Hard to disagree with this…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPoliticsSpecialistTech |
Brexit: a revolution betrayedJune 23rd, 2026 |
 31 comments to Brexit: a revolution betrayedLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
We never got the independence we voted for – we got “Brexit” which means whatever our rulers want it to mean.
Northern Ireland was held hostage (still under E.U. law – supposedly to defend the Belfast “Good Friday” Agreement – which handed Northern Ireland to the IRA) thus tying the rest of the United Kingdom to E.U. law (or the “border down the Irish Sea” which Prime Minister Johnson promised would not happen, would get worse) – but even leaving that aside, there was the “Trade and Cooperation Agreement” which tied the rest of the United Kingdom to the laws and policies of the European Union.
Mrs May was very much an establishment figure, but it was not just her – it was everyone, the entire establishment, the officials and “experts”. Even Nigel Farage appeared to be more interested in “Brexit” (a word he still uses) rather than actual independence – he is not a “details man”, which appears to mean he is not interested in elected people actually-making-policy – so would things have been any different had Mr Farage been Prime Minister? I do not know – I just do not know.
I am not interested in “Brexit” I never have been, because it was obvious (from the start) that this word was being used to obscure the basic question – this question being, is the United Kingdom going to be an independent country or not? And it is clear that “Brexit” means continuing rule by the European Union and the rest of the International Community (note that the Belfast Agreement and the “Devolution” Acts in relation to Scotland and Wales all cite international law and agreements – the agenda is obvious).
We voted for independence – not for “Brexit”.
Mark Steyn (yes he is still alive) has a good discussion (link on X) on the failure to gain independence – a discussion with Ben Habib, Kate Hoey and other people who are interested in “the details” – rather than the meaningless play acting of “Brexit”.
The destruction of such things as traditional Scots Law and Scottish education since “Devolution” is not accident – the destruction of Scottish traditions was what “Devolution” was really about – it is about governance in line with the fashions of the International Community. The Belfast “Good Friday” agreement is about much the same thing – in law, in education, in everything – because the IRA (“Sinn Fein”) is NOT an Irish Nationalist movement – it is very much a supporter of the International Community.
England, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered the same fate – rule, governance, in line with the fashions of the International Community.
None of this is about “devolving” power downwards (any more than local government “devolution” is about devolving power downwards – Regional “Mayors”, i.e. Governors, govern in line with the fashions of the officials and “experts” – who follow the fashions of the International Community via various agreements) – “Devolution” was always about destroying traditional differences and customs (including in law and education) and shoving everywhere in line with the fashions of the International Community.
Do you never tire of posting specious crap like this? Our pockets are sopping with Tory piss already. YOUR miserable Establishment party betrayed Brexit, filled the nation with third world moochers, pushed Net Zero, grew the state and lied about all of it. And now you try to accuse Farage of not really caring about independence FFS!
Marius – I can also use bad language.
You have said that the truth is “crap” and I will reply by telling you to go fuck yourself.
I repeat – I do not know whether Mr Farage would have been able to overcome the officials and “experts” who would have controlled everything he got to see and hear if he had been Prime Minister – many people who have worked with Mr Farage for years have said he would NOT, but it is possible that they are mistaken. It is possible that he would have become a “details man”.
A big part of the problem was that there were different reasons that people had for Brexit, not all of which were compatible:
Some wanted freedom from the EU restrictions on state aid, and wanted to take the UK in a more overtly socialist and interventionist course (part of the Red Wall Labour is about this); others wanted freedom to resist EU mission creep on bureaucracy etc, and were more motivated by a sort of radical classical liberal political tradition (which is where I am); and you had those who were worried about the lack of democratic accountability of the Brussels policymaking machine in general and how this was causing more bitterness over time. Some Brexiteers were fans of hard money and disliked central banks and all of that; others were Keynesians who resented the euro-zone’s apparent restrictions, etc. It was never an easy coalition and the type of Brexit we had would demand a lot of willpower in making it work as it could. More needs to be done on free trade, and my preferred option would be to press on with removing all tariffs – even unilaterally – and introducing sunset provisions on European-derived regulations, requiring them to be only re-introduced after a parliamentary vote.
