1. For democracy – against the EU

Beyond Brexit:

A programme for democratic reform

1. For democracy – against the EU

We cannot democratise British politics without Brexit.

Mick Hume

Mick Hume


In the first piece in our five-part programme for democratic reform, Mick Hume remakes the case for leaving the EU. Read Brendan O’Neill’s introduction to the series here.

Any programme for democratic reform in Britain must begin – but not end – with Brexit. Leaving the EU is the precondition for making the UK a truly democratic society, for two reasons.

First, because the European Union is not only undemocratic – it is inherently anti-democratic, depriving the peoples of Europe of the freedom to decide their own destinies.

And second, because 17.4million people voted to Leave, the biggest democratic mandate in British history. If the establishment can feel free to ignore or overturn that popular vote, then by what standard do we live in a democratic society?

From its foundation as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1953, then the European Economic Community from 1956, to the European Union since 1993, one consistent value endorsed by the EU elite has been anti-democracy – the creation of a system that separates power and control in Europe from any expression of the popular will.

The EU’s aim has been not to ‘represent’ the peoples of Europe, but to constrain popular sovereignty and democracy. The European Union is not Europe. It is the anti-democratic union of Europe’s political elites. As the leading Spanish jurist Miguel Herrero de Minon wrote about the EU 20 years ago, ‘The lack of “demos” [the people] is the main reason for the lack of democracy. And the democratic system without “demos” is just “cratos” – power.’ Since then, the EU has gone further still in elevating the power of bureaucracy and technocracy over national sovereignty and popular democracy.

British Remainers in the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties say we should ‘Remain and Reform’. The idea is apparently to make Brussels fill in its ‘democratic deficit’. Yet as the left-wing British historian Eric Hobsbawm observed, it is ‘misleading to speak of the “democratic deficit” of the European Union. The EU was explicitly constructed on a non-democratic (ie, non-electoral) basis, and few would seriously argue that it would have got where it is otherwise.’ If we appreciate the inherently anti-democratic character of the EU and its institutions, why bother trying to reform it?

Apologists for the EU claim that its formation after the Second World War was an attempt to save Europe from further conflicts. The truth is that European elites saw national sovereignty as the primary cause of war – because of the ‘hegemony’ of nationalist politics over the peoples of Europe. In this one-eyed worldview, mass politics had led to war. To those seeking to build a new peace in Europe from the top down, then, popular democracy was part of the old problem, not the solution. The founders of the EU wanted to manage Europe’s affairs while being insulated from the pressure of the masses and nation states.

Constraining democracy in postwar Western Europe meant creating systems that had formal elections and elected representatives, but at the same time would take democratic politics out of the real business of government.

The signals were clear back in 1951, when the leaders of the six founding nations – West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg – signed the famous Europe Declaration, which set in train the creation of the European Community and then the EU. It stated that the signatories ‘give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe’. The prefix ‘supra’, from the Latin, means above, over or beyond. The ‘supranational’ institutions of the embryonic EU would operate over and above national politics, and beyond the reach of the citizens of any nation state.

From the 1950s until today, the clear intention of the European political elites has been to create a supranational form of unity above and beyond the reach of national parliaments. Look at the main institutions where the EU does its business, in an atmosphere of secrecy and public silence where the rooms are as free of the air of democracy as they are of tobacco smoke.

The core of the EU’s business is done through COREPER – the Committee of Permanent Representatives – a gathering of senior national officials which handles 90 per cent of EU legislation. Its proceedings are treated as state secrets, its documents usually classed as ‘non-papers’, which means they cannot be accessed by the press or the public despite the EU’s supposed open information rules.

COREPER does the spadework in preparation for meetings of the Council of the EU, which brings governments together to agree on Euro-legislation, usually behind closed doors. Much of this has already been decided in the Council’s hundreds of committees and working groups, all of which operate in secret. The big showcase for the EU is the regular meeting of the European Council, usually described as a ‘summit’ of European leaders. There is no public record of what is said in there, just a set-piece media photo opportunity and a summit communiqué prepared by COREPER. This document, known as Council Conclusions, binds governments to what has been agreed, regardless of what happens in their domestic parliaments or elections between meetings.

As Brussels correspondent Bruno Waterfield says, surveying how EU secrecy bypasses democracy, ‘The Council Conclusions are a compact between leaders that overrides the relationship between voters and their governments’. This is a key point. Some might object, after all, that the European Council is a symbol of representative democracy, since it brings together elected heads of government. But when they get behind the closed doors of the European Council, they cease to be representatives of nation states accountable to their electorates and transmogrify into a new political entity: member states of the EU. These heads of member states draw their authority from their membership of the union and seat at the top table. They are members of an exclusive club from which the voting public are excluded.

Then there is the European Commission (EC), the only body that can propose legislation. The EC is an unelected executive, which believes it is practising what one of its former presidents called ‘benign despotism’. This bureaucratic body proposes and polices thousands of EU rules and regulations, in consultation with an army of expert officials who would not know a voter if they bumped into one at lunch at a Brussels restaurant.

For the historian Perry Anderson, ‘the trinity of Council, COREPER and Commission’ creates ‘not just an absence of democracy’ but also ‘an attenuation of politics of any kind, as ordinarily understood. The effect of this axis is to short-circuit – above all at the critical COREPER level – national legislatures that are continually confronted with a mass of decisions over which they lack any oversight.’ Rather than political issues to be debated and decided in national parliaments, major questions that affect domestic politics become treated as technical matters to be sorted and filed away in EU committees and secret diplomatic summits.

But what’s not democratic about the elected European Parliament? Well, it’s a parliament, Jacques, but not as we know it. It is not a legislature – it has no power to propose and pass laws. It does not elect a government, like the parliaments of European nations. It does not even have the power to choose where it sits, shuffling between Brussels and Strasbourg at the whim of the Commission. It offers rather drab, expensive and unconvincing democratic window dressing for a system where the real power emanates from councils, commissions and committees via bureaucratic diktat and secret diplomatic deals.

The anti-democratic tendencies that were always inherent have become more explicit since the formation of the European Union a quarter of a century ago. The EU elites now declare their opposition to borders – ‘the worst invention ever made by politicians’ according to Jean-Claude Juncker. Of course, they are not opposed to the borders around ‘Fortress Europe’, which they have built and police at great expense. The borders they hate are the national borders within Europe, because these demark nation states with sovereign, democratic governments. Juncker and Co dislike borders not because they love migrants, but because they despise national democracies.

