What did Remainers think was going to happen?

Remainers are reaping a whirlwind:

Boris Johnson has refused to back down over accusations he is stoking hatred against MPs and endangering their lives with inflammatory language over Brexit.

Amid furious confrontations between his frontbench and Labour MPs on Thursday, Mr Johnson repeatedly used the words “surrender” and “betrayal”, despite being reminded of the murder of a Labour MP in 2016 in a similarly toxic atmosphere.

Ms Phillips had asked Mr Johnson to tone down his language in the Commons, reminding him Ms Cox had been murdered a week before the Brexit referendum as the debate over Brexit became more incendiary. Mr Johnson told her she was speaking “humbug.”

Another Labour MP, Karl Turner, was filmed approaching senior No 10 advisor Dominic Cummings and telling him: “I’ve had death threats overnight; ‘should be dead’.”

Mr Cummings dismissed his complaint, responding: “Get Brexit done’’.

Mind you, having the Remainers complaining about harsh language is a bit much for some:

Yep – even George Galloway gets it.

Abstracting from the merits or demerits of the whole leave/remain debate, the fact is there was a referendum. The losing side of that referendum have done and said whatever it takes to reverse that loss. They have trashed institutions and conventions to get their way – they may yet succeed – but having trashed institutions and conventions they cannot then call for the very civility that they have up-until-now denied everyone else.

Last word to Dominic Cummings:

To me, it says that, fundamentally, a lot of people in parliament are more out of touch with the country now than they were in summer 2016.

“If you are a bunch of politicians and say that we swear we are going to respect the result of a democratic vote, and then after you lose you say, we don’t want to respect that vote, what do you expect to happen?’’

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, International. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What did Remainers think was going to happen?

  1. stackja

    Why didn’t Remainers campaign as hard during the referendum?
    They were expecting a different result?

  2. a happy little debunker

    Representative democracy is under threat in the Western World.

    Where national leaders are de-platformed by the UN, because they kowtow to their national interests, rather than accepted leftist global policies.
    Where elected Leaders are under threat of impeachment, based on repeated gossip.
    Where an elected government faces calls to resign – but is denied the mean of conducting a General Election to test their mandate of the people.
    Where a child, gifted with greatest prosperity accorded children in the history of the world, can presume to chastise the world for doing enough and is applauded by the like minded for her diatribe.

    Expect more of this nonsense going forward, not less.

  3. Behind Enemy Lines

    This is why Australia can’t have a referendum on immigration.

    This is why Australia must have a referendum on immigration.

  4. Old School Conservative

    If you are a bunch of politicians and say that we swear we are going to respect the result of a democratic vote, and then after you lose you say, we don’t want to respect that vote, what do you expect to happen?

    There would have been a storming of Parliament House if the SSM postal survey result had been ignored by a bunch of politicians.

  5. mh

    George Galloway
    @georgegalloway
    Replying to
    @TheLoneStar37
    Democratic decisions must prevail, “come what may”. You can campaign to rejoin. But you can’t stop us from leaving. Sorry. #Brexit

  6. miltonf

    Brexit and the Donald have shown democracy to be very conditional- if you don’t vote the way the politico-media class wants they will try to over rule you. So many have exposed themselves as fake conservatives and not really friends of everyman at all. From John Howard and John Major to the Royals.

  7. Dr Fred Lenin

    It seems some remoaner traitors are recieving death threats <they are very concerned for their own safety , thes muppets probably cannot fathom why someone would want to kill them ? They certainly live in a bubble if they dont know why . Its called High Treason and used to be punished by hanging , the death penalty was removed by a labour government for obvious reasons ,after the second world war Albert Pierrepoint despatched people who had done less that these traitors have done .
    The collaboration between them and the Eurofascists is public knowlege .
    There will be an election one day and the voters will remeber the treason and destroy them ,latest polls say 60 per cent want to leave , meaning 8 per cent of remain voters respect democracy , another rigged “referendum “ wont work the Eurofascists did this in several countries that voted to leave and reversed the result by trickery ,they wont get away with that in the UK.
    Abolish career politicians ,thst will go some way to draining the swamp.

  8. Old Lefty

    Good piece from the UK Telegraph:

    By Philip Johnston
    26th Sep 2019, 6:30 am

    Until 10 years ago, almost to the day, the most senior judges in the land sat in the House of Lords. Along with the government they formed an integral part of parliament, while maintaining their independence. No other country in the world had both its judiciary and its executive embedded within the legislature. The head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, even sat in the Cabinet.

    All that changed when Tony Blair’s Labour government decided, for no obvious reason, to dismantle what had been a perfectly workable, if somewhat haphazard, constitutional settlement.

