Small morsel of truth in Guiana-girl’s rant

Where is she? Where is she? Oh dear, she’s fallen in the water:

It would be nice to think it doesn’t matter what the clowns say, that they’re just irrelevant tin cans … but sadly, it does matter what the likes of Gina Miller say because there are actually people listening and voting accordingly, otherwise she’d give it away.

The question is – how many?

‘People don’t understand basic things!’ Gina Miller diminishes Britons’ grasp of Brexit

GINA Miller told the Liberal Democrat party conference Britons still lack an understanding of the Brexit negotiations, blaming politicians for their badly communicated campaigns.

There are misconceptions even between the headline there and opening paragraph.

Far be it for me to agree with the silly bint but she was speaking at this point in her speech of the ‘Brexit negotiations’ themselves, not Brexit overall, although she has pontificated on that too in the past.

Looking narrowly at the ‘negotiations’ only, on one level she’s right but obviously on the broader question – quite wrong. She’s right that the ‘negotiations’ have been a complete mess and deliberately so but wrong that people don’t understand the pig’s breakfast that’s been deliberately made of them.

A sizeable number of people are represented by the cry of “just get on with it”. Quoting anyone at random, Ian Botham was one of those who said to stop all the shilly-shallying and just do it. The proof of the pudding is that we are now ready to walk away with no deal, not paying anything to that monstrosity and we were at that point on July 24th, 2016.

If you need any evidence that people did grasp that, look at the header banner at OoL.  It’s been up there a long time now.

The IMF and WTO are two other faces of precisely the same crowd as the EU – bunch of corrupt global socialists and again, there are those who understand that, those who have long memories. Anyone remember a Pascal Lamy and Doha?  I posted on it at the time and it was in all the news how they could get no agreement – at that time I was marginally involved in all that myself.

Anyone remember DSK?  As bad as Lagarde now.  Yes I know it’s the IMF, not the WTO but this is the whole point – they’re all ravening wolves, thieves of national product, cuckoos on other nation’s nests.  And into that can be thrown the BIS. All of them are the ruling elite.

Leaving the EU and going to one of them is like leaving one lion’s den because you are a meal for that lion, and going to another one.

And Miller is probably right that the politicians understand none of this.  We have exceedingly poor quality people in parliament, devastatingly so.  And Miller wants that bunch to have sovereignty over the EU decision whilst not over the future of the country?  Because inside, we have less and less say as it goes on.

There are just so many things wrong in her seeming lack of understanding of a very, very simple point, the reason so many of us have been so against the EU for decades – it is an artificially constructed rip-off organization which takes huge amounts, gives back some in an earmarked way and was never there to give a boost in trade for this failing country, which may have given it some legitimacy, but was always to be an EU superstate, replete with its own army, under communist politburo leadership.

And we were allowed in so that the greedy of Germany and France could get their hands on British assets to subsidise their own elites.

Plus the City – the City was always in its sights.

From the moment Heath had that secret meeting with the main miscreants about how to hoodwink the British people, it’s been wrong.  And yes they were hoodwinked in 1975 in the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum.

There was talk only of the EEC in the media, not of an EU superstate – Heath made that point clearl.  An economic community only, from which we could leave voluntarily if it didn’t turn out the way we wanted.

Maggie was ambivalent, she accepted the membership whilst getting a better deal. The TV show Yes Minister had it down pat when it said we went in to screw the French, split them off from the Germans and to make a real pig’s breakfast of the whole thing.

The theory was that we had to have a seat at the table to do our damage, it could not be done from outside.  We actually had the arrogance to think we could screw them over, when the whole reason for their acceptance was so that we could be screwed over and furthermore, enslaved in a way Hitler was not able to do.

Our unofficial view did not factor in the US and world trade, it was a Henry VIII view, still alive and kicking, it presupposed we had the ability to influence, which we categorically have not been able to do, not with that shower of tossers in the politburo.

People do not understand any of that?  Well how could they, given what the media releases into the public domain for debate, the main criminals in this the BBC.  That the FCO or whoever it was could so influence the rulers to the point they’d just ditch the commonwealth nations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to that extent was jawdropping to those loyal countries.

At least to the latter two retaining the Union Flag in the top quadrant.

Anyone remember the Knight of the Garter, Robert Menzies? Anyone remember the Rats of Tobruk?  Gallipoli?  Anyone remember a country called Rhodesia?

Parliament is in no man’s land – it has signed away “its” sovereignty it thinks it has and then turns around and this Gina Miller tries it on that parliament, who sold out to the EU in the first place, over and over, should somehow have “sovereignty” over a people’s decision.

How does that work?  It was a people’s decision, not a parliamentary Act and a clear undertaking was given that whatever result came out, that was it, finally and for a generation.

So where does that leave this cow Miller, not even British but Guianan? It leaves the bitch in six inch stilettos teetering over the precipice of Dover.

People do understand, because it’s been polled, that we were leaving an oppressive regime that was now far more than a voluntary alliance of economies – it was now a micromanaging superstate which was hoovering up huge amounts of taxpayer money.

However, Miller is right in one respect – the country is so indebted to the loan sharks out there, the very ones mentioned above, plus Saudi, plus anyone else lending us money to pay for the immigrant and workshy benefits, that there’s nothing left anyway, on balance, which could be called “taxpayers’ money”.

Plus the immigration issue is interwoven through all this – the EU brought that in with the connivance of the British elite, at the behest of the UN and other NGOs.  So the 52% result was a mix of both of those things, not just one or the other.  It really does annoy to see Carswell Tories and even Batten till recently denying the immigration component in this whole issue.