Yet the nation state – populated by citizens holding governments to account – remains the only basis for a working democracy that humanity has ever invented. Any idea of a ‘Europe-wide’ democracy or even ‘global democracy’ is code for the opposite – taking powers away from the citizenry and investing it in supra-national bodies such as the UN Security Council, the European Commission and the myriad unaccountable NGOs they support.

The EU rule that demands member states allow freedom of movement across their borders typifies the way the Eurocrats deny democracy, in the name of ‘freedom’. It has removed the right of national parliaments to democratic control over their borders. People of a nation such as Britain have had mass immigration imposed upon them from above, without ever being asked at the ballot box. That was one reason why many of us who are not anti-immigration, some of whom have protested for the rights of migrants, voted Leave – to take control and enable a democratic debate about issues such as immigration. No such debate is possible while we remain trapped under EU rules.

That 2016 vote remains, of course, the overriding democratic reason for Brexit. Even if the EU was the most accountable institution on earth, democracy would still demand that we leave. But as the past three years have demonstrated, nothing brings out the anti-democratic instincts of the EU elite like the revolting masses expressing their will through a referendum.

There can be no real democratic reform without Brexit. And there will be no real Brexit without a sustained democratic revolt against the UK’s Remainer establishment.

Mick Hume is a spiked columnist. His latest book, Revolting! How the Establishment is Undermining Democracy – and what they’re afraid of, is published by William Collins.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Ronald Garvey

5th August 2019 at 12:54 pm

What a load of utter nonsense this is. Mick Hume, you use the words “elite” and “anti-democratic” in relation to the EU, well that’s kind of rich coming from somebody in the UK, home to the House of Lords and the royal family, and the preserver of a first-past-the-post system that allows a party earning just 35 – 40% of the popular vote to dominate parliament. You might focus on polishing up your own democratic processes before scorning those of the EU. The EU parliament works differently to the parliaments of nation states by the way, it’s not the same thing, the EU is not a nation state, so the fact that it works differently is not evidence of “anti democracy”. Your grasp of immigration and border control is quite suspect. Border policy is a matter of government policy, not something to be voted on in a referendum, so suggesting the ballot box is needed here is mildly misleading. But “mass immigration” was never imposed on the UK by the EU… most of your immigrant communities do not come from the EU and you decide to allow them in or not according to your own national border policy. When the UK opted out of the Schengen agreement (just like it opted out of the Euro zone), the EU accepted that choice without protest. So where is this imposition you speak of? So because the UK is not in Schengen, this actually means that it retains the ability to control its own borders – certainly for people entering from non-EU countries. It has allowed access (free movement) now to EU member state citizens, but it did retain the right at least, as a non-Schengen EU member, to either follow the lead of other member states in this regard, or not. But even here, that right of course is reciprocal, so that UK citizens enjoy the same rights when travelling in the opposite direction (that is what the EU model is all about!)… shall we take this up a notch and look into the Spanish communities that have had their localities turned upside down by Brit “immigrants”? Or might that be uncomfortable for you to discuss? I’m afraid your knowledge of the border issue is just poor, and your opinion should be evaluated in that light.

Rod Conrad

2nd August 2019 at 5:32 pm

Democracy ???
You make larff
House of Frauds
Democracy is for rich twats like you
It’s just bought …
Oh except with EU all the Council are elected …
well except for Boris , so normally as they are head of state for the member countries
Now excuse me but I never remember voting for the Civil Servants in UK not even the Judges or Sherrif
Nor do I remember voting for any one in WTO

The Commission are civil servants and there are a lot less of them than it takes to run Birmingham

So enough of this fake news .. you don’t give a fig about democracy .. you ust want to get paid to spread BS
Be honest

James Knight

16th July 2019 at 7:21 pm

It is ironic to hear Brexiters accused of irrational optimism.

“Stay and reform” is the ultimate Panglossian optimism.

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 2:52 am

Haha, is mainstream good or bad in this context? I don’t understand what you mean by that.

I understand what you mean about ” humble and not taking it too far”, but that speaks to me of eastern religions, and isn’t anything like the Christianity that l know.

The bible is supernatural, and reading it, combined with prayer and attending a Spirit-filled church had Christ changing the words of whole chapters to speak to me personally. Parts of Genesis and Exodus are allegorical in that they speak of the time spent in the desert by Israel where they learnt to trust God and rely on His supernatural providence. The wilderness is a dry, lonely place, and we deny the flesh, not only through fasting and abstinence, but of things such as media and pop culture as well as a way to be set apart so as to develop our spirit. It takes years.

I learnt many things, the kinds of things that Christ wants to teach His children for Himself.

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 2:23 am

Haha, is mainstream good or bad in this context? I can’t understand what you mean by that.

I kind of get what you’re saying about “humble, and not taking it too far”, but that speaks to me more of eastern religions. It certainly doesn’t apply to the Christianity that l know.

Parts of Genesis and Exodus are allegorical in that they speak of the time spent in the desert by Israel and having to learn to rely on God and His supernatural providence. The desert speaks as to a dry place, and in this context it’s a place where the flesh is denied so as to grow in the spiritual. Fasting and abstinence, but also things like media and pop culture.

The bible is supernatural. Dedication to reading it, combined with prayer and attending a Spirit-filled church had Christ changing the words of whole chapters to speak to me personally. (The bible also teaches that unless someone has personal experience with spirits and the supernatural, then they’ll not be able to believe this kind of thing, so it’s basically ppintless in talking about it…to paraphrase.) This wilderness time can go for years.

Every person’s experience would be different, and l wouldn’t want to share much more because there are things that Christ taught me that He would want to teach you or anyone else for Himself. I hope that doesn’t sound weird.

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 3:12 am

Sorry, these posts were supposed to be addressed to Winston at the bottom of the page.

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 7:48 pm

LOL @ the anti-immigration lobby. After all of the Brexit drama, this is what you have achieved – absolutely nothing. One day you might realise that you live under a capitalist state that had a successful revolution against the monarchy and the feudal order during the Civil War, and that the British State exists to serve the needs of the British capital and nothing else.

> Boris Johnson has failed to guarantee that he would bring down immigration levels if he is the next prime minister as he clashed with Jeremy Hunt over their Brexit plans.
Mr Johnson was asked directly if net migration would fall if he takes over from Theresa May as he took part in the final head-to-head showdown of the Tory leadership campaign and he said he would not get into a ‘numbers game’.
But Mr Hunt said if he wins the race for the keys to Number 10 that the number of people coming to the UK would be brought down.
Mr Johnson said: ‘I am not going to get into some numbers game. We will have control. That is what people voted for.’

