Undermining of the voting system to remain in the EU

From: Chris Stevens, Blenheim Court, Robertsbridge

Friday, 8th March 2019, 9:16 am
Updated Friday, 8th March 2019, 9:20 am

Having read the usual questionable comments from those who wish to reverse a legal and constitutionally sound referendum under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 in its first line states: “A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.”

Given the subsequent drafting of the referendum question, it remains astonishing those who seek to undermine and destroy the voting system in this country to such a blatant degree.

There are some members of the public who forward comments on a regular basis who have interests in European countries and who reside there in properties they have purchased.

Equally the comments from Michael Hodge show the true agenda of pro-Europeans who I suspect, given his comments, have little understanding in how the governing structures of the EU work or whether this gentleman has a copy of the EU Constitution? He allegedly provides economic reasons for the separation of the UK from the EU but does not provide an explanation or proof of his comments.

Mr Hodge suggests we stay as we are. By that I assume he means to brush under the carpet the legally enforceable referendum result? It is clear that he and others who seek to do so by another referendum do not understand the seriousness or danger of what they ask.

Mr Hodge then goes on in some depth to describe the Northern Ireland issue and the usual repetition of damage to the 1998 NI peace process and in particular the Good Friday agreement.

Yet if the gentleman in question cast his eye further than just the immediate border line, he would understand, as the Attorney General’s advice stated that the UK would be effectively bound by the arrangements on the said border and lose its independence or self determination. Hence why it is such an important issue for both governments.

The referendum question remains, whether to leave or stay in the EU? It appears those like Mr Hodge, I include MPs such as Amber Rudd, Ken Clarke, the now independent Anna Soubry et al, wish to superimpose their wishes on a legally binding vote and effectively scupper it for the “irritants of custom checks”. How pathetic.

He then pulls out the old favourite comment, what does Brexit mean? This is risible as the referendum question was simple. It has become something more unpleasant and politically divisive made possible by the likes of Soros et al and the Bilderberg Group of which Ken Clarke has been an active member for decades.

The notion of hard or soft Brexit is of no consequence. To remain in any EU structure questions the separation of powers that the 2016 referendum question posed.

This clearly is what vested interests want. Whether we leave on March 29, 2019 in name is of little concern for corporate neo-liberalism which has controlled this country since the mid 1970s and which led to the UN Philip Alston’s report on austerity. The overloading of financial burdens onto individuals whilst the State still raises tax in any way possible for its own ends (see the recent death stealth tax pushed through without a vote by the neo-lib extraordinaires the Tories) and shrinks from providing basic services.

Note here the proliferation of charity growth since 2010 under the “Big Society” which diverted public money into private hands for the betterment of the few.

When May mentioned this in her first PM speech outside No.10, she was right to mention the few.

She and other MPs have been backing them for decades whilst committing genocide by the removal of Social Security payments. Such actions follow Article 2, subsections (a)-(c) of the 1951 Convention quite clearly.

Yet Mr Hodge continues to worry about just trade yet fails to mention the serious irritants in our own country which have been made worse by the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty in which the treaty sought to remove worker protections. Groups such as UNICE (now Business Europe & The American Board of Commerce) stated that in order to hire people, there had to be removals of protection so employees could be sacked more easily.

This extended to zero-hours contracts and the plethora of social problems emanating from low wage growth. Mr Hodge it seems is pleased to allow the tax-payer to mop up what employees should be providing.

As the EU and its unelected Eurocrats state openly: “We are all neo-liberals now.”

Well except the 15,188,406 Englishmen and women who voted against such. Mere irritants for Mr Hodge clearly.