by British Awakening – 2 Mar 2019
As a social media platform, I am ambivalent about Twitter, I found it quite useful during the 2016 referendum campaign as it allowed me to connect with fellow like-minded Brexiteers – I was more on the Norway option side of the debate, a soft Brexiteer if you like. What I dislike about Twitter is the unbalanced way it censors debate, if you don’t agree with Globalist dogma you are far more likely to be sanctioned than if you did.
One of the features of Twitter is the way it limits how many words you can put into a tweet - so a thought or an argument has to be carefully constructed. Pete North at the Leave Alliance is quite good at producing threaded arguments some of which can be up to twenty tweets long but they do demand a lot of the audience, the more powerful tweets I find put a compelling argument across in a few words - the one shown below is not only one of the best I have ever seen it wonderfully sums up where we are with Brexit.
Of course, our establishment knows this all too well but don’t hold your breath, the BBC is not going to point this out anytime soon, after all they receive millions of pounds from the European Union. If anyone thinks this money is a free gift for them to do with as they see fit then please send me an email as I know some Nigerian businessmen with a lucrative business offer you may be interested in.
Our establishment is utterly brazen in this respect, they clearly do not represent the majority but since the majority are what many of them feel are their social inferiors, they feel emboldened to act in the way that they do. This arrogance is what millions of us rejected in 2016, not the irrational hatred of Polish plumbers that all too many Remainers prefer as the reason for their defeat in the referendum.
A shining example of this arrogance is the recent formation of the Independence Group when a number of MPs quit their political parties. What they share in common is a desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 referendum by creating conditions for a second referendum - of course they prefer not to use this term because it invites the obvious response - what is the point of a second referendum if you are simply going to ignore the first? No, the term they prefer is a ‘People’s Vote’, which sounds much nicer and democratic even if it does invite the question – was it cats and dogs that had the previous vote?
Now the narrative for the People’s Vote normally goes along the lines of people change their minds. This is of course true - which is why we have general elections every few years, we don’t however have a general election because the losing side didn’t agree with the result. That aside what is interesting about this narrative is its specific purpose in the minds of Remain ultras, one would have thought that any MP that stood on a manifesto that committed to upholding the 2016 referendum made a certain promise to the people of his or her constituency. To now renege on this promise would clearly result in people changing their minds about you acting as their representative in Parliament. Yet not a single one of them has offered their constituents a by election.
And then it dawned on me.
They work for the EU and the EU has told them not to hold a by election - because they would almost certainly lose and, at least in the case of the Conservatives, probably lose to a more Brexit leaning candidate.
If you think more widely, the way our two main political parties select their candidates lends itself to interference by the EU, David Cameron baulked at the promised changes to allow constituencies to recall their MPs, had mechanisms been put in place I am pretty sure Anna Soubry would have been recalled some time ago - now she sits smugly pouring out her unwanted Globalist dogma unchallenged by the elite media and her poor old constituents cannot do a thing about it.
Both main parties have limited the ability of constituency parties to choose their own local representatives, often this has created enormous resentment when a chosen party apparatchik (almost always with pro EU credentials) gets parachuted in to a safe seat by central office. This I think helps explain why our political parties do not represent the people that elect them - the ones that do share their views seldom get the chance to stand for election.
The Independence Group is where this ends up, notwithstanding the secrecy over how it receives its funding it does not represent the interests of voters because it is the arm of a foreign power in our Parliament, a shameless Globalist cuckoo that has no democratic legitimacy at all.
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.