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 7:55 pm

Dude. We like people. It’s just that we can’t tolerate ideologies that are completely incompatible with western values. It’s an important distinction.

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 8:31 pm

Oh come off it, you are much closer to IS than anyone else on here. You clearly have a mentality of religious intolerance, an ideology of religious jihad, and your ideal political scenario is one of apocalyptic conflagration. If that is the only way that you can think of to connect with the British then maybe you should think long and hard about that. Maybe this is all about your own personal insecurities?

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 8:58 pm

Pffft. I know who the one’s are with the personal insecurities. What a thing to say.

And stop trying to connect me to having anything to do with God’s plan. It’s none of my business. He’s got His ways, and plans to destroy the devil and sin once and for all.

If you don’t like biblical truth and don’t want to be connected to it, then I’m just going to have to keep writing about it, because l expect persecution.

Marvin Jones

16th August 2019 at 8:12 pm

Hunt was talking through his rear, he couldn’t even control the entire planet coming here and receiving free health service for all manner of serious illnesses. Boris is a deceptive fan of open borders, no controls on any type of migration, no matter how illegal or how many. Besides, it is much too late for that, THEY have power of the human rights asinine force and the terrifying numbers to demand whatever they wish.

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 7:16 pm

My money is on Boris the Red and his globalist chums subverting the democraric will on Oct 31st, but even if he doesn’t, what then?

I appreciate how you commies can’t acknowledge the spiritual realm, but how about Deepstate? No?

It’s offensive enough to hear these constant referrals to one’s class by you British. Are you silly commies so lacking in self-awareness? Utter hypocrites. Going on and on about representing the worker. Well, in case you missed it, your countryman Tommy Robinson was wrongfully imprisoned last Thursday. He actually does represent people that have been scorned and ignored by your fascistic government. They are the victims of diversity-communism, and of having third-world barbarians inflicted upon them. These arseholes have been raping British children for decades, all the while being enabled by the government, the police and social services. The official line is that they didn’t want to upset the muslim community, but l question even that now. This a systematic effort by satan and his minions to destroy nations.

What was wrong with UKIP? Farrago announced himself as the bought-stooge that he is when the minute Tommy was on board, he wasn’t. Utterly vile man.

Deepstate is putting in place totalitarianism and a one-world government, and all of the major western parties are filled with humanists and useful idiots. They run the media, and propagate nothing but fake news and horseshit about the inclusivity of diversity-communism, and won’t tolerate heresy or dissent.

The people of many northern English towns don’t even exist to you, so l can’t imagine which workers you are purporting to be representing. Farking wankers. There actually are thousands of people that are risking their lives and liberty. There isn’t anyone else to do it. The media smear them and their organisations as “dangerous”, or edit stories to make them appear to be idiots or whatever. What sneeerers. This is what happens when you condition a society to be fixated on class: those below you are apparently unworthy of love, let alone any recognition of the nightmare that their so-called representatives have put rhem through, and actual action to prevent this and bring justice.

(Farrago, Fox and Widdecombe. Says it all really.)

UKIP is a threat to the globalists, in that they are anti-islam and enjoyed support, which is why it had to be stymied. Our governments want nothing else but to destroy us, our societies, and the heritage that our forebears fought wars over. What an utter insult to the memory of these people that gave their lives against fascistic control. They’ve confiscated our guns, and the only weapon we have left is at the ballot box. A vote for the legacy parties is a vote for further control, less freedom and more perversion and diversity.

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 7:20 pm

And why is spiiiked proclaiming free speech when some speech has to be restricted?

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 12:39 am

Does spiiked still support the kind of free speech that offends? Wasn’t that part of the manifesto?

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 11:53 am

Thanks. I appreciate it.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 2:23 pm

As Marriot Edgar put it:

“When they told him they’d brought Magna Charter,
The King seemed to go kind of limp,
But minding his manners he took off his hat
And said ‘Thanks very much, have a shrimp.’

‘You’d best sign at once,’ said Fitzwalter,
‘If you don’t, I’ll tell thee for a start
The next coronation will happen quite soon,
And you won’t be there to take part.’

So they spread Charter out on t’ tea table,
And John signed his name like a lamb,
His writing in places was sticky and thick
Through dipping his pen in the jam.

And it’s through that there Magna Charter,
As were made by the Barons of old,
That in England today we can do what we like,
So long as we do what we’re told”

gershwin gentile

15th July 2019 at 1:27 pm

“No-one would vote to become poorer, less free and more badly governed, so those who voted for Brexit were not genuinely participating in democracy. In some cases, they were lied to and misled; in other cases, they allowed hate to blind them to reality”

The “If you did vote for what I wanted, you were wrong” argument.

“And “democracy” does not give racists and xenophobes the right to trample on vulnerable communities of colour. Nor does it give deluded wrinklies the right to destroy the future of young people in pursuit of an England that never was.”

And again, just to make sure “Not only were you wrong to not vote for what I wanted, but you are a RACIST!”.

It might be a bit racist to assume that everyone who voted for Brexit is an old white person (man, and really WORKING CLASS man). I suppose all the non white people who voted for Brexit, they must be the “lied to/misled/too thick to understand”. Right?

Icarus Bop

15th July 2019 at 1:56 pm

I considered responding to AC’s diatribes myself, but have come to the conclusion it is a pointless exercise. These kind of people (Remain losers) are deluded to their own sense of grandeur and are incapable of considering that they are wrong, despite any number of facts of figures they will stick to their doctrine and fall to the path of name calling when all else fails.
Like the Black Knight from Monty Python; declaring they have won no-matter what the evidence arrayed against them, like we did at the Black Knight, we all need to laugh at them – it is the only defence against such pompous self righteousness.


15th July 2019 at 6:01 pm

>>I considered responding to AC’s diatribes myself, but have come to the conclusion it is a pointless exercise.
Definitely. AC is not a real person

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 1:05 pm

Very well argued, and I fully agree.

A federal model would save the Union, and hopefully strengthen the ties by means of mutual self interest., amongst the 4.

Small, break away states could not possibly stay the course in today’s world and federation would provide the stability to see off the Nats’ wilder aims and repudiate their various grievances.

Switzerland is doing very well as a prosperous stable federal nation, beyond the grasp of the EU.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 1:06 pm

Meant as reply to Terence Patrick Hewett.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 12:52 pm

After Brexit there will be a great deal of work to do: Constitutional Reform for a start and ridding all of our institutions of 45 years of EU Fifth Column infiltration: a written constitution and the re-activating of the Treason Act so that these people can never betray their country again without criminal sanction. A written constitution would be very difficult to formulate for four nations so I favour Federation: this is not the only solution of course.

