This to me sums up the entire movement. They still haven’t accepted the result, that is blindingly obvious. But this flag shows that they haven’t even tried to understand why the result went the way it did. Let me remind them.

Immigration

From 2011 to 2016 the official net migration figures for the UK were in excess of 300,000 per year. This is actually a conservative estimate. The number of new National Insurance numbers issued each year (which are required for work) was more than double this figure. These immigrants have a much higher birthrate than British-born citizens. In 2014 women born overseas accounted for 27% of live births in England and Wales, a number which is steadily increasing. This represents an enormous change in the country’s demographics. Some people will try to justify this shift, citing humanitarian reasons. ‘The immigrants were all refugee’s fleeing war!’ Unfortunately, this isn’t quite what happened. You don’t have to take my word for it. Frans Timmermans (Vice President of the European Commission) said that six out of ten migrants to Europe had no more right to be there than anyone else. He said that the majority of migrants to Europe were ‘economic migrants’ from North African countries such as Morocco or Tunisia, where there is no conflict. These people are taking up space in Europe that could have been taken up by actual refugees fleeing persecution. Anyone who believes that this is justified should feel ashamed of themselves. THAT is where free movement gets you.

The horrors of free movement don’t end there. Free movement doesn’t allow you to choose who you let in. The world is a diverse place with an array of belief systems and values. Is it so hard to conceive that people from a completely different background and belief system might not seamlessly integrate into their host country? These are genuine worries. These immigrants were not in any way encouraged to integrate with European culture. Instead, it was decided for Europe that it was to pursue a policy of multiculturalism instead of integration. Immigrants were told, ‘You and your values are perfect as they are and we are lucky to have you.’ Anyone who dared to argue otherwise was labelled a racist. Anyone who commented on the vast numbers of immigrants was labelled a racist. Unsurprisingly, the people, and I use this word in the true sense, got sick and tired of being called racist. Their response was to vote in a way to show that their opinion still mattered.

There is a significant proportion of the Left that have destroyed the meaning of the term racist, and now they are seeing the consequences. The consequence isn’t just Brexit, take a look at the rest of Europe. There is a growing wave of nationalism across these lands for exactly the same reasons. In Germany, you have the rise of the far-right group Alternative für Deutschland, now the third-largest party and an ever-posing threat to Angela Merkel. Similarly, the Swedish Democrats made significant gains in their recent election, making them the third-largest party in Sweden. In Italy the Euro-sceptic, populist-nationalist Matteo Salvini is becoming the most influential politician in the country. Even across the seas, we saw Trump get elected on slogans such as ‘build a wall’. Immigration was the core issue behind the decision to leave the European Union. The reasons for this swift political change in Europe can easily be understood. Those in the picture above are completely oblivious to the political and social impacts of free movement and must not be taken seriously.

Sovereignty

A study recorded people’s reasoning for their vote in 2016. The most frequent reason given for leaving was, unsurprisingly, to control immigration. The second most frequent reason given was:

The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK

The decisions, in this case, likely relate to legal and economic decisions, areas that are currently impacted by the EU. The UK has a long history with the word ‘sovereignty’, and this word was often used by the leave campaign. The word is commonly used in the context of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’, for which the accepted definition is as follows:

The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. — A.V.Dicey (constitutional lawyer/ scholar)

‘No person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament’. Being in the EU means you have to abide by EU laws and so it wouldn’t be uncontroversial to say that the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty was damaged when Britain joined the EU. The law enthusiasts among you will know of the famous Factortame case which was the first time the EU law was deemed to be supreme over Westminster law. The Brexiteer notion of ‘taking back control’ refers to cases like this. Leaving the EU will allow the UK to once again set its own laws relating to trade, human rights, and migration.

The European Union is only a union by name

It is accepted but seldom articulated that the EU is the continuation of Germany by other means. This should not be interpreted as a forewarning or an insult to Germany. They are doing what every country should do, which is to put the interests of their people first. Geographically, they are in the ideal position as they share more common borders with neighbours than any other European country. They are by far the largest and the most economically productive of all the countries in the EU. Thus, they have the most leverage when it comes to the decision making process.

Many countries, especially those in the Eurozone, are perfectly content with having Germany take the lead. The UK is different. It is geographically cut off from all of those countries. The British people never felt particularly close to any of the neighbouring EU countries and every Eurovision contest would indicate that this feeling was mutual. Additionally, the UK is an economic power in its own right. It is still the world’s 5th largest economy and London is considered by most to be the financial capital of the world. The UK has one of the strongest service sectors in the world and should seek to benefit from free trade agreements with non-European countries post Brexit. Many British people feel that the EU places the interest of Germany (and by extension the Eurozone) above everything else. It doesn’t bode well with the British that Eurozone countries have a permanent voting majority and can outvote the UK whenever they want. The EU would never prioritise the Pound despite Britain being a major contributor. On his decision to vote for Brexit, Michael Caine famously said, ‘I’d rather be a poor master than a rich servant.’ The idea of being a servant to someone else will is not an idea that resonates very well with British people.

Ignoring Democracy is a dangerous road

In his debate with Lord Andrew Adonis, Peter Hitchens raised a question which never received an answer.

Once you have unravelled democratic legitimacy as the source of authority, what do you have left? — Peter Hitchens

We seem to have come to a point in our society where not everyone values Democracy equally. There is a dangerous idea lingering in our spheres that Democracy should only be considered if it goes your way. Even more dangerous is the idea that ignoring Democracy can be considered more democratic than not. To those who still believe me to be wrong in this respect, I have one question for you.

If Britain were to hold a second referendum, what would stop there being a third?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the answer is nothing. Nothing would stop a third referendum from happening. By then, democratic legitimacy would have already been unravelled as the source of authority, and the second referendum would be as meaningless as the first. I will never understand why so many people seem to be incapable of grasping this concept.

The Future

The good news for democrats (using the original meaning of the word) is that it doesn’t look like this movement will amount to anything. The only being if the negotiations were somehow delayed until 2022, in which case Labour, being the most prominent supporter of the movement, could include the ‘People’s Vote’ as part of their manifesto. Luckily, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn shows no signs of succumbing to the pressure. Corbyn never liked the EU in the first place and even he is sharp enough to be aware of the sheer number of working-class Brexit voters that would boycott his party if he did. The ‘People’s Vote’ movement is a threat to our democracy and I urge you to think twice before supporting it.