    But if the reason was not obvious, the consequences have subsequently become apparent. It manifestly shifted the balance of powers within the British system, establishing a European style constitutional court which sits uneasily within a common law jurisdiction without a written constitutional code.

    How far the centre of gravity has moved was apparent on Monday with the ruling of the Supreme Court to strike down an Order in Council, signed by the Queen, requiring the prorogation of parliament. Such an action would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago.

    As Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General said in the Commons today, the court has made new law in this field, effectively arrogating power to itself while clipping the wings of the executive. Lord Sumption, until recently a Supreme Court judge, called the ruling “revolutionary”.

    It was never clear what Mr Blair thought he was up to when in 2003 he decided to change this age-old dispensation other than to bend the knee to the fetish of “modernisation”.

    The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was not told of what amounted to an act of constitutional vandalism which included abolishing his 1400-year-old office. It had to be re-instituted, though not as head of the judiciary, when it was realised that dozens of statutes were linked to it.

    As Prof Anthony King wrote in The British Constitution (2007): “It was all exceedingly complicated, very hard to explain to foreigners and altogether quaint. But it seemed to work well enough…History was on the side of the existing arrangements”.

    But around the turn of the century, King observed a subtle linguistic change in political and legal discourse. Instead of talking about the “government” people increasingly spoke of the “executive” and counterposed this with the concept of “the judiciary”. People began to refer not to a “balance of powers” but a “separation of powers” along US lines.

    The case for a full separation, splitting off the judges from parliament, was reinforced by a European Court of Human Rights ruling McGonnell v UK (2000) which cast doubt on the legal validity of any judicial involvement in the passage of legislation.

    Lord Irvine resisted the pressure to change and was sacked. The government abolished the Law Lords and set up a Supreme Court physically removed from Parliament. A suitable base was found across the road from the Palace of Westminster in the Middlesex Guildhall.
    Subscribe now for unlimited access to our Premium content

    Enjoy this Premium article? Get all of our exclusive articles from our award-winning journalists by signing up to an All Digital Access subscription now.
    Start free trial

    The Law Lords were not consulted and were initially sceptical of the change. But when the new body finally began work on Oct 1, 2009 – kitted out in sumptuous ceremonial gowns of gold and black, with the words Supreme Court on the back – it supercharged the judicial activism that was already a recent feature of the country’s political scene.

    It is clear that most MPs simply fail to understand how dramatic this change has been because they look at these things so much from a partisan perspective. Labour was thrilled to see the Supreme Court give Boris Johnson a bloody nose but its strictures will apply to them as well should they ever get into power.
    Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller speaks outside the Supreme Court in London following the judgment on Tuesday
    Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller speaks outside the Supreme Court in London following the judgment on TuesdayCredit: Frank Augstein/AP

    This innovation, together with the Human Rights Act and the supranational reach of the European Court of Justice, has tipped power away from the Crown and towards the courts and parliament. People may think that is a good thing but it is a change that has happened without any proper debate.

    Over the past 40 years, especially since the UK joined the EEC, judges had seen the waning influence of parliament and took it upon themselves to reinvigorate it. For centuries, the UK courts have advanced the cause of liberty; but the growing use of the judicial review and the rise of so-called judicial activism has blurred the boundaries that once separated the three interlocking pillars of our constitution – Parliament, the judiciary and the executive.

    Is this transformation into a fully fledged constitutional court, such as that in Germany, what we want? MPs are unlikely to want to unravel the current arrangements while they are seen to work in their favour. But questions of whether judges should be subject to greater scrutiny as happens in America will inevitably be raised.

    Labour politicians currently crowing about this week’s ruling may find they are less sanguine when the judges strike down their plans to seize empty homes or close down private schools. We are a country that is, properly, defined by the Rule of Law. But the rule of lawyers is another matter entirely, not least when there is no written constitution against which to assess their decisions.

  9. Tombell

    BOJO needs to get to an election ASAP. But how remains the big question.

  10. jo

    Where is Oliver Cromwell these days. He’s needed. Separating some politicians heads from bodies may focus the others.

  11. Old Lefty

    There’s also a good piece on The Conversation (no, I’m not joking!) by Anne Twomey of the Sydney University Law School on the implications for Australian politics. In the course of it, she points out that Keneally prorogued parliament for three months before the 2010 election to shield her government from parliamentary scrutiny of its incompetence and corruption.

    https://theconversation.com/the-uk-supreme-court-ruling-on-suspending-parliament-is-a-warning-for-australian-politicians-124263

    Twomey is well respected, and I think was surprised by the UK Supreme Court ruling given the number of precedents she has adduced in her own work on the royal prerogative. It’s encouraging, by the way, that she survives in a modern university: an academic who argues that Kerr and Barwick acted within their rights in 1975 must be in severe danger of being lynched.