We have a constitutional problem: there are different undercurrents in all the four nations of the Union arising from our shared extremely violent history. The forces of mutual security and the burgeoning empirical wealth of the Industrial Revolution which forged the Union are no longer there and the four nations are reverting to type.

The constitutional crisis facing the United Kingdom has deep roots in British and Irish history. Federal concepts in Britain do not primarily emanate from the EU as some people claim: they have antecedence in the 17th century constitutional upheaval of the English Civil War and the counterpart wars in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. There is nothing new about the idea of federalism in Britain. Early last century a Cabinet sub-committee was given the task of drafting a Bill for a federal UK, in an attempt to deal with the Irish question. Federalism had long been a Liberal Party objective. Gladstone’s concept of “Home Rule” was simply different words for the idea of “devolution” The Edwardian Liberal Party was fond of federal solutions to mitigate England’s overwhelming power in any projected British Federation. This is not to say that the EU, as a federal bureaucracy which desires almost unlimited powers, does not desire to subvert the sovereignty of the constituent nations: just that federalism in Britain has a far older and legitimate ancestry.

Government of Ireland Act 1914 was passed but never effected: the Great War brought constitutional reform to a shuddering halt; the measure made into statute was never acted upon.

Nationalist arguments for the dissolution of the British State are perfectly respectable intellectual positions; but I submit that Federalism is the optimal way of encouraging co-operation not conflict; enshrining independent national status, utilising the broad spectrum of talent available amongst the 4 nations for the benefit and freedom of us all, in a hostile world.

The Brits and the US imposed the federal system on Germany after 1945. Australia and Canada have federations as of course does the US. It may be noted that all these countries are somewhat more successful than are we.

An interesting paper charting the constitutional history of the 4 nations, as well as an extensive bibliography, can be found at:

The Reformed Union: A British Federation
By David Melding, Conservative AM for South Wales Central and Deputy Presiding Officer in the National Assembly


An article outlining the ideas of Murdo Fraser, Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament can be found at:

Our still United Kingdom – A ‘quasi-federal’ future?


The constitutional status quo ante bellum in Britain is no longer an option.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 1:15 pm

The first welsh link doesna work: this one does:


terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 1:17 pm

The firsst welsh link doesna work this one does.


Gloria Britanniæ

15th July 2019 at 12:15 pm

Here’s heresy for you.

It was ‘democracy’ that got us into our current mess. No sovereign monarch would have assented to the European Communities Act 1972 and its Sections 2(1) and 2(4). A monarch might have signed up to the EEC free trade zone but they would never have assented to EEC/EU law having primacy over our own—not unless our fleet was at the bottom of the Channel and EEC tanks driving up the Strand.

When evaluating the phenomenon of Western ‘democracy’, one should remember that our current experiment of mass democracy—far removed from the Athenian principles of democracy’s inventors—is actually of quite recent vintage, in Britain dating only from 1918.

Simon de Montfort convened the first English parliament in 1265 (its roots lying in the 8th Century Saxon Witan and Moot). The Irish parliament was formally created in 1297 (although their first parliament met in 1264). The Scottish parliament emerged in the 13th Century (the first ‘colloquium’ meeting in 1235), it first being recorded as such in 1293.
Dating our system of government from the convening of our first parliaments—say England’s 1265—means that for 653 years our country at the very least ticked by: England remained England, Wales remained Wales, Ireland continued being Ireland, and Scotland Scotland; and Cornwall was Cornish, Cumbria Cumbrian, Yorkshire was full of Yorkshiremen, Cardiff was Cardiffian, Belfast full of Belfasters, Aberdeen Aberdonian, etc.
244 years saw England so powerful it held the balance of power in Europe, reflected in Henry VIII’s motto ‘Cui adhæreo, præest’—‘Whom I favour, wins’.
338 years saw our islands fully united with the Union of the Crowns, creating, pace Dicey, a ‘united country [with] the power to resist in one age the threatened predominance of Louis XIV., and in another age to withstand and overthrow the tremendous power of Napoleon’ (Dicey was referring to the 1707 Act of Union but his point stands).
342 years saw the beginning of our islands’ global empire, with the founding of Jamestown in Virginia.
550 years (after Buonaparte’s defeat and his leaving a ruin of Europe) saw us a hyperpower, the like of which had not been seen since Rome.
653 years after de Montfort’s parliament, we passed the 1918 Representation of the People Act and enfranchised everyone, the only qualification being that they still had a pulse at an arbitrarily defined and ever-lowering minimum age.

So what have we achieved in 101 years of mass egalitarian democracy?
No longer a hyperpower by 19th Century’s end (Europe having recovered from Buonaparte’s ruin), we remained a front-rank superpower; but have since allowed ourselves to be reduced to a vassal state of both Washington and Brussels; a craven nation pushed around by no-marks like Spain, Iceland (Cod Wars), Ireland, Iran and Argentina; our ministers insulted with impunity by foreign dignitaries.
We surrendered significant territory and resources with Southern Irish independence.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP has long surpassed what it was at the height of the Napoleonic wars when we were fighting for our national survival, and approaches what we were spending in WW1; yet not only are we fighting no major war, spending on defence—a core function of government—is a fraction of everything else. Public spending in 1815 was 34.3% of GDP, of which 22.1% was defence; in 1918, public spending reached 56.64% of GDP, of which 47.07% was defence; in 1945, public spending reached no less than 70.34% of GDP, of which 52.01% was defence. In comparison, 2015 saw public spending at 40.86% of GDP, a mere 2.44% of which was defence.
Crime has increased exponentially—from 1921 to 2011 (per population), ‘all offences’ have increased 2,614%, rapes 8,509%, crimes of serious violence 5,270%, ‘Total Violence Against the Person’ 39,607% (but homicides & attempted murders ‘only’ 109%).
Freedom is fast disappearing—people are prosecuted for expressing opinions and publicly vilified for even what their opinions are deemed to be rather than what they actually are.
Science is dying, giving way to lunacy, with people obliged to law to ignore biological reality, that cutting off or sewing on appendages does not transform anyone into the opposite sex, and that a body form evolved to bear children can perform physically equally to one evolved to hunt.
Britain is no longer recognisably British; nor England English, Wales Welsh, Ulster Ultonian, Scotland Scottish; our nation’s capital is no longer majority British let alone Londoner; and today a Bradfordian is more likely to be a muslim of Indo-Pakistani ancestry than the dour Yorkshireman of old. The number of native British in our schools is declining annually—from 75.6% in 2010 to <67% in 2018 in England. As Mark Steyn has written, ‘The future belongs to those who show up for it’; and we’re exiting stage left.

