Skip navigation

The moral case for Brexit

The case against the EU is clear and the intellectual case for Brexit is overwhelming. How can the entitled elite justify their ignorance?

Lord Heseltine hates this country so much that he says a Trotskyist government led by Jeremy Corbyn is a happier prospect than Brexit. This ignoble Lord is only the latest in a long procession of prominent people ganging up to smother Brexit and so demonstrate their contempt for the expressed views of the majority of British people who voted Leave. More people voted Leave in the Referendum than have ever voted for anything in our country. Still the elite establishment is doing everything in its power and connivance to keep us in the failed EU. The civil service to a man is against our getting out and they are in cahoots with the Brussels bureaucrats who are desperate to keep us in. The elite - with its culture of entitlement - has joined forces with the drones, luvvies and celebs in an aggressive putsch to deny the declared wishes of the people.

It is said that whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. There is an earlier stage than this in which the demons corrupt our intelligence. For the rational case in favour of Leave is irrefutable. The Remainers claim to be democrats – despite not only consistently denying our democratically recorded desire to quit the EU but preferring to surrender our freedom to govern ourselves and order our affairs to a self-appointed cabal of commissioners whom we can never dismiss through the ballot box. It is one thing to be a democrat. And it is another thing to be a totalitarian. But to profess democracy while signing up to totalitarianism is the sublimest contradiction and thus stupid or mad, or both.

The intellectual case for Brexit is overwhelming. Who in his right mind would agree to pay hundreds of £billions every year to a gang of bureaucrats who don’t even keep proper accounts? Or who, with a soupcon of nous, would want to belong to an organisation which has destroyed our fishing industry and the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of people who worked in it and depended on it directly or indirectly? Or give a foreign court supremacy over our own judges? Or welcome the self-inflicted wound that is the unsustainable mass immigration of aliens who despise our way of life and refuse to integrate into society and thus presage civil war?

Anyone who understands the destruction to all our lives and to the fabric of the nation itself being wrecked by all the policies I have just mentioned and yet who still maintains that we should adopt these policies is insanely stupid. Or perhaps such a person is not merely stupid, but bad? The intellectual case against Remain is unassailable. Even more important than intellectual conviction is the moral case for Leave. Remainers are rarely challenged about this. It is the moral case which I should like to set out here.

Remainers castigate national chauvinism, scoff at patriots as ‘Little Englanders’ and profess an enlightened internationalism and a more progressed humanity. But is it humane to reduce – through the imposition of the Euro, the single currency – poverty, mass unemployment and deprivation on the less industrialised nations of Southern Europe such as Italy and Spain and especially Greece? The mass immigration inaugurated by the EU is not only stupid, it is wicked: for so to will the destruction of our continental civilisation is effectually a suicidal and murderous act and profoundly evil. Moreover, our civilisation was created and sustained by Christianity. But now Christian insignia and emblems are disallowed by the EU which has installed the secular, atheistic, values of the French Revolution and banned Christianity from public life.

To conclude this outline of the moral and Christian case for Brexit, I should like to refer you to those two supreme canonical clowns: Welby of Canterbury and Sentamu of York. At the time of the Referendum both of these purblind dummies wrote letters to the nation in which they declared, “There is nothing unchristian or un-Anglican about belonging to the EU.”

Well now, a central component of ecclesiastical polity for four hundred years is The Thirty-nine Articles appended to The Book of Common Prayer, that defining text of orthodoxy for members of the Church of England. You would have thought that the clowns Welby and Sentamu might have taken a break from the flying circus they operate and read at least as far as Article XXXVII:

“The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all cases doth appertain and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.”

Besides, Welby and Sentamu, along with all beneficed clergy in the C. of E. have made the Oath of Allegiance to “Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors.” Were you only joking, Most Reverend Sirs, when you spoke the words of that oath? But in your eyes the Monarchy is only cosmetic, the Crown a bauble and the Trooping of the Colour a leg-show of guardsmen.

And how do you begin to square the sacred texts of your Anglican formation with your recommendation that we remain in the EU – a “foreign Jurisdiction”?

All views expressed in contributions by named authors are their own and may not reflect the views of The Freedom Association.

Continue Reading

Read More