Brexit: The Remainers Are Making an Ass of the Law; This Cannot End Well

For decades these EU fellow travellers have acquiesced in the erosion of British democracy to the point where the government in Westminster has become little more than a rubber-stamping operation for directives issued by unelected commissars at the European Commission, while English common law has been superseded by edicts invented by tinpot activist judges of dubious provenance at the European Court of Justice.

But now that Britain’s “independent judiciary” has done the right thing by ruling against the democratic will of the British people and for the interests of the entrenched Europhile elite, suddenly the Remainers are all in favour. Some have even gone so far as to demand the Prime Minister rebuke newspapers which have criticised the High Court judges’ decision, with one left-wing bishop comparing the media response to the sort of thing that went on in Nazi Germany. (Er, no, Bishop. What you seem to be criticising here is the very thing they didn’t have in Nazi Germany: a robust, free press).

Anyone expecting that the Supreme Court will override the High Court’s decision really needs to have a look at the kind of people who’ve infiltrated the higher levels of the judiciary these days. Lord Denning they most definitely ain’t.

Take Lord Carnwath. On joining Britain’s Supreme Court in 2012, he swore an oath to “do right by all manner of people” without “favour, affection or ill will”. But how does this square with the comments he made while addressing a climate conference he helped organise last year?

President Obama has said that we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. On that basis, the forthcoming Paris negotiations, under the UN climate change convention, are a crucial test of our ability as a global community to address those challenges.

As Donna Laframboise notes, this is not a neutral party sifting evidence but an activist judge playing politics.

These are overtly political remarks. Mentioning December’s UN Paris climate summit twice in less than a minute. Characterizing such negotiations as a crucial test for the global community. Parroting clichéd nonsense from the US president. (Eco-activists have been telling us we’re the last generation “with a chance to do anything” since at least 1970.)

Furthermore, for a judge supposedly charged with defending British interests, Lord Carnwarth seems unhealthily keen on supranational legislation created over the heads of sovereign democracies by international bodies such as the UN (or, one might well surmise, the European Union).

Read the rest at Breitbart.

A Pox on the Whiny Remainers Trying to Hijack Last Night of The Proms!

This is the concert at the Royal Albert Hall when all the Union flags come out, when English composers like Elgar and Vaughan Williams are celebrated, when the patriotic revellers lustily bellow Land Of Hope and Glory without a trace of fashionable irony or politically correct embarrassment.

So, of course, it’s inevitable that the whiny losers who were outvoted 52 to 48 in the EU referendum are seeking to hijack it in order to vent their kill-joy Europhile spleen on the patriotic majority who love their country and are much happier now it has voted to quit being the vassal of a weird Euro superstate run by power-crazed, socialistic nonentities.

As Breitbart London reported, some rejected Europhiles are planning to try to overwhelm the Union flags with horrid blue-yellow-starred European ones.

Yes. That will be popular with the boisterous Last Night crowd, I’m sure. Short of getting Eddie Izzard on as the warm up man to explain in five different languages why Brexit was such a dreadful mistake, I can’t think of a move better guaranteed to test the revellers’ traditional good-natured tolerance.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

David Cameron’s Dodgy Honours List: A Fitting Epitaph for a Rubbish Regime

The most obvious is that Cameron must live in a parallel universe where his six years as Prime Minister were a great success, culminating in a brilliant coup whereby he persuaded the majority of British people to vote Remain in the EU Referendum.

That, certainly, would explain his otherwise incomprehensible decision to make his former Chancellor George Osborne a Companion of Honour.

Traditionally, the Companion of Honour is given to men and women of rare distinction. Previous recipients include statesmen like Winston Churchill, authors such as Vita Sackville West, John Buchan and EM Forster, Proms founder Sir Henry Wood and Laurence Binyon (the poet whose For The Fallen is quoted every Remembrance Sunday). Current holders include Forces Sweetheart Dame Vera Lynne, conductor Sir Neville Marriner, whispery-voiced, gorilla-hugging Malthusian Sir David Attenborough and Sir Ian McKellen, the gay bearded wizard whose timely intervention at the battle of Helms Deep saved several kingdoms from being overwhelmed by the forces of darkness.

But apart from his novelty Christian name Gideon and the fact that one day he will inherit his father’s baronetcy and be entitled to call himself Sir, what exactly is George Osborne’s distinction?

