An atmosphere of contempt

Various pundits have collectively decided that the murder of Jo Cox is a consequence of the mood created by those campaigning to leave the European Union and not the work of an unstable and sick individual. James O'Brien, Owen Jones, Alex Massie and Polly Toynbee among others are saying this. They have a constituency of their own and so we can safely assume that this is a popular view.

So let us divorce the concept from events as though Jo Cox had never been killed. And let us ask the question; is there an atmosphere where conceivably one of our politicians could be murdered in respect of the Brexit debate?

Yes. The answer is yes. I say that without hesitation because that is the conclusion many leapt to, and many accepted it without question. To be accepted so easily there must be an air of plausibility. O'Brien on his LBC show lamented: “Convince me if you can, that political debate in Britain in the last couple of years has not created an environment in which we find it easy to believe… or possible to believe, that this sort of violence, that this sort of terrorism, could unfold on our streets.”

I will not seek to convince him of anything. Except maybe that it's cause and effect. Euroscepticism is not whipped up by the press. It is an authentic response to real problems. Transformative decisions have been taken without ever seeking consent from the public. Not least freedom of movement. Whatever your views on it, concerns were cast aside, labelled and belittled. If there is an atmosphere of contempt, then it is born of the contempt shown to voters.

It has been made clear over the last two decades that the views of the public do not matter. They are not listening to us, and they do not respect us. And it's not surprising either because look at who they are. It's interesting Jo Cox should have set off such a far reaching debate, in that she is very much the essence of what is deeply wrong with our politics.

Cox was a grammar educated, Cambridge graduate in Social and Political sciences, polished off at LSE (the hellmouth of demented europhiles) and into a Brussels internship under Kinnock - ferried off courtesy of the NGOcracy (Oxfam), then budged into a safe seat on an all women shortlist.

This is an ultra metro-lefty, never had a real job, a head full of UN propaganda and climate change bilge coming out the ears. We see a devotion to the NGOcracy which has so much to answer for, not least the DfID agenda in Afghanistan which was a total catastrophe and a massive waste of money.

There is no more destructive force on earth than the well resourced and well intentioned. It is that which has done untold damage to Africa. There is a word for it. Humanitarianism. It is mindset which seeks to salve its own conscience by treating the symptoms instead of administering a cure. The worst part of it is it looks good and sounds good and so the ambassadors of it are viewed as next to saints - and are seemingly above criticism. This is how they are so effortlessly able to assume power.

Cox was a very much a born-for-politics careerist, probably earmarked for a ministerial role in the unlikely event of a Labour government, and then up into the higher ranks of the UN community. She is a walking political correctness cliche. Politically, she is kryptonite to democracy. Had she not been killed she would have risen to become one of the most hated MPs.

If you were going to pick a target for a red mist moment, this would be she. She and others like her are the precise reason we are even having this referendum. So much as been done in the name of that agenda without our consent. 

People like her have almost total control of the agenda from the UN level, down through the EU and inside Wesminster. And while superficially charming and very successful and likable, beneath the veneer lies zealotry that believes the ends justify the means. She has sailed through the ranks of the establishment because she is a mirror image of it. If you want to know why there is such a massive gulf between the people and the politics, she, my friends, is where to start looking. Who she is, what she stands for, and how she got where she was.

These are the people how have tripled our energy bills and these are the people who have plastered the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels, and signed away our autonomy not just to the EU but to absolutely insane global targets. These are the people we most need rid of, though be it by the vote and not the bullet. They are not of us and they do not represent us.

And if I seem uncharitable, the problem is not mine. Let me remind you what this is about. Without going into the history of the EU it boils down to one thing. A group of people who hold the power have what is in their minds a perfect ideal model for Europe. It is not up for debate. They have decided that is how it is going to be and they have no intention of listening to you.

Knowing that they could never secure consent for it they have conspired to do it piecemeal, biding their time, chipping away around the edges. There have been landmarks along the way. Not least the most recent, the Lisbon Treaty. That was when you were promised a referendum. They sabotaged that it. As I knew they would.

And we on the right were hopping mad about it. Many of you did not know what it was, didn't care and still don't. And that is what this war is about. Those who know what is being done to them and those who do not. Hence why we leavers are working at a disadvantage.