And I do agree that once out, this shower of treasonous tossers in parliament were going to make it even worse.  The essential difference though was that this shower of tossers are elected by the British people, such as they are, increasingly immigrant – the EU politburo of communists is not.  And at the last poll, there were 67% wanting the govt to “just get on wi’it”, true to the spirit of the referendum, not to some Chequers monstrosity.

There is no doubt that May was returned by the skin of her teeth on the basis that she was going to deliver that Brexit, plus it staved off Corbyn and the SNP. We can argue over which was uppermost but all three of those factors were in there.

“Strong, decisive leadership”, remember?  They were well aware of what was motivating the majority in the community, it became their byline.

Now, this post is clearly teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, preaching to the converted in over half the cases but there is still a worryingly large number who do NOT understand, still do not see it.

Nor does Miller … or if she does, she is being disingenuous … evil in other words.  It’s all about the sinecures of the class she feels she married into, they are her sustenance because nationalism is a threat to people like her, to her whole lifestyle.  To the waves of non-British stock invaders.

Yes, this parliament will make a pig’s breakfast of any freedom from the EU but the choice is which of two evils?  The old Russian line of “yes it may well be a fetid cesspit but it is OUR fetid cesspit” applies in this case too.

And parliament is still reasonably free of those invaders although what is at Westminster are the dregs of society – May, Gove, Soubry, Haig, Adonis, Jezza, the rest of Labour except for Field, Hoey, Flint, Champion and so on.

And the reality TV crowd out there in Britland are susceptible to the Gina Millers and any lowlife with an ignorant opinion – ignorant being defined as not supported by history and facts.  Just look at BBC-QT to see these tossers trotted out every single evening.  BBC all female politics show – ROTFL over the political posturing.

In the end, none of the options are thrilling but this still holds true:

http://www.tfa.net/better_off_out

5 comments for “Small morsel of truth in Guiana-girl’s rant

  1. Penseivat
    September 18, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    Using Miller’s reasoning, in the next election, can we demand a second vote for every constituency won by Lib Dumbs, on the grounds of badly communicated campaigns by Tory politicians? I thought not. Her views are very selective, aren’t hey?

  2. Mudplugger
    September 18, 2018 at 12:31 pm

    What people do understand is a simple binary question in a referendum – it was ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ – no ifs, no buts, no conditions attached.
    By a democratic majority, the electorate decided to Leave – no ifs, no buts, no conditions attached.

    What part of that does a party with ‘Democrats’ in its title not understand?

    Now it’s time for J.D.I. – Just Do It. Or J.F.D.I. if that’s too difficult to grasp.

  3. Errol
    September 18, 2018 at 2:07 pm

    “… And Miller wants that bunch to have sovereignty over the EU decision whilst not over the future of the country? …”

    Those people can be bought. They are venal, controllable, manageable. An electorate cannot be. Far easier to pay off a few corrupt wasters than to deal with the demands of 70 million people who can’t be bought with a few shares or a nice dinner out and the bribe of a comfy sinecure after office.

  4. ScotchedEarth
    September 18, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    Of course an electorate can be bought: the entire history of our ever-expanding ‘democracy’ are parties holding out carrots before the voters. Vote for me, said Labour in 1945, and we will give you ‘free’ healthcare, ‘free’ dole, ‘free’ council houses, and jobs in our ever-expanding, ever-increasing State sector; for all bounty comes from the beneficent Government. And the Conservatives lack the courage to reverse any of this as now there are vast and growing turkey armies who will not vote for anyone promising Christmas.

    As H.L. Mencken wrote in The Baltimore Sun in 1936:

    The state—or, to make the matter more concrete, the government—consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

    And as George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944: ‘A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.’ And in 1850 Frédéric Bastiat described ‘legal plunder’ where ‘the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.’ (The Law, 17) and in his 1877 Essays on Political Economy described government as ‘the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.’

    The electorates are the most easily bought of all.

  5. ScotchedEarth
    September 18, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    With regard to the loyalty of the Dominions of which you make passing mention, they were walking away from us long before the EEC, and even before the Statute of Westminster 1931 (22 & 23 Geo 5 c 4) granted them virtual independence. The Chanak Crisis of 1922 saw our Dominions (with the exception of New Zealand to some extent) stab us in the back; if not for their governments’ refusal to support us, Constantinople would have been returned to Christendom (i.e. Greece) and Turkey would not have a foothold on the European continent.

    Of course, one must be wary of conflating the actions of a government with the people at large, and there were individuals who emerged with credit, e.g. Arthur Meighen, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, who said, ‘Britain … sends a message to the dominions, not a mere indifferent inquiry as to what was the mind of Canada, but a message to see if the dominions were solid behind the Motherland. … When Britain’s message came, then Canada should have said: “Ready, aye, ready; we stand by you.” ’ But in the 1926 election, Meighen’s Conservatives obtained support from <32% of Canada’s electorate, suggesting his loyalty to the Mother Country was not shared by the majority of Canada.

    Canada (or at least their Liberal government led by Quebecois Louis St. Laurent) stabbed us in the back again over Suez; and again, there were loyal Canadians such as the Tory opposition, led by Anglo-German John Diefenbaker. One Tory, Howard Charles Green, said, ‘[T]he United States would have far more admiration for Canada … if this government stopped being the United States’ chore boy … Now this government, by its actions in the Suez crisis, has made this month of November 1956, the most disgraceful period for Canada in the history of this nation. … It is high time that Canada had a government which will not knife Canada’s best friends in the back.’ Although Diefenbaker went on to win the 1957 election, it was with <29% of the electorate—and less votes than Louis St. Laurent’s Liberals.

    Good article here from Australian Nigel Davies: “The Great Myth of Britain’s ‘Great Betrayal’.” Quadrant, October 2010.

Comments are closed.