Only being one of the biggest spivs ever to disgrace the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Osborne had many flaws: he was a sinister, slippery, Mandelson-style Machiavel, much more interested in finessing the political process and building his power networks than he was doing the right thing; economically he was a notorious meddler, addicted to micromanaging and sleight of hand; he was far too easily impressed by the rich and powerful, be they Russian oligarchs or senior Chinese party officials; and he was much much too much of a Davos-style globalist, more than happy to see the little people kept in check by central bankers and the rest of the Bilderberg elite.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Better a Cocker Spaniel as Prime Minister than Theresa May…

But there’s one thing on which must agree. Better either of the above – or, frankly, a Cocker Spaniel – than the (current Home Secretary and lead rival contender) Theresa ruddy May.

Let me give you two reasons why.

First, May is fundamentally unsound. Earlier this year she claimed, without blushing, that “Sharia courts benefit Britain.” But there was an earlier indication she was a wrong ‘un in 2014 when she had a public spat with Michael Gove (who at the time was Education Secretary), over the best way to deal with Islamic extremism in Britain.

It began, you may remember, as a result of the Trojan Horse scandal when it emerged that a number of state schools in Birmingham had been hijacked by Islamists promoting an extremist agenda, with non-Muslim teachers marginalised, boys and girls segregated, teenage males taught that rape is legal within marriage, Islamic terrorists glorified and non-Muslims described as kuffar.

May – perhaps to duck responsibility and save her skin: as Home Secretary she’s supposed to be in charge of law and order and social cohesion – tried to pin the blame on Gove.

Gove struck back, as well he might. No one in the British government has been more keenly aware of the problems of Islamism than Michael Gove. He was on to it a decade ago when he wrote Celsius 7/7 – a book excoriating the cultural dhimmitude that had led to problems like the London bus and tube bombings.

Part of Gove’s argument has always been that it is simply not enough to combat Islamist terrorism. You also have tackle the root causes of the problem: madrassas teaching young British Muslims to despise the values of their own country; Wahabi and Deobandi imams, parachuted in from Pakistan and Saudi, preaching the most extreme form of Islam; inequality before the law endorsed by Sharia courts; sucking up to extremist “community leaders” and ignoring the peaceful majority; and so on – as well as more positive stuff, like encouraging Muslims to become better assimilated and more loyal to their host culture.

It’s known colloquially as the “drain the swamp” strategy. That is, it’s no good just bashing the crocodiles’ heads as they attack your canoe. If you want to sort out the problem long term, you have to neutralise the environment from which all those crocs are coming in to attack you.

May, on the other hand, is of the “don’t let’s make a fuss, let’s just deal with the crocodiles as and when they appear” school of thought.

Which of the two approaches, do you think, is most likely to secure long-term social cohesion and reduce the number of future terrorist attacks?

The row between the two got so heated that Gove was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise to May.

Gove, it should be noted, is now supporting Boris Johnson’s candidature in the elections to become new Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

The second reason why Theresa May doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister is because she backed the wrong side in the referendum.

She didn’t need to do so. It has long been rumoured that she has Eurosceptic sympathies. But when push came to shove, she decided to put petty ambition before principle and take what she thought was going to be the easy option: back the Establishment position and reap the rewards.

Had Remain won, she would have benefited accordingly.

It would be a monstrous injustice – not to mention an insult to the electorate – if, having backed the wrong horse for the most cynical of reasons, May went on to be rewarded with the highest office in the land.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Cameron’s Elite Will Stop at Nothing to Win This EU Referendum: Here’s Why We Mustn’t Let Them

If you really love David Cameron then there’s only one thing you can possibly do on Thursday. You must vote Remain to save his skin.

Not that he’s literally going to die, quite. If you vote Leave he won’t shrivel up and turn to dust like Dracula does in sunlight. But Cameron will most certainly experience the metaphorical equivalent: everything he has achieved (such as it is) will become as nought; his life’s ambitions will lie in tatters all around him; he will go down in history as one of politics’s also-rans – not a statesman like Churchill and Thatcher, certainly not a conviction politician like Enoch Powell, but as a bit of a space-wasting time-server like Ted Heath or Gordon Brown or his former bromance partner Nick Clegg.

Do you think this is how David Cameron plans to crown his political career: with a wreath made of bitter ashes, dabbing his eyes in the back of a black official limo, as Margaret Thatcher did when she was finally pushed out of Number 10?

If you do then you clearly have no understanding how viciously competitive this man is; nor indeed how viciously competitive most ambitious politicians are in a zero sum game like politics where there are no consolation prizes for the runners-up.