101 years of mass democracy have turned one of the safest, most civilised countries in the world into a crime-ridden hellhole; transformed the ‘mother of the free’ into an Orwellian nightmare; reduced our country from superpower to international joke; and demographic trends show the native British, some of whom can trace their ancestry here millennia, are heading for extinction (our ancient squabbles—Catuvellauni versus Trinovantes, Briton versus Saxon, Saxon versus Norman, Anglo versus Scot, Prod versus Taig—will be replaced by Sunni versus Shia). Mass democracy is ending our island story.

For 653 years we, at our worst, endured as a nation and people, and at our best, dominated the globe; but mass democracy destroyed us within a century.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 1:55 pm

A common mistake made by some is a belief that the United Kingdom was created by the Union of the Crowns in 1603 not the Treaty of Union in 1707. The Union of the Crowns was and is a historical and legal misnomer. The Crowns of the two countries were not united in 1603. The crowns, and the two countries, remained separate. All that happened was that the same head came for the first time to wear the separate crowns of two separate countries defined under law as “Personal Union” as opposed to “Political Union.” What happened in 1707 was that Anne, Queen of Scotland, entered into a treaty with Anne, Queen of England, to merge the two countries into a single state in international law. Then and only then was there a United Kingdom.

Bettina Zietman

18th July 2019 at 7:25 am

Everything you say may be true but I think you are wrong to diagnose ‘democracy’ as the reason for it. Simply because we don’t live in a democracy and never have. The 101 years you refer to is the length of time we have had a universal franchise, which is not the same as democracy. Our system of voting, the House of Lords, the political party cabals, the quangos, socialism as a political philosophy ( ie the re-distribution of property by force) are all anti-democratic.


15th July 2019 at 12:11 pm

PLEASE don’t feed the troll/sock puppet called ‘Amelia Cantor’. You’re just wasting your time and our space

Amelia Cantor

16th July 2019 at 10:58 am

It certainly is a waste of time when haters try to engage serious issues of politics and social justice. Or rather, it’s worse than a waste of time: it’s positively toxic. But your hate-speech won’t continue for much longer.

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 12:04 pm

Ameliorate Cant.

Dude. We find you interesting because not many of us have been exposed to some of your more radical ideas. I just wish that you’d..substantiate some of the things that you say, and perhaps even be prepared to debate them in more detail.

Anyway, that’s your business, and you’re entitled to do things your way.

God Bless You.

Tony Baloney

15th July 2019 at 11:18 am

The referendum didn’t supply “the biggest democratic mandate in British history”. The margin between Leave and Remain was 3.78%. That is barely a mandate at all – so to call it ‘the biggest in British history’ is a lie of Trumpian proportions.

Ian B

15th July 2019 at 11:30 am

It was the biggest in terms of numbers. More people voted to leave the EU than have voted for anything else in UK electoral history. Ever.

Tony Baloney

15th July 2019 at 11:41 am

The raw number of votes cast does not constitute a mandate. The second highest number of votes cast for anything ever was for Remain – with 3.78% separating them. The result was barely a mandate for anything.

Ian B

15th July 2019 at 12:05 pm

“The raw number of votes cast does not constitute a mandate.”

The rules under which the vote was run say otherwise. In no general election since 1945 has the winning party had more than 50% of the popular vote, so by your argument no post-war government has had a mandate.

It’s pointless trying to engage in statistical gymnastics after the event just because you didn’t like the result.

Tony Baloney

15th July 2019 at 12:12 pm

That’s not the argument that I’m making. The article states (and actually this is a claim made by many pro-brexit commentators) that the referendum result was the biggest in political history. It simply wasn’t. You simply cannot claim that a margin of victory of 3.78% was the largest in history. It’s absurd.

Jerry Owen

15th July 2019 at 12:48 pm

You clearly don’t know what a referendum is .

Tony Baloney

15th July 2019 at 1:33 pm

Riiiight. So are you still labouring under the delusion that a 3.78% margin of victory constitutes the “biggest mandate in political history”?

Jerry Owen

15th July 2019 at 2:30 pm

Tony Baloney
I labour under the illusion that in a referendum one side will win and one side will lose.. leave won , all you have to do is get over it !

Tony Baloney

15th July 2019 at 3:03 pm

Ah you’ve defaulted to the ‘leave won, get over it’ line. I’ll go over it again. I’m not denying that leave won more votes. What I’m pointing out is that a 3.78% margin of victory is not (as claimed in the 3rd paragraph of the above article) “the largest mandate in British political history”.

Jerry Owen

15th July 2019 at 5:03 pm

T Baloney
‘You’ve defaulted to the ‘leave won, get over it line’. It would certainly be better if you did get over it. It was an ‘in /out’ referendum, 17.4 million defied the establishment and voted ‘leave’. I don’t give a stuff about the percentage margin a 0.001 % margin would still be a win. It matters not.
You lost sunshine, three years on and you still whinge, astonishing really !

Amelia Cantor

16th July 2019 at 11:21 am

An excellent and irrefutable point that will, of course, make absolutely no difference to the wooden-headed pro-Brexit fanboys and fangirls gathered here.

Margaret Potter

17th July 2019 at 1:59 am

Given your analysis if Labour win the next GE by 3.7% I can challenge the mandate to government and request a second vote can I ?
It matters nought whether an election/referendum is won by 1 or 1 million votes it is still the majority vote so stop banging on about the % result

Amelia Cantor

15th July 2019 at 9:58 am

Saying “For democracy, against the EU” is like saying “For cheese, against milk.”

Jerry Owen

15th July 2019 at 10:21 am

Amelia Cantor
Perhaps you could tell us what it is about this article you disagree with ?

Amelia Cantor

15th July 2019 at 10:58 am

I oppose racism and reactionary politics. Brexit is a supreme expression of racism and reactionary politics, therefore I oppose anyone who supports Brexit. You don’t care about the details and, frankly, aren’t intellectually equipped to understand them. That’s not surprising: stupidity played almost as big a part in Brexit as prejudice and hate.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 10:24 am

And what is undemocratic about the Leave vote? 17.4 million of us did it after all. Is that not democracy in action?

Amelia Cantor

15th July 2019 at 10:55 am

No, it’s not “democracy in action”. No-one would vote to become poorer, less free and more badly governed, so those who voted for Brexit were not genuinely participating in democracy. In some cases, they were lied to and misled; in other cases, they allowed hate to blind them to reality.

And “democracy” does not give racists and xenophobes the right to trample on vulnerable communities of colour. Nor does it give deluded wrinklies the right to destroy the future of young people in pursuit of an England that never was.