Beyond all this, Brexit was, for me, only one step in an attempt, however naive that might sound, to push for smaller, less intrusive government. But it was a necessary, but not sufficient, one. The major claims made for it are arguably overdone. Many of the things that have gone wrong in the UK aren’t the fault of Brussels. Outside the EU, the UK political class, and the wider electorate, have to take full ownership of what goes on.
My two pence.
Paul:
Back in 2016 I do not think Nigel Farage had any idea of what he was up against. He walked away from Ukip because he “wanted his life back”, naively trusting the establishment to deliver “Brexit”. As we know, the establishment then spent three years trying, and almost succeeding, to overturn the referendum result, aided by traitors such as Jon Bercow and Keir Starmer.
So while I agree that Farage is not by nature a details man, I can only hope he has learned his lesson. I am heartened that Danny Kruger, who is a sensible figure, is working on developing policy, not something that Farage would be able to find the time to do.
What sort of state Britain will be in if Burnham imposes “Manchesterism” on us for three years is anybody’s guess. It may well be that the economy has really been “crashed” by then, not the fake “crash” that the establishment contrived for poor Liz Truss. She too never had any idea of what she was up against. She knows better now.
Johnathan Pearce – the problem was that the powerful people, the officials and “experts”, did not want smaller government – quite the reverse. As for the European Union – it is (like the British establishment) part of the International Community – and follows the same fashions.
JohnK – you may correct, and you certainly are correct about Liz Truss.
Perhaps the various people who have worked with Nigel Farage over the years are mistaken and he is (or has become) a “details man” who actually will roll back the state – get rid of the Bank of England (or at least its powers – which are not that ancient, many of them only date back a few years) and the rest of the “experts”.
I do not know – I just do not know.
But will Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch (who is more consistent than Nigel Farage) get the chance? Not if they keep attacking each other they will not – if they will not work together there is no chance.
One bizarre thing is that neither Nigel or Kemi will listen to Liz Truss – they are both correct to say that Liz Truss failed (the lady admits that herself) – but unless they listen to WHY Liz Truss failed, the power of the officials and “experts”, they will also fail.
Even if they get a majority in the House of Commons – and that may be three years from now, and that assumes that Kemi and Nigel actually start working together – rather than keep fighting each other, whilst the left laugh.
Recent by-elections, such as Aberdeen South, show that Reform can not win on its own – but, contrary to what Kemi says, neither-can-the-Conservatives-win-on-their-own.
Jacob Rees Mogg and the Father of the House of Commons, Edward Leigh, are correct – very clearly correct. But Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe are listening them.
There is a Restore Party house only a few hundred yards from me – I can tell because they are flying a Restore Party flag. But there is no cooperation with these people locally.
And Conservative and Reform Party people locally have to pretend to be enemies even though we agree on just about everything – and the Greens (quite correctly) laugh at Conservatives and Reform (and Restore) cutting each other’s throats.
The left are not doing that – for example the Greens stand down when the Liberal Democrats stand for a council seat, and vice versa. After all the left, the Lib Dems and Greens, agree on the basic things – such as getting rid of Jews (sorry “Zionists”) – very Hobson. So an electoral pact between them makes sense.
The left are acting like professionals (I have to admit that) and we, on the right, are acting like school boys fighting over which gang someone is in.
Most people in this town are on the right – but the left win and will continue to win whilst we mess about.
It is much the same in other places.
@ Marius
No he doesn’t!!!!
Farage really walked away from UKIP because it was taken over by nutters (of a kind who currently support Rupert Lowe, whose primary mission is nobbling Reform). And that is why Brexit Party & then Reform (Brexit Party v.2.0) are controlled rather differently to UKIP.
Nigel learns.