Cameron plays to win. I could tell you stories (but I won’t). Short of murder or selling his family to slave traders I suspect that there is very little that he would not do in order to achieve his Machiavellian political ends.

And I say this not because I think he’s an especially bad man (by political standards) and certainly not an evil man. Just because I’ve lived long enough and watched enough successful people up close and read Macbeth sufficiently often to see that this is what ambition does to you.

There comes a point – and Cameron has long since passed it – where you say to yourself:

“I am in blood/Stepp’d in so far that should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.

This is the context in which we need to view Cameron’s behaviour in this EU referendum campaign.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Remain: When ‘Kinder, Gentler Politics’ Really Means ‘Dirtier, Uglier’

Will Straw, director of the Remain campaign, has been caught red-handed advising his team how to exploit Cox’s death by playing up the message that Leave represent “division and resentment” while only Remain represents “decent, tolerant Britain.”

This is what the left means by “dog-whistle” politics.

Only this time, it’s the left which is blowing that whistle.

Here, as Guido reports, is what Will Straw said in a highly embarrassing leaked audio file.

“We need to recognise that people have been pulled up short by Jo Cox’s death and it is now time to make a very positive case for why we want to be in the European Union… to call out the other side for what they have done to stir division and resentment in the UK.

That is something we must all do… This is what we think is the closing argument of the campaign, reflecting all the arguments that we have been setting out for many months but also the new context that we’re in. What we want to say is people should vote Remain on Thursday for more jobs, lower prices, workers’ rights, stronger public services and a decent, tolerant United Kingdom.”

The language is cautious, mealy-mouthed but the message is clear. To paraphrase: ‘Never mind the issues – just focus on Jo Cox. They didn’t buy Project Fear; they didn’t buy Project Lies; but they might just be sold on Project Grief.’

And Straw may have a point for, since the murder of Jo Cox, there has been a dramatic shift in Remain’s fortunes. Where before they were trailing in the polls, now they have pulled ahead.

Yes, there’s a story doing the rounds that this is because the public are becoming increasingly concerned about economic issues and that these favour Remain. But I suspect that this is just Remain spin to cover their own embarrassment at the unseemly way they’ve been using Jo Cox’s death to their advantage.

Here’s Katie Hopkins, telling it like it is:

Ask yourself what would have happened had it been Nigel Farage not Jo Cox slain on a pavement, whether they would have called for kinder Politics?

I suspect in some quarters they would declare he brought it on himself. How they laughed when his family were attacked whilst trying to enjoy a family lunch in a pub.

As we move into the final few days of the campaign, the ugly ambition of Remain will be to keep the Jo Cox story alive – at least in print – until June 23.

There is no end to the stunts set up to ensure this story has legs and keeps running – when most of us just want the family left in peace to grieve and find some sleep.

Regrettably for the state of British politics, she’s probably right.

First came the pilgrimage by the two main party leaders David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn – both pro-Remain – to lay wreaths in Cox’s constituency in Birstall, West Yorkshire and preach the virtues of “tolerance” and “democracy”. (More dogwhistling: if you don’t believe in these virtues than you must be Vote Leave).

Then yesterday, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess for a special sitting. Ostensibly to celebrate the life and the “kinder, gentler politics” apparently embodied by Jo Cox; but also, unfortunately, to allow campaigners like MP Stephen Kinnock – son of two of the EU’s more voracious apparatchiks Neil and Glenys – yet more dogwhistling opportunities by talking about “hope not fear, respect not hate, unity not division”. (Unity: you mean, like, in a “not leaving the EU” kind of way, Stephen?)

After that will come the funeral which – let us pray – will remain a private affair.

If you think this is normal procedure for when a parliamentarian is killed while in office, you’d be mistaken.

It didn’t happen after Conservative MP Ian Gow was assassinated with an IRA bomb in 1990.

Nor did it happen in 1979 when Airey Neave – a wartime hero (one of the few men to escape from Colditz) and also a personal friend of the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – was murdered in similar fashion by another Irish Republican terror group the INLA.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Project Grief: Remain’s Dirty Politicking Has Hit an All-Time Low

The morning after a senseless tragedy which has appalled the whole of Britain I’d like to ask you a simple question:

Is there any depth to which you will not stoop in order somehow to snatch victory in this EU referendum?

The answer I’m getting from some of you is: “Nope. None.”

