Faux outrage – setting the record straight

Faux outrage – setting the record straight

by Ewen Stewart
article from Friday 30, August, 2019

SO THERE WE HAVE IT, Bercow has described it as ‘a constitutional outrage’, Sturgeon has said Johnson is ‘acting like a dictator’ and Anna Soubry MP and leader of something called Change UK, which I can’t recall being on the ballot paper when she was re-elected in 2017, has demanded to meet the Queen to discuss this outrage.

Frankly the degree of hypocrisy being displayed is extraordinary. As is well documented this Parliament is the longest for 400 years. It is always prorogued before a Queen’s Speech.  However the substantive point is at most six Parliamentary days will be lost by this measure. Six. Contrast that with the thousand days that Parliamentarians have had to implement what they promised to do. Remain Politicians are deliberately stoking up faux outrage as a clear attempt to renege on the referendum result. 

Let us remember the sequence of events. Parliament gave the people the say on whether the UK left the EU or not. They delegated that power to us and promised to honour fully the outcome, for better or worse. 

Moreover, the status quo had every advantage. They had more money and almost the entire establishment on their side aided by countless international politicians lined up to denigrate ‘little Britain.’ Despite immense pressure when ‘expert’ opinion was wheeled out to claim 500,000 jobs would be lost and the economy would sink immediately by 5% on a vote to leave, in a record turnout 17.4 million people voted leave, against 16.1 million for remain.  Furthermore 406 Parliamentary constituencies were for leave and just 242 for remain. The terms of the referendum were clear. Winner take all. If remain had won by one vote there would have been no debate. None.

Since the referendum Parliament overwhelmingly voted to support the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1973, ending the UK’s EU membership by 29th March 2019. Then, in a subsequent General Election both Labour and Conservative were absolutely clear that not only would the referendum be honoured, the UK would leave the structures cleanly and absolutely. 

Moreover, during the referendum campaign remain supporters, including the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, were very clear that if the people voted leave it would mean not just leaving the EU but the single market, ECJ and all its structures. They defined what Leave meant very clearly and it simply will not do that the collective memory of many key Remain advocates is so selective. Leave did not mean signing up to a Withdrawal Agreement on terms materially worse than the current ones effectively reducing the UK to a rule taker without any say, potentially in perpetuity, as Philip Hammond and others well know. 

This since 23rd June 2016, the day of the referendum, well over 1000 days have elapsed. Parliament has deliberately frustrated, at every juncture, the will of the people who were well aware of what they were voting for as Remain largely defined it.  

Remain cry ‘dictatorship’ and use increasingly shrill and absurd language. But it was their side who misled during the referendum with false claims of economic catastrophe. For the record 500,000 jobs were not lost immediately after the referendum. On the contrary over 800,000 were created. The economy did not contract by 5 per cent, but grew consistently, in contrast, it must be said, to much of the Eurozone. The UK was not placed ‘at the back of the queue’ for a trade deal with the US. Instead it rather looks like being at the front of the line.

So when you hear Bercow, Sturgeon and Soubry squeal about closing parliament down just remember that at most six days debate might be lost. Compare that with the thousand plus days of Parliamentary constitutional sophistry trying to unwind the extraordinary and clear instruction to leave. Remain MP’s tactics are of brazen opportunism and frankly dishonest. They are the ones who have used every trick on the book, aided and abetted by a somewhat less than impartial Speaker of the House, to frustrate Leave and now they complain over the loss of six debating days as if was equivalent to Charles I dissolving Parliament in 1625. Perhaps we should say to our Remainer MP’s ‘Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.’

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often


Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article
To comment on this article please go to our facebook page