[Part I was published yesterday, see here]

Treason and the irreconcilable remainers

In a democracy the greatest treason is to betray the democratic will when that will has been shown in its most direct and unambiguous way through a referendum open to the entire electorate.   That is no more than the statement of an objective truth, for the closer the electorate are to decision making the more elemental the democratic action. An intense  desire for such a betrayal has been shown by  many remainers following the EU referendum.

The  liberal internationalists have been very successful over the past few decades in marginalising the crime of treason. Such people adhere to the idea that nations are at best outmoded forms of human social organisation and  at worst positively dangerous as repositories  of atavistic violence.   In the mind of liberal the internationalist treason does not exist, at least in the form in which has been known throughout history. (What would constitute treason for the liberal internationalist –  although they would not give it that name  –  would be to fail to subscribe to and support uncritically  liberal internationalist values and policies, in short, any refusal to accept political correctness.)

But however successful the liberal internationalists have been in devaluing the idea of treason the crime still exists regardless of whether there is a formal law to punish it.

The reason is simple; treason is an eternal crime because it goes to the heart of human nature. It is betrayal and every normal human being can recognise it for what it is and understand instinctively that it is the most dangerous of behaviours because it threatens not just the individual but the entirety of a society.

What  constitutes treason in a Remainer?

The attempt to overturn Brexit entirely or the attempt to engineer a faux Brexit, which is Brexit in name only.

It is legitimate for a remainer to be disappointed after losing the referendum and to say so publicly.  It is legitimate for the remainer to publicly lament the result.  It is legitimate for the remainer to point out what they see as the ill consequences of Brexit.  But it is not legitimate for remainers to attempt to overthrow the referendum result. That is precisely what many remainers with power and influence are trying to do, either directly or by subterfuge.

The remainer BIG LIES

In the course of their betrayal remainers have developed a number of big, shameless and very obvious lies which they repeat incessantly in the hope that their repetition will give them a  trashy sheen of meaning in the way that tinsel masquerades as silver at Christmas.

1. “We are giving power back to Parliament”

Parliament gave up its right to decide what Brexit would be when both Lords and Commons passed the EU Referendum Bill into law. (The Commons  voted for the Bill  544-53 at the Second Reading).

2. Those who voted leave did not understand what was involved

The referendum question was unambiguous and simple to understand: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Leaving any sort of organised group means precisely that, leaving. If you resign from a political party or a private group such as a golf club you cease to have any obligations towards or receive any benefits attached to membership of the group from which you are resigning. Leave does indeed mean leave.

3. “The referendum was only advisory”

Remainers claim that the EU referendum was only advisory  because there was no specific clause in the Act stipulating that it was either advisory or binding. This is irrelevant because it could equally be argued that the absence of such a clause meant that it was not merely advisory because the UK does not have any general law determining the status of referenda.

More directly damning for the “advisory” claim are the  various unambiguous statements made  by politicians prior to the referendum.

The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015, Page 72 said this about the referendum:

“We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017…..David Cameron has committed that he will only lead a government that offers an in-out referendum. We will hold that in-out referendum before the end of 2017 and respect the outcome.”

and, in opening the second reading debate on the European Union Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said: 

“This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”


“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

David Cameron when PM also made the position clear. Asked if holding a referendum was a cast-iron pledgeCameron said: 

“Absolutely. We will hold that referendum by the end of 2017; it will be a referendum on an in-out basis – do we stay in a reformed European Union or do we leave? And I’ve said very clearly that whatever the outcome of the next general election – and of course I want an overall majority and I’m hoping and believing I can win an overall majority – but people should be in no doubt that I will not become prime minister unless I can guarantee that we can hold that referendum.”

[To be continued with Part III, to be published tomorrow.]


Part 3 will be published in UKIP Daily soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email