Many august commenters in the MSM have said that ‘old farts’ have sold the yoof of this great Kingdom down the river by voting for ‘Brexit’. What the origin of the phrase ‘sold down the river’ is, I do not know. Perhaps it has something to do with slavery in the old USA.
Believe it or not, the populus newspaper rag, The Sun, produced a double page pull-out which showed the breakdown of votes in certain ways. One of those ways was by age. Here is that breakdown:
Breakdown of votes by age:
18-24: L (leave) 27%, R (remain) 73%.
25 -34: L 38%, R 62%.
35….: 48%, 52%.
45….: 56%, 44%.
55…. 57%, 43%.
65+: 60%, 40%.
What is most noticeable about that table is the quite sudden change in views at around the age of 35. But it is worth a word or two about the 18 – 24 and the 25 – 34 groups. Why do those groups think that the EU is wonderful? What are the factors that those yoofs think are important? In any case, do those yoofs have sufficient life experience to decide? Could it be that the middle aged and older aged people have that life experience which would render their opinions more weighty than that of the the yoof?
And it is precisely because no one knows that the overall result is the only result that matters. If a proper academic ‘study’ took place, then the reasons for youthful compliance might be revealed. Will such a study happen? Of course not! If such a study took place, it might well be revealed that shagging in Magalluf is the most important thing in the minds of ‘the yoof’. Not all of ‘the yoof’ are university students, intent upon becoming big names and big earners on the EU gravy train.
OK. The above is both serious and jocular.
But what must the immediate consequences of Brexit be?
I see no reason at all that UK MEPs should continue to be paid. I do not know how they are paid, and who pays them, but I see no reason for those arrangements to continue. In fact, it might be interesting to know who paid MEPs [Members of the European Parliament]. Where did the money which was transferred into their individual bank accounts come from? Or were they paid in gold coins? No one knows.
How complicit was our ‘political establishment’ in the corruption? And, most of all, why have our MPs not been in the slightest bit interested in the corruption?
HOW COULD THAT BE?
Perhaps the answer is in their own corruption.
Perhaps my tearful concerns in my last couple of posts have revolved around the loss of hope. Many of us, although maybe just a few of the whole population, ‘hoped’ that European cooperation would end physical and ideological violence. That has not happened. ‘Physical’ violence has increased and ideological violence has increase ten-fold. The persecution of smokers is violence of an extreme kind. The extreme nature comes from the long-term plans to exterminate smokers, and to exterminate tobacco plantations. But we might ask who the persecutors are. For the most part, they are academics. Thus we see that the academic ‘demos’ actively promotes the persecution of smokers. They have said so themselves. They have said that violently taxing smokers will ‘help’ smokers to quite. They have even said, via their ‘research’, that smokers WELCOME bans and exorbitant taxation to ‘help’ them to quit.
The ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ – the simplest way to describe it is to say that women held hostage ‘fell in love’ with their captors.
Be in no doubt. The acquiescence and subservience of ENGLISH MPs has come from the humiliation heaped upon them by the like of Sturgeon. OK, Ms Sturgeon, spell it out. Spell it out.
I think that ENGLAND (and Wales, if they like), should tell Sturgeon, publicly, to put up or shut up. STOP MESSING ABOUT AND WASTING VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY. Get the people of Scotland TO PAY for the SNP, since ENGLAND will no longer do so.
Many political things, which have been hidden in secrecy, are being forced to the surface. The surface of what? The surface of a pool of septic green phloem and green snot.
What is important in a big, big way, is that politicians must REJECT the influence and power of academics. In fact, academics have wrought enormous damage because they regard human beings as a ‘MASS’, a thing, a ‘population’. A ‘population’ is a thing. It has no humanity.
Had the EU had thoughts of ‘humanity’, it would have seen that Syrian refugees are just that – refugees. They are supplicants, and must accept what they are given. They have no rights at all. ‘Human Rights’ are real, but they are negative. They mean the right NOT to be persecuted, and not to be cheated, and not to have your property rights taken away from you, and not to bullied and assaulted intellectually. Odd though it might seem, and cruel though it might seem, ‘supplicants’ do not have rights.
We have drifted all over the place, but we have the right to do so. We have ‘freedom of speech’. But we ought not to forget that we also have freedom to ‘act’, provided that we do not actually harm others.