I was initially quite enthused about what I understood to be the Mexit vote tomorrow. Though as it turns out, I completely misheard the term. In hindsight it should have been obvious that a plebiscite of Mexican squatters on whether to leave or remain in America was too good to be true. So I did a little research and amended this post accordingly.
By this point everyone and their adopted Africans have opined on Thursday’s Brexit vote in Britain on EU membership. The skirmish lines in these increasingly frequent globalist/nationalist conflicts never vary. The Side of Light being comprised of jews, muslims, and other invasive species, aligned with business interests and a coterie of foaming SJWs. These antagonistic fringe elements all being impassioned advocates for European integration based strictly on the principle of the matter.
Which would make it interesting if Marine Le Pen were named Chancellor of the organization and granted plenary powers. A scenario that would undoubtedly incentivize the world’s loquacious Bernsteins to pivot their pronouncements on Xenophobic Hate in mid-dissemble. Your tablet screen would spin with the speed at which a leave vote suddenly became critical to the British well-being.
All of which offers little additional insight to what I hope every reader here already realizes: the vast majority of modern politics is an exercise in the buying, selling, and often-enough giving away of your children’s inheritance.
It would be positive if more votes were cast with that thought in mind. Because unlike those who win elections by dangling values and those who lose their societies by taking the hook, I’m more interested in interests. Specifically, what course best serves my family and my nation. The latter of which being a vestigial concern that actually gave birth to governments in the first place. In the case of Brexit, we find a pleasant alignment between what definitively works in theory, and what does so only in practice. That is to say European integration has not only been harmful to mere human beings, but is also malign according to the models. That makes punditry on the topic so simple it could fit on the Washington Post op-ed page.
To begin, I take it as social axiom that not being invaded by hostile aliens is an objectively superior state to being so–even when it benefits the encroaching foreigners. And since that action seems central to the EU’s current mission, the practical arguments can rest well enough on this alone. Britain’s fate outside the EU is a question mark; within it is Pakistan.
So let’s discuss theory. Government responsiveness works much like gravity. It is strong only in close proximity to the governed. Compare our own layers of government. Local officials are frequently prone to suffering the input of their constituents. This inclination wanes at the state level and recedes entirely at the federal. At the level of supranational organization, the desires of common people are simply of no concern whatsoever. And worse, those in position to exercise policy discretion at this level stand to experience none of its ground-level repercussions. The results of which are a phalanx of decision-makers who are unremovable, unaccountable, and fully insulated. Knowing nothing else but this, I would be little induced to enthusiasm.
Though I should concede that even in the thin air of an EU bureaucracy, large checks still exert a significant gravitational pull. Which means that while Englishmen with roots counted in millennia would wield little influence on the course of England, undead Hungarian jews would retain much say indeed. And if you find that state of affairs felicitous, then remain might be the better vote for you.
Of course the lich isn’t alone in appealing for a receptive super-state. Both Cameron and Merkel are impassioned advocates of continental integration. And those who require more reasons than that to support dissolution are demanding personalities indeed. Maybe you just ought to listen to the experts.
During a rare news conference in London on Tuesday, just hours before registration to vote in the so-called “Brexit” referendum ends, Prime Minister David Cameron, who is campaigning for the U.K. to remain in the E.U., urged voters to “listen to experts,” including the World Trade Organization and the chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Right, listen to Janet Yellen if you don’t believe George Soros. These are a tribe of people flush with helpful suggestions. That so few of those are taken in Israel remains one of the world’s most confounding enigmas. Maybe that’s being too cynical. Both parties could be preparing a policy statement on full integration of the Levantine Union.
But while I’m normally as eager as anyone to flush away my country’s sovereignty at the advice of friendly experts, my reservoir of deference to their recommendations is presently running lower than Lake Mead. In fact, contra-expert guidance, I’m more inclined to decentralize state power and widely distribute its governing functions–pushing them closer to the governed–in order to make the chore of ambitious boll-weevils as difficult as possible. If taking control of an institution grants control of a people, then I want as many discrete institutions as possible so as to limit the damage from each. Obama would be harmful as a governor, he is disastrous as a President. And how many Welshmen want their immigration policy set by Merkel?
If polls are correct, perhaps a majority of them do. And that’s fine. If a people are determined to perish no force on Earth will thwart their will. It should simply be their will that is determinative in the matter. You will note it is only when that will turns to national vitality that their adversaries emerge in a clamor. A clamor which is presently taking shape in the British Remain camp. I’ll be hoping for some peace and quiet come Thursday.