  12. Infidel Tiger

    Galloway is a patriot. So is Arthur Scargill.

    It is the elite pond scum who infest London who refuse to accept the decision of the British people.

  13. thefrollickingmole

    Scargill & co are keen on Brexit because they still think they can implement socialism in one country” in the UK.
    And the EU would be a drag on their road to victory.

    But you fight with the allies you have, not the ones you might like, and Galloway says one of the more sensible things which often gets ignored.

    Leave now, in accordance with the public vote, then if this mythical “everyone changed their mind” meme is true reapply and rejoin.

    There was one vote 30+ years ago to join a customs union, there was never a “would you like to surrender sovereignty to an EU superstate of largely unaccountable urban bugmen” vote.

  14. classical_hero

    What’s wrong when I actually agree with George Galloway.

  15. Yes we are going backwards in democracy.
    1/ Federation required two referenda in Qld and WA. Referenda were built into the constitution to require a majority of votes as well as a majority of states (same applies in Switzerland)
    2/ The states gave away their taxing power to the Federal Government which is not keen to give any back. The GST is levied by the Feds and they dole it out favouring poorly managed states such as Tasmania and SA. WA was dudded because encouraged mining which earned royalties. In switzerland the states do the taxing, they give money to the Federal Govt., budgets and taxing can be vetoed on in referenda.
    3/ Queensland got rid of the upper house when really it should have been divided into three or four states.
    4/ Queensland and NSW have put in four years parliamentary terms instead of 3 yr or less terms when communication and transport are easier than at federation.
    5/ the only party interested in improved democracy and in particular Citizen Initiated Referenda-CIR (as in Switzerland ) is One Nation . Australia needs CIR and more states and government centres away from large cities and present capitals.
    6/ Some states and the federal government allow people in jails to vote and people who do not speak English to vote. This was not the case at Federation

  16. Leo G

    Ms Phillips had asked Mr Johnson to tone down his language in the Commons, reminding him Ms Cox had been murdered a week before the Brexit referendum as the debate over Brexit became more incendiary.

    Tone down the language or risk being murdered?

  17. James Hargrave

    What is so depressing is the basic provincialism of Britain’s politicians and judges. The ‘benefits’ of fixed term parliaments should have been obvious if they had looked at various Australian states. And prorogation: again, look at Australia and Canada. But here we have a problem of a Europeanised mindset: the politicians probably think that the French 3rd and 4th republics were wonderful (problem: how to dissolve) and both judges and politicians are probably too dim too look at how the Westminster system can and does function beyond Westminster. What do they know of England who only England know…

    Twomey has in the past pointed to some very strange idea coming out of the British judiciary (when considering the divisibility of the crown).

  18. thefrollickingmole

    Leo
    Tone down the language or risk being murdered?

    Yup, disregarding a vote by hundreds of thousands of people might make a few swivel eyed loons mutter into their beards.
    The people carrying out brexit calling people trying to thwart that democratic vote some naughty names = 20 Megahitlers on the Nazi scale.

    https://www.londonschool.com/nordic/blogg/brexicon-10-names-brexit-supporters-and-opponents-you-should-know/

  19. Dr Fred Lenin

    What do you call a citizen if a country who actively colludes secretly with an unelected foriegn government intent of thwarting the will of the majority of citizens who voted to change the relationship between the two governments ? Do the words traitor ,treason ,collaborator ,fifth columnist ring any bells ?

  20. Chris Harper

    It no longer matters whether you support Brexit or remain. This is no longer the issue. What matters now is do you support democracy, government with the consent of the governed and government accountable to the governed, or is it your position that some self designated elite has a right to veto?

    Do you hold that people you disagree with be excluded from the process? Should only decisions you, and people like you, support be judged acceptable?

  21. Beachcomber

    Attorney General Geoffrey Cox sums up the treasonous remainer British Parliament in a terrific speech.
    The video also gives more evidence that House Speaker, Bercow, is an odious little toad.

  22. Squirrel

    It certainly is getting very lively in the Hogwarts School Council.

    As to the practical aspects, Ticky Fullerton’s recent interview of Peter Estlin, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, was refreshing and reassuring – Mr Estlin seemed fairly relaxed about the implications of Brexit for the City, and thus for a crucial element of the British economy.

  23. Mother Lode

    The left (not that they were the only Remainers, but they dominated them) usually overestimate the strength of their position and usually overplay their hand.

    They have the MSM, the universities, and the public service. You would expect them to be victorious almost everywhere, because they are not practical.

  24. Mother Lode

    But they are not practical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.