Paul Kayley

15th July 2019 at 11:01 am

Ironically your counter-arguments are saturated with prejudice.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 11:38 am

And snobbery.

Jerry Owen

15th July 2019 at 12:50 pm

A Cantor I asked you what you didn’t like about the article.. it appears you haven’t even read it as you are unable to answer my question.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 2:04 pm

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.”
― Michel de Montaigne

I think this might apply to Ms Kantor’s diktats.

Amelia Cantor

16th July 2019 at 11:15 am

Nothing I could say would make any difference to your closed and wilfully obtuse mind. If you want to see irrefutable anti-Brexit arguments (which you don’t see), try the numerous articles and polemics available at the Guardian, Independent, New Statesman, etc, etc, etc. And they’re completely free, although you will of course struggle with some of the long words and all of the elementary logic.

Paul Duffin

15th July 2019 at 3:45 pm

That analogy doesn’t make any sense. Democracy is rotten EU?

Amelia Cantor

16th July 2019 at 10:54 am

Sorry if my analogy went whistling over your head. The EU guarantees and safeguards the conditions from which democracy is formed. I hope that clarifies matters.

Margaret Potter

17th July 2019 at 2:08 am

Very intelligent analysis 🥴. But what do I know I am just one of the racist ignorant Leave voters you always bang on about. LOL 🤫🇬🇧

John Millson

15th July 2019 at 9:45 am

There is much in this which cannot be denied but I am suspicious of the motives of the leading Brexit protagonists. They don’t strike me as genuine egalitarian democrats, who care about the wellbeing of the whole population.
A test of their ‘democratic’ credentials is coming. Given there should not be another public vote, any attempt to override Parliament, to push through a ‘no deal’ Brexit, presents a much more profound threat to our democracy and wellbeing.
I wish more ‘remainiacs’ and brexiteer-purists would dwell on this.

Jerry Owen

16th July 2019 at 8:21 am

The government leaflet shoved through my letterbox made it clear we were leaving the single market and the customs union that is what I voted for . Did you not get the memo ?

John Millson

17th July 2019 at 11:58 am

(For the record I didn’t get a leaflet.) Was everyone fully aware of the implications of leaving the SM and CU? It’s history now but are all those who voted to leave, content with the prospects of: economic, logistical and diplomatic damage and an end to the Union? I doubt it.
There was a ‘middle way’ which could have avoided this.

Bettina Zietman

15th July 2019 at 7:33 am

It is obvious that as the franchise in Europe gradually became universal over the last century, those who would control us have decided that the goalposts should be moved to ensure that this franchise, this right to one person one vote, would become meaningless. Thus we swap the aristocracy of old for the bureaucracy of now.

I used to believe, naively, that everyone wanted freedom and democracy for themselves and others. I now realise that this is not true. I know many people who are part of the elite (although they don’t see themselves as that and most are socialists or social democrats who think they are conservatives) and their actual worldview is that, through some superiority complex, they truly believe that they know best and rather than everyone having as much agency over their own lives as possible (which would be my libertarian ambition) these self appointed elites see themselves as the guardians of others – to oversee their choices and direct their lives and remove their money via taxes to pay for this control.

Many people are happy to abdicate responsibility for their own lives in exchange for bread and circuses and will vote to be controlled; others are duped into voting away democracy; others are frightened into it, as I discovered on the doorsteps of Hertfordshire whilst campaigning for Leave.

I have in the last 3 years not yet found one Remainer who could explain to me the irony of their voting to abolish democracy.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 8:35 am

Splendid post. An uptick from me.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 8:43 am

And I meant to add: when I told family members in Bath- a Remain stronghold- my support for Leave,my declaration was met with an embarassed silence, which my niece ended by asking why anyone would vote Leave?

A discussion ensued, and the legitimate reasons for voting Leave were at least acknowledged.

Gregory Buswell

15th July 2019 at 9:09 am

There have been a few anti-Brexit conversations at my work in the past year. A couple of weeks ago, I finally joined in and stated that I voted Leave because I’m against layers and layers of bureaucracy, the EU is largely unaccountable and I doubt whether Basque or Czech MEPs care much about steel workers in Sheffield or Scottish fishermen. I was met with a stunned silence.

Remainers think Leave voters are all xenophobic morons and are perplexed when faced with evidence to the contrary.

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 6:37 am

Keep up the good work Spiked!

Gina Miller is now proposing yet another legal assault :


The purely cosmetic nature of the European Parliament have been revealed recently, both by Brexit Party MEPs and Green MEP Magid Magid.

Conspicuous consumption but little in the way of actual political influence.

We must leave; we are more than capable of creating an independent future and establishing trading accords with other nations.

We have given our informed decision; we are not brainless bigoted dupes, mislead by dastardly Russian hackers or evil money men.

Terence Hewett’s post mentions federation, which might well be the best future outcome for the UK’s 4 nations.

Let October 31st be the day; no delays.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 5:05 am

After Brexit, a comprehensive and deep Constitutional Reformation has to take place to equip the 4 nations for the challenges of the 21st century. Whether this is federation or a re-jigged UK has to be decided. The people who would sell their country to a foreign power for a handful of euros are not going away – they are rich, powerful and they will be back. We owe it to future generations to put a permanent crimp in their betrayal.

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 6:51 am

I would add English independence, and the break up of the UK, to spiked’s list of democratising objectives post-Brexit.

Independence in Scotland and Wales, and Irish unity are probable after Brexit, and that is to be welcomed. Scottish and Welsh independence, and Irish unity also amount to English independence. It is the same principle as Brexit, independence gives greater democratic control to countries than unions. The more democratic control that the countries have over their own destiny, the better. We in England can then have the government and the politics that we vote for, each and every time, and the others can have what they vote for. It is a win-win situation.

Support for Scottish independence stands at 49% and that is likely to pass majority in the coming years, regardless of Brexit but especially if it goes ahead. Support for Welsh independence stands at 41%, unprecedented and the higher level ever by far. Polls suggest that NI would go for Irish unity after Brexit but only time will tell on that one. Demographics suggest that Republican communities will be in the majority there soon, and eventually the others will reconcile or they will get outvoted. England may get its independence yet!

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 11:37 am

A federal UK would be preferable, in my view.

Gloria Britanniæ

15th July 2019 at 12:14 pm

So writes Winston Stanley who never misses an opportunity to run up the white flag—not content with supinely surrendering our islands to every passing foreigner, instructing us that ‘Immigration is the future … People may as well get over it.’, he now wants to surrender Scotland to the declining SNP.