It’s all about the Deep State. Mencius Moldbug diagnosed the problem correctly a long time ago, except he called it ‘The Cathedral’.
Perry,
Unless there’s something im not aware of, Lowe was assassinated by Farage. I happen to agree with Lowe’s honesty and what he preaches. Those who have groomed children on an industrial scale need to be humanely euthanised. Their families deported. Watching clips of him in select committees, he appears to have the measure of civil servants.
The clip of Farage saying something is politically impossible says it all.
The most shocking part of the video was that I agreed with everything Tony Benn said.
The problem is simply that independence isn’t enough, you have to actually do something with the independence. So perhaps Britain is free of some of the European tyranny, but free for what? Free to impose some of the most horrendous home grown tyranny of their own. It is true that the people who loved to be fetted as European royalty are doing everything they can to reverse Brexit, but if you want to know the real genesis of the British malaise and decline they largely have nothing to do with the EU. It started with Covid and the ridiculous policies that they followed, which, unfortunately were largely at the same time as the divorce and so the divorce rather than the tyranny got the blame. But of course NetZero, the utter suppression of freedom of speech, the grinding growing regulation of unelected bureaucrats (bureaucrats even less democratically accountable than the highest ivory tower of the EU), the crushing of entrepreneurship, the mealy mouthed negotiation of trade deals and so forth are all home grown tyrannies.
And how convenient for the ruling class that they can blame all their failures on Brexit.
Let’s hope Nigel does something good. However, even the best doctor cannot rescue a patient who who has metastatic cancer raging through every organ in their body. Nonetheless, I wish him well.
One of the things lacking in politics and popular circles is principle.
I voted to leave the eu because I believe no one other than British people have the right to govern Britain.
Im happy to receive criticism of my belief.
The right is a mess in most Western countries – but it is a special mess in Britain, with Conservatives, Reform and Restore all cutting each other’s throughts.
The more I think about things the more I wish I had left this world in 1990.
Fraser Orr, 9.30pm: “So perhaps Britain is free of some of the European tyranny, but free for what? Free to impose some of the most horrendous home grown tyranny of their own.”
Compare Eritrea. Spent years trying to break free from Ethiopia, and when in 1993 they finally managed it, they promptly installed a regime even more repressive than the one they had left.
Today the Freedom House organisation rates Ethiopia as ‘Not Free’ with an unimpressive score of 18/100 … while Eritrea is also rated as ‘Not Free’ but with a truly dreadful score of just 3/100 (the same as North Korea). Frying pan, meet fire.
Zerren Yeoville
Yes and, for example, the heroic female fighters of Eritrea were forced into prostitution by the new regime they helped to bring to power – forced to “serve” in a new way.
Things are not as bad in Britain – the regime in Britain is not the strict Marxist regime there is in Eritrea.
The regime in Britain is the local branch of the international establishment – as is the European Union itself. Although, perhaps, the British regime is a bit more extreme in its devotion to the insane policies of the International Community.
I can remember when Mr Johnson mocked all the policies he, as Prime Minister, followed.
In his newspaper articles, interviews, and speeches, he mocked the “Green” agenda, and he mocked wild government spending, and he mocked HS2 (that 100 Billion Pound rail link between places that are-already-have-a-rail-link).
In office Mr Johnson totally reversed – on everything, for being in office is not like sitting on a throne like an absolute monarch – it is more like being in the brainwashing chair in the film “The Impcress File” (1965).
Is Nigel Farage “Harry Palmer” would he be able to get passed the control of everything he got to see and hear, and being put in a machine (a system) designed to destroy independent judgement? Even “Harry Palmer” only just manages to shoot “Major Dolby” rather than “Colonel Ross” (Sir William David Ross, Oxford philosopher and other things, was still alive at the time the film made).
Remember Mrs Thatcher passed the Single European Act in 1986 – a measure that represented the opposite of everything the lady believed.
And Margaret Thatcher had no idea what she had done – not for quite some time.
