Friday, June 24, 2016

Some takes on the Brexit Vote

I'm not British, more's the pity.   Though I am a bit of an anglophile, that tends to stop where my celebration of the United States begins.  Plus, I've always been a bit more Roman than Saxon if you take my meaning, so there.

Nonetheless, I can't ignore the impact of this vote.  Nor can I speak intelligently to the results or the causes.  I'm not British.  It's like listening to Brits try to explain the complexities of the American Electoral College.  It wouldn't be pretty.   Which is why I haven't commented on it up until now.  I figure anyone who has said nothing about the topic until after the vote shouldn't be listened to, unless it's a call for all of us to start listening and paying attention.  

It's enough that those forces who seem to dream of a single world order governed by the principles of pseudo-Marxist inspired socialist secular liberalism are disappointed.  That doesn't mean they're wrong and the other side is right.  But when financial chaos, upticks in terrorist attacks, dropping the ball on immigration, and only seeming to come together to advance the culture of death and the end of religious liberty is the track record, I'm at least willing to consider the idea that another approach might have been worthwhile.

Here are a few takes sent to me by a friend and reader who has lived in different places in Europe, including old GB.  Take them for what they're worth:

The Week
PJ Media
PJ Media Link#2
The Telegraph


  1. That doesn't mean they're wrong and the other side is right.

    Which is funny because if you go check out Shea's page, you'll see he took the exact opposite tack: "Oh Trump's in favor of it? Just more proof of how wrong it is."

  2. Wow. I mean wow. That is the most ill informed and rank partisan spin on this story I've read. I would have bet that even he couldn't have twisted this to make it about Trump and conservatives, but somehow he did it.

    As for his 'if the Right is for it, I'm against it' take. That reminds me of when he came out and blasted the idea of the upcoming Russel Crow version of Noah. He actually mocked the idea and was sure it would do some 'evil humans need eradicated' take on the Noah story. Then he was notified that many conservatives agreed and were concerned about the movie. On a dime, he spun around and immediately praised the movie, its vision, mocked those who had reservations about it, and concluded only right wing zealots could think the movie was bad or promoting bad teachings.

    At some point, credibility must hit zero. I fear for Mark that he is simply buoyed by followers who see him as a pawn, that fanatical zealot who spews gibberish, but is one more weapon in the arsenal, take him for what he's worth. He is better than he's become.

  3. One of the fatal flaws of the European Union, and there are many, is that, at least to the best of my knowledge, most of the countries that did so didn't do so democratically. In many countries, the people didn't vote directly to join the EU, the legislatures or some other body/institution of their national government did it. It is my understanding that when Britain joined the EU, there was much talk of it being invalid and unconstitutional because with was done as an Act of Parliament, not on a vote of the people.

    In many European countries, at the time of the formation of the EU, the "normal" citizenry was not in favor, although, over time, many eventually acquiesced to it. The EU was really an "elite" idea, run by elites, with special benefits for the elite, with the typical patronizing attitude about the "benefits" it would bestow on the average citizen. By there has been a growing sense that the EU has provided a means for the elite to exercise power and authority over and through national boundaries, often to the detriment of average citizens. Now, more people in many European countries are out right opposed to EU membership. France is talking about a vote now. Maybe the days of the EU are over.

    This must be making the Clinton campaign very nervous, as anyone who represents the status quo and the entrenched interests got a massive body blow yesterday.

  4. It seems right now that the mainly progressive side of the media is trying to frame the vote as 'racist nationalist fervor.' Given the propensity of the Left to define anyone who isn't liberal as a racist, or sexist, or homophobe, or bigot, or transphobic, or whatever, I'm inclined to look deeper. I have no doubt that some might be motivated by wrong ideals. When does anything happen that you don't have bad elements who have bad motives? But that doesn't mean it's all cut and dry. As an American, I don't know if I'd want to be part of some pan-continental organization that could step in and tell us our business, especially if it was in violation of our most cherished values. I certainly would object if, as you say, the whole was outside of any input on my part, and the results were less than stellar.


Let me know your thoughts