Some figures for you (figures that count, not SNP-run polls):
* 2014 Referendum: Loyal: 2,001,926 (55.25% of turnout, 46.73% of electorate) / Disloyal: 1,617,989 (44.65% of turnout, 37.77% of electorate).
* 2015 GE: SNP 1,454,436 (49.97% of turnout, 35.52% of electorate; down 163,553 votes).
* 2016 SE: SNP Constituency vote: 1,059,898 (46.32% of turnout, 25.85% of electorate) / SNP Regional List vote: 953,587 (41.65% of turnout, 23.26% of electorate); down another 394,538 votes.
* 2017 GE: SNP 977,568 (36.84% of turnout, 24.51% of electorate; and down another 82,330 votes).

The SNP will never see their highpoint of 2014 again, especially since no other British PM will be as foolish as Cameron allowing the SNP to put their thumb on the electoral scales by allowing EU citizens and 16-year-old pupils to vote. SNP support is visibly collapsing, the 2017 GE seeing them bleed votes out of everywhere and then some, losing almost half a million votes along with 21 MPs. Even in the seats they held, their majorities were slashed:
One prominent Snapper saw his 9,641 majority reduced to 21.
At Glasgow East, the SNP saw a 10,387 majority reduced to 75.
At Glasgow South West, their 9,950 majority was reduced to 60.
At Fife North East, their previous majority of 4,344 was reduced to 2. 2! T-W-O, TWO!
In total, SNP votes were down 32.8% from 2015. From representing barely a third of Scotland’s electorate in Westminster, the SNP now represent less than a quarter—24.5%.
In contrast, the Conservatives saw their votes increase 74.6% and their best result in Scotland since 1992, making them the second party in Scotland in both votes and MPs. Maybe not in the rest of Britain but June 8 was a Tory night in Scotland.

Between Scotland and Ulster, as Ulster’s Arlene Foster (DUP) remarked, it was a ‘good night for the Union’.

Separatism is dead in the water in Scotland, and stillborn in Northern Ireland.
God Save the Queen and Rule Britannia.

(And Jane 70, we’re already quasi-federal in nature, having no difficulties in passing laws affecting only certain regions; e.g. poll tax in Scotland, security legislation for Ulster, etc.)

Jane 70

15th July 2019 at 12:27 pm

To Gloria Brittaniae,

Yes indeed we are quasi-federal, but my belief is that a development of the federal model would hopefully result in more stability following Brexit and take the wind out of the Nats’ sails.

Here in Scotland, we are pleased to welcome our Brexit MEP, Louis Stedman-Bryce. 1 million of us voted to Leave.

terence patrick hewett

15th July 2019 at 12:37 pm

The constitutional status quo ante bellum in Britain is quite clearly no longer an option.

The current system is based on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The EU has made this null and void: The British Parliament no longer has sovereignty nor do any of the constituent national parliaments of the EU. The constituent countries of the EU do not have control over their own borders and members of the Eurozone have no control over their currency or their borders. A withdrawal from the EU and a federation of 4 sovereign Parliaments with shared areas of foreign policy, economic policy, defence and social security seems to be the way to go: we have no choice but to reform: if we do not do something along these lines the UK will surely explode into its constituent parts.

The price to be paid is the abandonment of absolute parliamentary sovereignty to be replaced with shared parliamentary sovereignty located in the various sovereign parliaments of a Federal Britain. The problem is placing some limitation on English power with the consent of the English electorate: what would destroy a Federal Britain is English hegemony. In the EU; Germany and France have hegemony and this will likely destroy the EU in the end.

Separate British Isles countries will be like flies on the windscreen of the 21st Century economic world. Better together to make a try of it.

Is Britain worth the price? What price the Union? If we do not reform we will surely lose it.

In 1886 1st home rule bill introduced: In 1922 we lost Ireland. This time we nearly lost Scotland and with it the Union. How many warnings do you need?

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 5:31 pm

“instructing us that ‘Immigration is the future … People may as well get over it.”

Gloria, are you content that a substantial number of kids born in UK are now of an immigrant background, about 40%, or would you seek to reduce that number? How exactly do you intend to do that? You previously spoke of “fighting”, perhaps you could be more specific. I have no intention of being heckled by you and your confusion of poetry with a “plan”, and not a very nice plan by the sounds of it.

I did reply to your anti-independence post with facts and figures to correct your claims, with many reference links, and it is in a queue.

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 7:59 pm

Speaking of destruction, why are you commies so intent on destroying everything that our forefathers died for?

You don’t think a one-world government is totalitarian and satanic?

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 8:08 pm

Hana, there is nothing inherently wrong with the communal ownership of the means of production or of wealth. If you think that there is then maybe you should read the book that you claim to follow. I seriously doubt that this society is ready for that, on material and psychological grounds, and sometimes it is wise to just leave things as they are for the time being. No I do not suppose that means that everyone deserves to go to h/ll forever, or that some sudden conversion is what is needed. Things take time.

Acts 2
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 8:40 pm

There is EVERYTHING inherently wrong with communal ownership. I mean, its completely and utterly diabolical.

Marx couldn’t care less about you or anyone else: he was in it for money and power, and its the same with the creeps that write here. How many stories have there been about the worker-uprising and the marchings thru Londonistan in the last week?

Because they are scroungers without an ounce of integrity, their answer is to destroy society and prevent people from havong a relationship with God. Marx was an out-and-out satanist, and understood that while capitalism could only exist in an environment of limited state control and individual rights, communism could only exist through repression.

It puzzles me as to why anyone would support repression as a way to form a society. How long will rhat last? And how many casualties is acceptable? We’re up to 100 million, and counting.

Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 8:46 pm

And lol. I credited you with having more intelligence than to conflate The Word Of God with any of your satanic rot. Those verses have nought to do with people being exploited by commies. These people form the unified body of God. Their treasure is in Heaven, and their souls aren’t rooted in the world.

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 9:00 pm

Hana maybe you could read Winstanley for a different take on Christianity. He was a working class activist at the time of the Civil War. The first thing that Jesus would tell you is that it is not all about money or worldly respect, or about storing up treasures on earth. You could read Matt. 25 sometime. My advice would be to read the four Gospels if you want to understand Christianity.

> A Declaration to the Powers of England, and to all the Powers of the World, shewing the Cause why the Common People of England have begun, and gives Consent to Digge up, Manure, and Sow Corn upon George-Hill in Surrey; by those that have Subscribed, and thousands more that gives Consent.

