What Are The Immediate Consequences Of Brexit?

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?

Who knows?

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.

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “What Are The Immediate Consequences Of Brexit?”

  1. inisfad Says:

    I would question the veracity of the information that you get from The Sun – it is imperative to understand that all media has a bias, and reports their ‘news’ in accordance with that bias. The Sun is owned by Murdoch – who does not hide his disdain for Brussels (and has actually advised that he wished Brexit to pass as Brussels ‘does not listen to him’.) These kinds of newspapers no longer practice anything but ‘yellow journalism’, and perhaps the fact that the younger generation had an opinion diametrically opposed to the older is because they now get their information on the internet, rather than through main stream media.
    I also don’t understand the idea that ‘supplicants’ do not have human rights – a supplicant is solely someone who asks someone in power for something, in a humble way. If that is the case, then frankly, we are all supplicants – considering that none of us are actually in power…..

    • junican Says:

      The info published by the Sun was from Lord Ashcroft Poll of 12,369 people after they had voted.

  2. Tom Says:

    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.


    There was an MEP expenses scandal worse than the Labour expense scandal back in 2007 or there-about, but a lot of attention was diverted away from it. MEP’s get huge expense reimbursements on top of huge salaries to rubber-stamp whatever is presented to them – thus why they are subservient and do as they are told by Brussels – for the huge amount of money they can skim off the top.

    In the article below, it indicates payment is from taxpayers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024504/Tory-MEP-sleaze-buster-quits-expenses-scandal-admitting-having-family-payroll.html

    The Tory leader in the European Parliament quit the post in shame last night after he was embroiled in a sleaze scandal.

    Giles Chichester stepped down after admitting he broke Brussels rules. He had channelled more than £440,000 in political expenses to his own company.

    The MEP had tried to brush off the payment of taxpayers’ money to a firm of which he was a paid director as a ‘whoops-a-daisy’ moment.
    —-
    What MEPs get as their bribe for rubber stamping, no questions asked:

    ——–
    And it’s not just from UK, they are ALL corrupt bastards thieving public monies, liars, corrupt to the core, taking as much as possible on the gravy train Brussels makes sure they are entitled for their loyalty and rubber stamping, no questions asked, behaviour.

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/ex-mep-to-serve-prison-in-cash-for-laws-scandal/

    Former Slovenian MEP Zoran Thaler was sentenced last week to two and a half years in prison by a Ljubljana court following his involvement in the “cash-for-amendments” scandal from 2011, a journalistic spoof aimed at “testing MEPs’ ethics”.

    Zoran Thaler, who is also a former foreign affairs minister of Slovenia, reached a plea bargain last month with the prosecution in his country in a corruption case which forced him to step down from his job as MEP in 2011.

    ——–
    Back to UK, UK MEPs take the cake when it comes to being traitors to the UK. In the past, traitors were strung up and hung as examples to others not to take taxpayer money for corrupt causes that benefit only themselves at the same time destroying the UK and its people. The same should be applied nowadays to ALL these filthy traitors, starting from the top, since it is the same thing as all traitors have done in the past. Same. Traitors. All of them.

    http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2011/Mar21_ALTEREU_cash_for_laws_scandal.html

    Civil society coalition ALTER-EU calls for stricter ethics rules for MEPs and a mandatory lobby register

    Brussels, 21 March 2011 – An alliance of transparency campaigners today urged a root and branch overhaul of ethics rules for MEPs, following the revelations published in UK newspaper, the Sunday Times (20 March) exposing how three MEPs were prepared to accept payments in return for tabling amendments in the European Parliament [1].

    • junican Says:

      I think that you have fully illustrated your concerns, Tom. If it is easy to fiddle, then there will be fiddling and lots of it. The easier it is to fiddle, the more fiddling will go on.
      But I think that there is a big difference between fiddling your expenses and accepting bribes.
      I don’t know about MEPs voting as they are told to vote. We are totally ignorant of what discussions go on within the political groupings, where the discussions happen, how decisions are made and by whom, and how those decisions are promulgated.
      There are huge problems.

  3. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, in looking at your age chart, I just realized that it, in and of itself, supports the “pissed-off-smokers” theory that Frank articulated through the analysis of the economic-class split in voting. Those under 35 would not have been nearly as aware of the degree of destruction to the pub culture and even the working culture of the UK brought about by the smoking ban!

    Oh… and as incredible as it seems, it looks as though the Remainers are QUITE serious about usurping the power of the referendum and saying that they’ll keep on voting until the people cooperate and vote the way the politicians tell them to. See:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/is-there-a-bloxit-option-how-the-uk-could-avoid-leaving-the-eu-after-brexit-referendum-1567668

    Lammy said in a statement: “Wake up. We do not have to do this. We can stop this madness and bring this nightmare to an end through a vote in parliament. Our sovereign parliament needs to now vote on whether we should exit the EU…”

    And, a question: Does the Mayor of London always look all that wild or did they just deliberately use a pic of him after his hair got blown into a Beatles mop-top etc?

    😕
    MJM

    • junican Says:

      First, BoJo, the EX-mayor of London does indeed always have that mop of hair. Why not? Many years ago, I adopted what I call ‘my easy-care hairstyle’. I cut my hair myself at the front and my daughter cuts the back. My ‘style’ is not exactly a crew cut. The hair does not stand ‘erect’ (if I may use that word). It is sufficiently floppy, probably because it is not all precisely the same length, to point in all sorts of directions. I love it!

      “Our sovereign parliament needs to now vote on whether we should exit the EU”, said Lammy. Erm, no, Mr Lammy. Parliament is NOT sovereign. It is THE PEOPLE who are sovereign. It is THE PEOPLE who are the constitution.

      We shall almost certainly never know if pissed-off smokers swung the referendum. Why? Because no wealthy group would ever fund the necessary research to find out. It would be fun if tobacco companies funded such research, but I cannot see them doing so. Why rock the boat when profits are soaring world-wide?
      I wonder how much the ‘Stockholm syndrome’ applies to smokers? “I didn’t like the smoking ban when it was first introduced. It caused me a lot of sadness and disrupted my social life. But now that it is here, I have fallen in love with it and thank the Government for persecuting me. Even at home, I now go outdoors to smoke”. There are lots and lots of people like that. They let the propaganda and persecution overwhelm their good sense because it is easier that way.
      I think that vapers might have been more important in the sense that they are the most recent people to be demonised, and they are not having it. They do not have that sense of guilt that smokers have. I would be surprised if ANY vaper, even one who only vaped occasionally, did not vote for Brexit. 2,000,000 determined adult vapers is a big force. Add to that, say, 1,000,000 smokers who have not fallen for the Stockholm Syndrome, and you get a sub-group which MIGHT have swung the majority.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: