Category Archives: referenda

Dalrymple: why I voted Leave

screen-shot-2017-01-01-at-14-10-23Dalrymple explains in an interview (from 1:02) that in England, as in many other countries, there is a sense that

the political and intellectual élite has formed itself into a caste that is completely separate from the rest of the population.

Dalrymple voted Leave in the 2016 UK European Union membership referendum

for political reasons. The EU is a political project which will reinforce this tendency to have a small caste that is separate. You only have to go to Brussels or Strasbourg to see people who haven’t paid for their own lunch for 40 years, who’ve never seen anything except from the back of an official car. There’s no possible way of the EU being even minimally democratic, of having checks and balances.

Dalrymple points out that the founders of the EU

intended this from the very first. They knew better; they did not think the population should have any say. We can see this when referenda are held: the result is always against what the political élite wants — and the political élite takes no notice.

On the subject of the young English people who voted Remain, Dalrymple says that these youths

were of the part of the population that expects to benefit from our highly corporatist State. They expect to be, or will be, in the élite, which is why they are in favour of schemes that are in the interests of the élite.

Young middle-class British Remainers claim to be concerned about ‘the future’, but, says Dalrymple,

if you look at Greece, what future do young Greeks have? 50% of the young in Greece are unemployed. In Spain it’s 45%, in Italy 25%.

This does not worry young middle-class Britons.

It doesn’t worry them because they are not going to be among the 45% who are unemployed.

It does not worry them because they are

not of the youth-unemployment class.

Sturgeon is no ray of sunshine

Screen Shot 2016-06-28 at 07.53.42Physiognomy, writes Dalrymple,

is an inexact science. Suffice it to say that Nicola Sturgeon does not have a kindly face.

Her concept of democracy, he notes, is

odd. To call it self-serving would be a very mild way of putting it. When the referendum, to which she had not objected, produced a result that she did not like, she said that it was ‘democratically unacceptable’. You can have a referendum so long as it produces the result that I want. In this she is at one with the bien pensant signatories of the petition to have another referendum, and another, until the population gets it right.

When in the last general election the Scots nationalists

obtained every single Scottish seat in Westminster bar one, leaving more than half of the Scottish voters completely unrepresented, not a peep about democratic unacceptability was heard from Sturgeon. One can well imagine what she might have said, in her sour and grating way, if the nationalists had polled 40 per cent of the votes and not obtained a single seat.

Like fascists,

she knows all about plebiscitary democracy: she has an instinct for it. When the Scots vote again for independence, you may be sure that the million Scots living in England will not be allowed to vote.

And the Scottish nationalists who want to leave the UK but remain in the EU

accuse people who want to leave of xenophobia!

Why corrupt élites so love the unitary European state

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 11.03.45 A ‘project’ that no one but the political class wants

To bypass the wishes of the people, writes Dalrymple, politicos

reintroduced the constitution as a treaty, to be ratified by parliaments alone. Only the Irish had the guts—or was it the foolhardiness?—to hold a referendum on the issue. Unfortunately, the Irish people got the answer wrong. They voted no, despite their political leaders’ urging that they vote yes. No doubt the people will be given an opportunity in the future—or several opportunities, if necessary—to correct their mistake and get the answer right, after which there will be no more referenda.

What could explain the Irish obduracy?

Several explanations came forth, among them Irish xenophobia and intellectual backwardness. The narrowest economic self-interest was also said to have played a part.

Another explanation

was that Irish citizens had been frightened by the proposal of the French finance minister to equalise tax rates throughout Europe, thus destroying unfair competition (all competition is unfair, unless the French win). No prizes for guessing whether the high tax rates of France or the low rates of Ireland would become the new standard.

Anyway, what does it matter if referendum after referendum, in Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, and just possibly Britain, defeats the proposals of the European political class?

The proposals can always be enacted regardless, by other means. What the people of Europe want is irrelevant.

The political class

loves the unitary European state precisely because it so completely escapes democratic or any other oversight (let alone control).

For this class the superstate is also

a giant pension fund.

However, Dalrymple warns that

tensions and frustrations in Europe have a history of expressing themselves in nasty ways.