Burning my bridges

Sometimes I write more on other people's blogs than on my own. Below is my final contribution at one of the pro-EU blogs that I have kept a periodic eye on, but since the theft of our referendum, there's very little to say to Europhiles. It seems futile to argue over the game, now they've picked up the ball and gone off home. But as I don't deign to continue the dispute, I will reproduce my parting shot, for the pleasure of my readers (yes, both of you!):

"... killing democracy is not an accusation, but a stone-cold fact. The government was elected on a promise to hold a referendum. They did not hold that referendum, because they feared the result, so I see their original promise as a cynical ploy to deny me my democratic voice, until it was too late to stop their agenda. Now they laugh at the tories for promising to renegotiate what is non-negotiable. This makes me angry, and I cannot possibly see anything that the EU does as legitimate. What could I say, had the referendum been held and the people had voted for the treaty? Very little. As it is, I have a righteous indignation against the EU, which has occasionally manifested itself in the comment threads of this blog, due to its pro-EU stance. But I will not bother you in future. I will voluntarily take myself off.

As for the case in point, I don’t care what the media says either way. It’s inaccurate in both directions, but without any democratic process, what difference does it make? Public opinion may be swayed one way or the other, but so what? The public doesn’t get a chance to express its opinion. The EU is going to have a President representing millions of people and not one of them will have voted for him.

I’m a libertarian and a nationalist, and I’m under no illusion of speaking for a majority of anyone. If I wanted a political party that endorsed my views, I’d have to start it myself. I am only one man, but in a democratic country at least I have a chance to argue the case one way or another, to call for the repeal a law I oppose, or the institution of a law I support, for more taxes or less taxes, for nationalisation or privatisation, to vote for the people I think will represent my views the best. Now, even this modicum of participation is being removed, replaced by something no more accountable than the Byzantine Empire."

To this, comes a response:

"I always find it intriguing that those who are pushing for referenda on the EU always make excuses when it’s suggested referenda are used more in UK politics for other matters, such as the UK becoming a republic, the voting system, our membership of NATO, greater devolution of power to local authorities, directly elected prime ministers, etc.

It always seems to be *then* that they bang on about Parliament being the right forum to decide *those* matters rather than consulting the people. Pure hypocrisy."

This from someone who categorised me as 'hysterical' and 'rightwing'. I admitted the charge of hysteria, at least I may come across this way sometimes, but refuted the label of rightwing, which I am not. Nor have I ever made excuses with regard to holding referenda on other issues, such as the ones mentioned here, indeed I would welcome any or all of them. The problem in this country is certainly not one of having too much democracy.

This response bears out my view that there is nothing worth discussing with the pro-EU crowd. They cannot defend their position from the charge of being anti-democratic, because it's true and they know it, so they don't even try. It hurts their delusional self-image to realise how their chosen political system has - by their own professed 'liberal', 'progressive' values - not a shred of legitimacy .