The conditioning process is real – it happens. It is not so dramatic as the chair in the Ipcress File film – but they control everything you see and everything you hear, so (to change the metaphor) you are like “Hurin” – prisoner of Morgoth in Tolkien’s “Silmarillion”, forced to see and hear everything via the will of Morgoth, so that everything you think you know is a distortion – and you act as a servant of the enemy without even knowing it.
In the end Hurin regains control of his mind – but it is too late, the purpose of the enemy is achieved.
In the 1930s General Butler, then the most decorated United States Marine Corps officer, delivered, on oath, testimony to Congress.
General Butler testified that businessmen had come to him and wanted him to lead a “Fascist coup” against President Franklin Roosevelt.
As President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” policies, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Recovery Administration (the Blue Eagle thugs) were based on Fascist Italy (the relatively moderate faction of “New Dealers” admired Mussolini – the more extreme ones admired “Stalin” and the Soviet regime that was busy murdering millions of human beings, something the extreme faction of “New Dealers” KNEW – they knew very well), General Butler did not explain why “Fascists” would want it overthrown – why would “Fascists” want to get rid of a government that was following Fascist economic policies?
And why would “businessmen” approach a General to be Dictator – when that General, General “War is a Racket” Butler, was well known to be under the influence of the Communist Party? Why would “businessmen” want the Communist Party to be in power via General Butler?
The sworn testimony of General Butler was an obvious pack of lies – he was committing perjury (although that does not stop “history” books taking his testimony as truth), but he was not prosecuted because of his previous heroic military record. And, besides, his testimony was useful to the Roosevelt Administration – it presented them as guardians of democracy against the plots of wicked “businessmen”.
Characters such as Hurin or General Butler really exist – someone can be a hero in one part of their life, and a puppet of evil later on. It happens – indeed General Butler’s mind may have been so twisted that he did not even know what he was saying was false – indeed utterly absurd.
Someone can be led to believe that 2+2=5 – and that they experienced things that never happened, or DID happen – but were not what they thought they were (with the people they are interacting with – not being who they think they are).
Of course there was also a third faction of “New Dealers” – people who did not follow Mussolini or Stalin, but were just politicians and officials who wanted to spend lots of money “on the poor” (keeping some of it for themselves) and issue lots of orders – in order to feel powerful (even if their orders contradicted other orders they gave – as their regulations and edicts often did contradict each other).
I suspect that this third faction of “New Dealers” was the largest faction – basically just criminals (like the Democrats who controlled Boston, hello Mayor Curley, and Chicago – and so on) rather than people with any particular political philosophy.
The same “historians” who write endlessly about corruption in the Harding Administration, ignore the vastly greater corruption in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.
As for their antics – such as claiming to care about the poor, whilst (at the same time) destroying crops and killing farm animals in order to try and INCREASE food prices – the “New Deal” policies were so demented and contradictory, that even Congressman Carter (the father of President Carter) turned against them.
Lastly their support for “Collective Bargaining” (i.e. government giving powers to unions – for the express purpose of increasing wages above the market rate so the labour market would NOT clear) – showed that their claims to care about UNEMPLOYMENT were nonsense.
The “history” books and media ignore basic logic – just as they do with British history.
For example, the “Liberal” government that passed the 1906 Trade Union Act (on top of the 1875 Disraeli Act which had already pushed paramilitary tactics such as “picket lines”) claimed that their 1906 measure would not increase UNEMPLOYMENT.
They were obviously lying – as they were already planing such things as “Labour Exchanges” and “Unemployment Benefit” – which would not have been “needed” unless they knew that the 1906 Act would increase UNEMPLOYMENT.
Their reaction to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law was also telling.
The “Majority Report” was written by people who had spent their lives helping the poor – often with their own money and their own hands (emptying the bed pans and so on), the “Minority Report” was written by socialists who wanted to destroy civilization – which they called “capitalism”,
Guess which report the establishment liked – and has followed in the 20th and 21st centuries.
