because the people don’t support it. They don’t want to wait three months to see a specialist. They don’t want some thug in Washington telling a doctor what they can and cannot do. They don’t want top down government.
Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t ban abortion across America. It returns the rights to the states. Tell your totalitarian left media to report accurately. Then, you might be informed.
A note to those who voted Leave: you won the vote, so stop whingeing. Those who didn’t (such as Liz Truss, the great windsock) clearly didn’t believe the lies told by Johnson, and they have been proved right.
There’s a very obvious link; the failure that is feminism
Just call them Nazi-lovers. That’s what anyone besotted by the EU effectively is.
@ Fiscal McPhee
People opposed to immigration, same-sex and mixed-race propaganda, fractional reserve banking, wars against Muslim countries, cultural degradation, rap music, free trade dogmatism, communism, woke legislation and mixed-ability classrooms, are also called “Nazi-lovers”.
Incidentally, the EU began as the ECSC designed to prevent German militarism and its Anti-Racism & Anti-Semitism Monitoring Unit is besotted by “Nazi”-hatred.
There was a case for remaining BUT uniting with other patriots across the Channel to eradicate the bureaucracy, uniformity and wokeness, while retaining access to food, raw materials, technology and a guaranteed market. We still have the problem of “external factors” in trade, the sell-out of our assets to foreigners beyond Europe and outside our old “Dominions”, a global banking debt-system, and a future as a non-European Afro-Asian island with Beijing replacing Brussels. As for abortion, there is a re-emergent Christian European movement against the murder of viable unborn humans, and a white natalist movement that you don’t see here. Also, we need to resist Duginism.
Quite. The question ‘How has Britain benefited from Brexit’ is a perfectly legitimate one, given the shambles we are in. Unfortunately, the slogan ‘Global Britain’ is just that. In practice it has boiled down to continued mass immigration (the brightest and the best) and the flogging off of our assets (FDI). This is good news for the City, but not for the average person.
Britain won’t have a chance to benefit from (or suffer from) Brexit until Brexit happens. Are we free from EU regulations? No. Do we control our borders? No. Have we repealed any of the stupid “human rights” legislation? No.
Brexit is a dead letter unless our rulers start to implement it, and we have no prospective rulers who show much inclination to do so.
The worst of both worlds?
What else is new in the long bumpy sequence of political follies from zenith in 1902 to zero in 2022?
Why? A feeble government, am uncorralled Civil Service who long ago forgot who they serve, and bloated bureaucracy in every corner of the public sector. We’re done for. FUBAR.
Meanwhile, the increasingly desperate BBC asks, “Has Brexit squashed our edible insect industry?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-62429421
(Warning: The video features some revolting creatures. It also features some insects.)
All together now: There was an old lady who swallowed a superfood….
Des Cohen may gave been connected with Soros, whose behaviour told some home truths about UK “sovereignty” 30 years ago, but this astute economist’s recent Open Democracy article “Who Owns Britain?” is depressingly informative, and still being overtaken by events. Not much “sovereignty” if you are allowed to “possess” the home but fire-sale the furniture, and leave the doors open for squatters and burglars. Orwell’s Airstrip-One, Oceania yesterday, Eastasia tomorrow?
I do hope so.
@ Fiscal McPhee
May we take this comment as a vote for the Chinese Communist Party? If so, why not get your one-way ticket to Hotan labour camp, Xinjiang, asap?