For in this treaty was a particular Article. Article 50. The means by which we leave. At the sharp end of this debate, which has largely been concealed from view as far as the general public is concerned, is the argument about what happens if we leave the EU. Article 50 puts nearly all of the cards in the hands of the EU. It is for that reason those who seek to remain have been able to problematise the process of leaving. It has done that which it was designed to do - make the process seem irreversible.

And I remember at the time, when Gordon Brown ratified the Lisbon Treaty, many of us saw it as the final nail in the coffin of UK democracy. Such is a little fatalistic because nothing is irreversible, but what the subtext meant was that we are not getting out without a fight.

But at this point we need to call it what it is. A silent coup. This is an attempt by the unelected, with the cooperation of our establishment to make our institutions subordinate to a supreme government for Europe. One which makes our own elected assemblies mere accessories so that the public never realise what has been done to them or in their name.

And for them, reality does not intrude and the consequences are features, not bugs. The doctrine of the beneficial crisis. Create a problem - present yourself as the solution.

This is why I am uncharitable when I see them praising the "hard work and dedication" of Jo Cox, she herself a functionary in service of the Kinnock dynasty - the first family of Euro-quislings. And yes I know Godwin's law, but let's employ it for the purposes of reductio ad absurdum. Nobody ever praised Hitler for his hard work and dedication. Nobody ever said "I didn't like his policy of exterminating European Jewry but you have to respect the effort".

There, stretching it I know, but now we've got that out of the way you can see why I am not exactly boundless with empathy. Their agenda is to dismantle democracy and centralise power so that the people do not present an obstacle to the implementation of their grand design. I am not going to praise their hard work and dedication. Not when it has a blood trail from Nairobi to Copenhagen.

This is an entity which screws up everything it touches - and the reason being is that variables that don't fit with the plan will just have to bend to the plan rather than bending the plan to the variables. And the people caught in their wake, well, they don't matter. We can't let them get in the way of the idea can we?

And that's what makes withdrawal a necessity. We are ruled by narcissistic zealots who do not recognise the damage they do and will not be held accountable. That is the beauty of their scheming. Nobody is ever held to account.

And if they succeed? Should they win this referendum, we are an occupied country. Our institutions may still function and may have some licence to freely do those tasks which the EU does not need control over, but only within predefined parameters. That is why it still superficially looks like a democracy to those not paying full attention.

And so this isn't just a disagreement on whether we belong to a club and whether we like the rules of it. This isn't a question of weighing up the economic pros and cons. This is a moral question that supersedes the opinions of technocrats and economists. It is a question of whether we surrender what is ours to the unelected.

This is about one word and one word only. Power. Who has it and who gets to wield it. The democrat believes the power should reside with the people for their exclusive use. The eurocrat believes the power, for our own good, should rest with them - for they are the enlightened humanitarians and we are but ignorant savages.

And so if you vote to remain, you are consenting to this. You may even have a working rationale for it. You may even believe that voting for them makes you similarly enlightened and that because they are a reflection of you that they can be trusted. But there's the rub. This is all contingent on trusting in politicians. You are trusting that the power is not corruptible - that what it is now is how it will stay. That makes a fool of you. Because power always corrupts.

We have democracy so that we can dispose of those who trespass against us. We have it so that we may do so without spilling blood. Without it, when the time comes to dispose of our rulers, what other options will we have? If you are voting to remain, you had really best be certain, because this is the last time you'll ever get a chance for peaceful change. Their way only ends one way. In blood. Nothing of its kind has ever worked.

In the meantime we know from the Ulster experience that given sufficient motivation extremism will thrive when there is tacit consent. By conniving to distort this referendum the establishment has set a precedent here. That the power is theirs to do with as they wish. If there was an atmosphere of contempt before then this seals the deal. From here on in, we can expect that the murder of Jo Cox will not be the last. And in response, the politicians will go deeper behind their iron curtain, ever more distant from the people they serve. The consequences of that have a depressing inevitability.

What we can take from this is that whatever happens on Thursday is that this is not a happy country and a remain verdict will not be the end of it. About half the country will vote to leave. Some voting to remain will do so out of fear. Whatever the result, there is no mandate for the European Union. Until we resolve this question, British politics is going to get very ugly indeed.