It is noted today that a survey conducted in the Netherlands – one commissioned by the Bruges Group – shows that more than 50% of those taking part wish the Netherlands to follow the United Kingdom and leave the European Union.
We all know that surveys of public opinion only reflect the small minority of the population that are questioned, yet they are invariably a ‘pointer’ to the overall view of public opinion – so let us, for the sake of this article, assume that the foregoing is the case.
Where the Netherlands is concerned – and bearing in mind the statement by Geert Wilders (see the video clip) – who currently, just two weeks prior to the election in his country is ahead in the opinion polls – succeeds in forming a majority government, it must be obvious that Nexit will be the next to follow Brexit.
We must then turn to France and Marine Le Pen, someone who has expressed a similar intention. Whilst it is appreciated that current opinion is she may well achieve the position of ‘run-off’ status where the final ballot is concerned, she may then lose, but we must then factor into the equation the question of who can say what the potential verdict of the Netherlands might have on the French electorate?
Then it must follow that there are other Member States of the European Union where membership of it could well be affected by Netherlands – Denmark and some Eastern European states such as Hungary?
The Bruges Group article was headlined: Will the Netherlands be the next domino to fall; at which point one has to amend said heading: Will the Netherlands be the first of many domino’s to fall?
It has to be said that were all the foregoing to happen then the sight of Juncker et all attempting to prevent what might be termed an EU ‘Titanic Sinking’ would be well worth watching.
Moving on, bearing in mind the title of this article, I then come to an article by Kwasi Kwarteng in CapX, one entitled: Farage, Blair, Cameron – Brexit has consigned them all to the history books. This heading may well be sustainable in any discussion on the subject, but I am more concerned by a statement contained therein; namely: We need to consider the kind of country we want to see in the future, not revisit the arguments of the past. We need hear younger and fresher voices in the debate about our future as a country, free from the constraints of the EU.
If that is to happen should not the voices of the past (at the first attempt I omitted the ‘o’ from voices – which brought to mind the reflection that the views of Mandelson and Kinnock have within them vices (encapsulating the receipt of EU pensions) – which must make their views ‘questionable’ and thus be ignored?
If Kwarteng really does wish to consider the kind of country we want to see in the future, just who is this ‘We’ about which he writes. No doubt his ‘We’ is the political class, yet what about the view of those who actually ‘own’ our nation – ie, the people? If the people are to be given their voice, then should not the voices of those, outside the political elite and the Westminster Bubble, who actually know about that which they write and speak be heard; and not ‘blocked’ by the said elite and a media, the latter which is ‘cap in hand’ to said political elite? Just how can the people make an informed decision when the majority of informed opinion is denied them – and that question is just as pertinent now as it was when it was posed at the time of the referendum in June last year.
What we now see is a politician – who has assumed the position of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on the back of a decision by a minority of the electorate – and who apparently knows nowt about the subject of our membership of the European Union and its wider ramifications – now deciding on a course of action which can but bring ‘rack and ruin’ to our nation; and all it seems for reasons of political expediency and party unity.
It should be remembered that democracy is defined by the derivation of the term; ie ‘demos’ people, ‘kratos’ power: ‘people power’. Yet where, within ‘representative democracy’ is ‘people power’, when representative democracy results in decisions taken under what amounts to democracy by an ‘elite’, one elected by those who have no understanding of the term ‘democracy’ and which then results in what can only be termed ‘democratised dictatorship’?
If we then ‘factor in’ the question of immigration – and its subsequent addendum of ‘inclusion’ – just how long will it be that the voice of the indigenous population, to whom any nation must belong, becomes overridden? This then begs the question just where was the voice of the indigenous population when the question of unlimited immigration was first mooted – thank you democratised dictatorship!
There is much wrong with our nation – be that on matters immigration, taxation and governance/democracy, to name but three subjects – and until the indigenous people of this country realise this and decide to do sommat about it we, as a nation, are doomed to a future none of us – at least those of us who can be called indigenous – want; and at least those of us who care about democracy per se and the future of our nation, want.
The view about indigenousness, expressed above, can no doubt be described as nationalism or even xenophobia – whatever, but one has to ask if a nation has no sense of nationalism then how can it be a nation?