In the beginning of Time, the great Creator Reason, made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds, and Fishes; but not one word was spoken in the beginning, That one branch of mankind should rule over another.

And the Reason is this, Every single man, Male and Female, is a perfect Creature of himself; and the same Spirit that made the Globe, dwels in man to govern the Globe; so that the flesh of man being subject to Reason, his Maker, hath him to be his Teacher and Ruler within himself, therefore needs not run abroad after any Teacher and Ruler without him, for he needs not that any man should teach him, for the same Anoynting that ruled in the Son of man, teacheth him all things.

But since humane flesh (that king of Beasts) began to delight himself in the objects of the Creation, more then in the Spirit Reason and Righteosness, who manifests himself to be the indweller in the Five Sences, of Hearing, Seeing, Tasting, Smelling, Feeling; then he fell into blindness of mind and weakness of heart, and runs abroad for a Teacher and Ruler: And so selfish imaginations taking possession of the Five Sences, and ruling as King in the room of Reason therein, and working with Covetousnesse, did set up one man to teach and rule over another; and thereby the Spirit was killed, and man was brought into bondage, and became a greater Slave to such of his own kind, then the Beasts of the field were to him.

And hereupon, The Earth (which was made to be a Common Treasury of relief for all, both Beasts and Men) was hedged in to In-closures by the teachers and rulers, and the others were made Servants and Slaves: And that Earth that is within this Creation made a Common Store-house for all, is bought and sold, and kept in the hands of a few, whereby the great Creator is mightily dishonoured, as if he were a respector of persons, delighting in the comfortable Livelihoods of some, and rejoycing in the miserable povertie and straits of others. From the beginning it was not so.

But this coming in of Bondage, is called “A-dam”, because this ruling and teaching power without, doth “dam” up the Spirit of Peace and Liberty; First within the heart, by filling it with slavish fears of others. Secondly without, by giving the bodies of one to be imprisoned, punished and oppressed by the outward power of another. And this evil was brought upon us through his own Covetousnesse, whereby he is blinded and made weak, and sees not the Law of Righteousnesse in his heart, which is the pure light of Reason, but looks abroad for it, and thereby the Creation is cast under bondage and curse, and the creator is sleighted; First by the Teachers and Rulers that sets themselves down in the Spirits room, to teach and rule, where he himself is only King. Secondly by the other, that refuses the Spirit, to be taught and governed by fellow Creatures, and this was called Israels Sin, in casting off the Lord and chusing Saul, one like themselves to be their King, when as they had the same Spirit of Reason and government in themselves, as he had, if they were but subject. And Israels rejecting of outward teachers and rulers to embrace the Lord, and to be all taught and ruled by that righteous King, that Jeremiah Prophesied shall rule in the new Heavens and new Earth in the latter dayes, will be their Restauration from bondage, Jer. 23.5, 6.

But for the present state of the old World that is running up like parchment in the fire, and wearing away, we see proud Imaginary flesh, which is the wise Serpent, rises up in flesh and gets dominion in some to rule over others, and so forces one part of the Creation man, to be a slave to another; and thereby the Spirit is killed in both. The one looks upon himself as a teacher and ruler, and so is lifted up in pride over his fellow Creature: The other looks upon himself as imperfect, and so is dejected in his spirit, and looks upon his fellow Creature of his own Image, as a Lord above him…


Hana Jinks

15th July 2019 at 9:22 pm

Thanks for that link. It looks a very interesting site.

How is it a different take on Christianity tho? And do you understand and believe what he says?

Winston Stanley

15th July 2019 at 11:04 pm

Of course I do not “believe” it, I am an atheist.

My point is that there is more than one way to understand the Christian tradition about private and communal property. GW takes a prelapsarian approach, that property is tolerated b/c of “sinfulness” after the “fall”. Most Christians understand communism (or “poverty”) as a counsel to “perfection”, to which not all are called, like monks with celibacy or Benedictines with vegetarianism (again with a prelapsarian justification.).

GW extends communism to a general exhortation, which various Christians have done through the centuries. Hutterites have lived in a community of property for about 500 years and the Bruderhof for a century. Nearly all Christians make the distinction between communism and atheistic communism, even the pope and the various churches, and I am surprised that you are not precise to do the same. There is no reason per se that communists should be hostile to private religion. I would still contend that there is nothing inherently wrong with communism from a Christian perspective.

No I am not a Christian and I do not dogmatically prescribe communism, although I do think that there are some serious issues with capitalism, which is an historical system and likely temporary. We used to live in a feudal economy and that too was thought to be ordained by God. We do not any more.

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 12:08 am

God made everything, and so Christians understand that everything is His. We are merely stewards of any of it that He has given us for how ever many years that we are here, whether that be the material or the spiritual. There are various parables in the Gospels that explain that it’s about how you use what you’ve been given. I’ll just say again that it has nothing to do with “communism” as we commonly understand communism, and certainly shouldn’t in any way be confused with poverty. Christians throughout history have been counselled by God to separate themselves from the world (spiritually) so as to be able to free from worldly distractions to serve Him. (I’ve had a season of separation.) This is in direct contrast to eartly-rooted communists serving themselves and their worldly ambitions, and for communists, the state is god.

Heaven is a Christian theocracy, and is why I’m so scornful of democracy and how easily exploitable it is by the devil, and l feel the same way about capitalism. Capitalism is also exploitable, and it’s why the greedy have billions and many starve. Deepstate run the world, the banks and our governments, and have engineered things in such a way that they profit from every transaction we make, whether they be good or bad transactions…transactions such as war in that instance.

The economy of Heaven is “give”.

Winston Stanley

16th July 2019 at 1:26 am

That sounds pretty mainstream. What did your “separation” consist of, fast and abstinence, reading, alms and prayers, self-examination and penance? What did you get out of it? Do you have any calendar or regular routine for those things, or you do them whenever? The common Christian archetype would be the 40 days spent in the desert in preparation for ministry but it is consider humble to not try to take the imitation too far. I hope that you did not overdo it. Do you have a spiritual guide that you trust to help you plan and go through it or are you doing your own thing?

Hana Jinks

16th July 2019 at 2:56 am

I replied and couldn’t see the post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Read more

5. Kick judges out of politics

Jon Holbrook

5. Kick judges out of politics

4. Why we need proportional representation

Brendan O'Neill

4. Why we need proportional representation

3. Rip up the Royal Prerogative

Luke Gittos

3. Rip up the Royal Prerogative

2. Let’s abolish the Lords. For good

Tim Black

2. Let’s abolish the Lords. For good

Democracy: the unfinished revolution

Brendan O'Neill

Democracy: the unfinished revolution