Here’s Alex Massie in the Spectator. Having generously acknowledged that “Nigel Farage isn’t responsible for Jo Cox’s murder. And nor is the Leave campaign”, he then suggests that no, actually, they were.

But, still. Look. When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

Let me precis for you, Alex, what you’re trying to say in your oh-so-subtle way: “Vote Leave. Vote Fascism. Vote Murder in the Streets.”

Here, is the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee playing a similar game.

First the disclaimer:

There are many decent people involved in the campaign to secure Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, many who respect the referendum as the exercise in democracy that it is.

Now the inevitable “but…”

But there are others whose recklessness has been open and shocking. I believe they bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood: for the inflammatory language, for the finger-jabbing, the dogwhistling and the overt racism.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Sir Bob Geldof: Vote Remain If You’ve Got a Big Yacht and Hate Proles

Harsh words have been exchanged; collisions only narrowly averted; one fishing boat has drenched Geldof’s with a hose.

DSCF5251

Gosh: I wonder which group is more likely to enlist the sympathy of ordinary people still unsure which way to vote.

Will it be

a) the former – comprising boatloads of  fishermen whose livelihoods have been all but eradicated by Britain’s EU membership?

or

b) the latter – a gin palace commandeered by a multi-millionaire pillar of the global elite (who isn’t even a British subject and therefore not entitled to vote in this referendum) and packed to the gills with pro-EU reporters and members of the wankerati, blaring out noise from its extravagant sound system and pouring scorn on the smelly fisher proles nearby?

My personal guess is that it won’t be b).

In fact, if the Brexiteers do win this referendum, I suspect it will have less to do with anything they have said or done themselves than it has with the extraordinary arrogance of the Remainers.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Brexit Might Actually Win This Referendum. Here’s Why…

I’m reluctant to talk about it because I don’t want to jinx it. As I was saying to Toby Young on our podcast the other day, it feels as deliciously unlikely as going to a bar and accidentally picking up a supermodel. There she is laughing at your jokes, playing footsie with you under the table and you’re thinking: “Bloody hell! This is unreal! In just a few hours from now I could be romping naked with this vision of outrageous loveliness.” But you also know that if the Fates catch you being too cocky they’ll punish you for your hubris and do something awful, like revealing that the person you’ve actually pulled is Bruce Jenner.

Problem is, as a professional journalist, it is rather my duty to report the facts as I see them. And the facts as I see them seem to be pointing tantalisingly towards rampant sex with that supermodel. Possibly not just with one but with several, every day for the rest of our lives.

Yes, it’s still improbable – at least so far as the bookies are concerned. But whenever I nurture any doubts, all I have to do is open a newspaper or turn on the TV and see for myself just how incredibly badly the Remain campaign is screwing this one up and how well the Leave team are winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided.

What strikes me most is the difference in mood and tone: Remain sound shrill, petulant, pessimistic; Leave come across as amiable, reasonable, optimistic. And which of those sides would any open-minded person prefer to be on?

Consider last night’s referendum debate on ITV.

It pitched – for the Remain camp – SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon; Labour Shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle; Tory Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd against – for Leave – Labour MP Gisela Stuart; Tory MP (and Rudd’s junior minister in her Climate Change department) Andrea Leadsom; and a token blond male former Mayor of London called Boris Johnson.

The Leave team were plausible, dignified, positive, level-headed. Stuart – a German speaking with soft persuasiveness for British values and sovereignty: yay! – may well be the most effective weapon in Leave’s armoury; Leadsom marked herself with her eloquence and passion as a potential future Tory prime minister; Johnson reined in his flamboyance, played it straight and gallantly left the ladies to steal the limelight.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Vote Remain to Make Piers Morgan More Smug and Goldman Sachs More Disgustingly Rich

If there are two better reasons for voting Leave in the referendum, I’m hard pushed to think of them.

Morgan was on breakfast TV this morning deploying his favoured rapid-fire bluster-bully interview technique on pro-Brexit MP Dominic Raab. Raab was trying to make the factually correct point that under EU law Britain is not allowed to deport criminals (not rapists, not murderers…) back to EU member states. Morgan wouldn’t let him get a word in. It’s an effective way of closing down arguments you don’t like because it throws your interviewee off the points he wants to make and needles him into looking shifty, evasive and angry. It’s also very unfair. But of course, anyone complaining that it’s unfair is left looking whiney and needy, like they don’t understand that politics is a rough game, like they’re not up to the job.

Read the rest at Breitbart.