And guess which report the “history” books like.
For both – it is the (demented) “Minority Report”, written by monsters, that they like.
What happened to Mr Johnson (and others) is my reply to Marius – someone can spend years with one set of positions, and then do the OPPOSITE (on wild government spending, on Net Zero, on HS2, on basic liberties – as we witnessed with the Covid lockdowns – and so on) – for being “in office” is not the same as being “in power”. Perhaps Nigel Farage is the “Harry Palmer” of British politics and will resist what the establishment will try and do to him – as I have said before, I-do-not-know.
As for the monsters behind the “Minority Report” of 1909 – they were monsters, for example the old “Clause Four” of the Labour Party Constitution of 1918 was their work – the control (the word “democratic” control changes NOTHING) of all the means of “production, distribution and exchange” – farms, factories, shops, everything.
And their support for the Soviet Union shows their utter evil – “but Paul they did not know that the Marxist regime was murdering millions of people”.
My father, Harry Marks, knew – and he had no special sources of information. If the Webbs (and so on) “did not know” – it is because they did not WANT to know.
All of the supporters of the Soviet Union in Britain should have been arrested in 1939 when the Soviet Union invaded Poland and the United Kingdom declared war upon the Soviet Union – just as the supporters of National Socialist Germany were arrested when we declared war upon it after its invasion of Poland. However, we did NOT (we did NOT) declare war upon the Soviet Union – not after the invasion of Poland, and not after the invasion of part of Romania, all of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, not even after the invasion of Finland.
France was the same – there was no effort to round up the Communist Party and Trade Union activists who were under the orders of Moscow and undermined France in 1940 (helping the Germans take the country).
And saying “this piece of paper, signed by the Polish government, says we can declare war on Germany without declaring war on the Soviet Union – even though they have both done the same thing, invade Poland” does NOT explain this.
Nor does it explain policy during the war – giving priority to helping the Soviet Union, rather than protecting British and American interests.
Paul:
I like your idea of Boris Johnson being subjected to Ipcress style mind control. There has to be a reason that he veered left on every policy he had held once he became prime minister.
Without the Ipcress justification, I can only assume that his previous “beliefs” were nothing of the sort, just opinions he wrote about in his columns in the Daily Telegraph in return for about £250k pa. If the Daily Mirror had offered him £300k his opinions would have been different.
As he clearly had no real set of beliefs, once in office (not in power) he simply accepted the policies that the blob so helpfully placed on his desk. And but for covid he would have got away with it for five years at least.
That is what Farage will be up against if he wins. I hope he realises it will be a knife fight from day one. I only hope he brings a gun.
I agree with you about Smedley Butler, an obvious charlatan. The New Deal was as close to fascism as any democratic society could ever get. What better way to defend it than to claim that the “real fascists” were trying to undermine it?
FDR was a nasty piece of work, and the New Deal was about as economically successful as Hitler’s policies had been in the 1930s, which is to say not successful at all. Hitler had to invade the rest of Europe to steal their assets so as to keep Germany solvent. World War II was built on the German need for plunder, it really wasn’t sophisticated.
If Farage had been a serious politician then, he would have used his considerable influence to get rid of the nutters. But he walked away.
I am hoping that after the betrayals of the last ten years, he has now got his head together. Reform really can win the next election, in a way that Ukip never could. This is largely because the Conservative party has self-destructed. So be it.
Revolution? The same people in charge then are still in charge today, unindicted, unconvicted, and unpunished. Brexit wasn’t even close to a serious attempt to change anything.
“We voted for independence.”
Independence, or more importantly freedom, was never on the ballet – and it never will be.
JohnK – Mr Johnson was indeed not a man of strong beliefs, there myself and Marius agree. But there were ministers of strong pro liberty beliefs – and I watched them achieve nothing, nothing at all, in spite of all their best efforts.
I fear the same thing would happen to Mr Farage – let us hope that I am mistaken and he would, instead, utterly smash the system.
Because it has come to that – the system is so “ideologically captured” that has to be smashed.
“But being a conservative is about preserving the institutions” – not when the institutions have been utterly corrupted, Edmund Burke was clear about that.
Then a conservative has to turn “reactionary” – like Montesquieu in France who came to the conclusion that the system of governance in France was hopeless and France would have to return to an older form of government (be governed as it once was) – sadly when the Revolution finally came its leaders rejected the writings of Montesquieu (unlike the American Founding Fathers – who admired the thinking of Montesquieu)- and turned to the writings of Rousseau, with his desire to create a new system of governance and, indeed, a new society.
I am a reactionary – I believe that the present system (rule by officials and experts and independent bodies) does not work – and we should return to how we used to be governed.
Paul:
We agree, this system cannot be reformed. I just hope Reform have the nerve and courage to understand this fact and destroy it.
JohnK – that depends on the right uniting, the logic of the “first past the post” voting system demands it – but Kemi and Nigel continue to exchange attacks, and so does Rupert Lowe.
And before anyone attacks Mr Lowe – his Rape Gang inquiry gave the victims a voice, and identified the key factors – racial hatred against white people, and Islamic theology (although Muslims can be of any race). The official inquiry will be worthless (just as the Covid inquiry was worthless) as it will carefully avoid the truth. Still, just like Kemi and Nighel, Rupert Lowe will not cooperate with the other parties on the right – so the situation may well be hopeless.
In such countries as Austria and the Netherlands right wing parties similar to Reform piled up lots of votes (becoming the largest party) but achieved NOTHING – as the establishment worked against them.
I see a similar prospect here.
Reform is already in a difficult position due, for example, to making promises in local government that it is not possible to keep – winning lots of councils is, therefore, proving to be a bad thing for the Reform Party.
But let us say that some electoral pact IS made (although there is no sign of one) and the right get a majority in the House of Commons – is there really any chance that it will smash the system in economic policy, or try and reverse the demographic destruction of the British people? Like his Majesty the King, Mr Farage seems to believe that nothing can be done on the demographic question (that the destruction of the British people is inevitable) – even making statements about the need to keep on good terms with Islam (which shows a lack of understanding of what Islam is), but then the President of the United States also thinks in terms of “talks” and “deals” – so no Western leader (with the possible exception of the government of Japan) really understands the basic questions.
I suspect the chance is small – but the General Election is three years away and by then things may be so terrible (the condition of the nation so obviously near total collapse) that Mr Farage, and others, will be “radicalized” into taking fundamental action.
In the end I do not not – I just do not know.
Paul:
I share your concerns. However, Farage cannot stand the Conservatives, and Lowe cannot stand Farage (and vice versa).
Farage effectively handed the Conservatives victory in 2019 and then was treated by them with contempt. Would it have killed Boris to have offered him a knighthood?
Farage and Lowe seem to be alpha males who just cannot get on with each other. I have no idea if Lowe ever really did threaten Yusuf. It does not matter. They are now bitter enemies.
So I cannot see any pact on the right. But I can see Reform and the Conservatives forming a coalition if the alternative is a Labour/Green/Lib Dem/SNP coalition from Hell. Britain will be in a bad way by 2029, we need to do everything to keep these lunatics out of power. I still think Britain can be saved. Just.
JohnK
Mr Johnson indeed showed ingratitude. He also showed weakness – in giving in to the pressure on government spending, and on HS2 and then (worst of all) Covid lockdowns.
Rupert Lowe says he will always put country over personal hatred – but that means he will have to forgive Mr Farage and co for sending armed police to his home. He SHOULD forgive them – the national interest demands that he forgive them, but that is easy for me to say – as Mr Farage and Mr Yusuf did not send armed police to my house.
And Mr Farage must forgive the Conservatives – in spite of the horrible ingratitude he was shown.
By “forgive” I mean “grit your teeth and work with” – I do not mean “love”.