Nigel Farage Batters Obama: “He Came To Britain And Behaved Disgracefully”/ The Accusations Begin: David Cameron Blames Brexit On Merkel And EU “Immigration Failure”/ Brexit and populist movement to EU and NWO agents: drop dead; we are rising against your nonsense and maneuvering/ 16 Reasons To Celebrate Brexit’s Win
Back in April President Obama took a trip over to the UK in order to lecture another country on how to vote – Obama of course was staunchly in the Remain camp. Obama even penned an op-ed titled: “As your friend, let me say that the EU makes Britain even greater.”
Of course, we all know the historic outcome of the Brexit vote, and we have even asked if it was Barack Obama who actually was the deciding factor:
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has never been shy of course, but lately has been making sure to remember all of those who tried to downplay or influence the vote. For example, in his first appearance in the European Parliament since the Brexit vote, Farage took the time to make sure the audience knew he hadn’t forgotten that everyone laughed when Farage said that he was going to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, saying “You’re not laughing now are you.”
Farage hadn’t forgotten Obama’s attempt to influence the vote either. In a recent interview with Fox News, Farage was asked what can be done about Putin if the UK isn’t in the EU, to which Farage raged that Obama had behaved disgracefully when compared to Putin.
“Well ultimately let me say this, Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain and I think behaved disgracefully, telling us we’d be at the back of the queue. Treating us, America’s strongest, oldest ally, in this extraordinary way. Vladimir Putin maintained his silence throughout the whole campaign”
Oh that does it, Obama won’t be inviting Farage on any of the remaining 36-hold golf outings!
The Accusations Begin: David Cameron Blames Brexit On Merkel And EU “Immigration Failure”
The Brexit vote is history, and so is David Cameron’s reign as Britain’s prime minister whose gamble to allow an EU referendum backfired spectacularly. And today, in what Bloomberg earlier dubbed his “last summer” Cameron had the unpleasant task of telling his Eurocrat peers during what is hist last Brussels summit why he failed. Only he didn’t and instead, as the FT writes, Cameron flipped the tables and told European leaders he lost the EU referendum because they failed to address public concerns over immigration, as tensions rose ahead of looming Brexit negotiations.
The British prime minister said at his final summit in Brussels on Tuesday that fears of mass immigration were “a driving factor” behind the vote and free movement would have to be addressed in Brexit talks. While he did not call her out by name, Cameron was effectively blaming Angela Merkel, whose overly accepting immigration policy in 2015 unleashed a historic refugee wave which ultimately ended up being the deciding factor behind the referendum outcome.
As the FT writes, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and other leaders “blocked British demands before the referendum for an “emergency brake” on migrant numbers and the idea remains anathema to many member states. Cameron, who announced his resignation after last week’s referendum, said that he wanted Britain and the EU to retain “as close an economic relationship as possible”. But, at an emotional dinner, he warned that the UK could not continue to accept large numbers of EU migrants, even if that meant losing access to the single market.”
His remarks underscored the hard task facing both sides in reaching a new accord. Addressing the German Bundestag before the Brussels summit, Ms Merkel warned the UK that there would be no “cherry picking” in its Brexit negotiations. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker underscored this when he said that he wants the article 50 “letter to be sent as soon as possible.” Giving the UK instructions on how to proceed, Juncker said during a press conference that “if someone from the Remain camp will become British prime minister, this has to be done in two weeks after his appointment. If the next British PM is coming from the Leave campaign, it should be done the day after his appointment.”
Juncker urged the UK “swiftly” to clarify its position regarding its plans to break from the EU, warning that the bloc could not be “embroiled in lasting uncertainty”. He also hit back at criticism of him in some parts of the British press, claiming he was not a “faceless bureaucrat” and “would like to be respected”.
More importantly, Cameron’s resignation – not literal but figurative – suggests that any hope the Remain camp may have had for a redo of the referendum has been extinguished.
It wasn’t just Cameron: even before the session began there had been signs of renewed hostility towards Downing Street. After a heated debate, which at one point degenerated into catcalls and boos for Nigel Farage, the UK Independence party leader, the European Parliament voted for a resolution calling on Britain to begin divorce proceedings immediately.
Some of Mr Cameron’s fellow EU leaders made similar testy remarks. “Married or divorced, but not something in between,” said Xavier Bettel, the Luxembourg prime minister. “We are not on Facebook, with ‘It’s complicated’ as a status.”
As explained over the weekend, the pace and nature of Britain’s exit from the EU together with the triggering of Article 50, have become the most contentious issues in both London and Brussels since last week’s vote. Most of the leaders of the UK’s Leave campaign, who are likely to form the core of a new British government, have said they want to begin Brexit negotiations before invoking Article 50 of the EU treaties, which would formally trigger two-year exit proceedings.
Merkel made it clear that she and other EU leaders have refused to engage in negotiations until Article 50 is invoked, setting up the first of what could be years of difficulties facing Cameron’s successor. Mark Rutte, the Dutch premier and formerly one of Mr Cameron’s closest allies, argued for Britain to be granted “some space”. But he was unforgiving in his reasons why, saying: “England has collapsed politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” Which, incidentally, is what Brussels calls a victory for Democracy.
Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said it was not for Britain to dictate the pace of talks. “It’s not up to the British Conservative party to set the agenda,” he told the National Assembly in Paris.
What happens next?
On Wednesday, Mr Cameron will be asked to leave the summit while the remaining 27 members hold informal talks on how to approach Brexit negotiations and how to stop them from stretching out over many years.
Addressing the German Bundestag before the Brussels summit, Ms Merkel warned the UK that there would be no “cherry picking” in its Brexit negotiations, her toughest response yet to the Leave campaign’s hopes of securing access to the EU’s internal market while limiting freedom of movement.
She spelt out that the EU’s internal freedoms were indivisible: if Britain, like Norway, wanted access to the internal market then, like Norway, it would have to accept freedom of movement, she said.
Which goes back to the original point Cameron made, namely that it is Merkel’s stickiness on freedom of movement that led to the victory of the Leave camp.
The winner today, however, was Nigel Farage, who stole the limelight when he was booed after he called on the EU to take a “grown-up and sensible” attitude to negotiations with the UK. He claimed the result would offer a “beacon of hope” to “democrats” across Europe and threatened that “the UK will not be the last member state to leave the European Union.”
As we showed earlier, Farage concluded: “When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?”
Farage’s moment in the spotlight aside and Cameron’s apparent concession on the possibility of a second referendum, the reality is that while all EU leaders would be delighted to see Britain reverse course and choose to stay, most would be loath to offer any concessions for fear that succumbing to blackmail would encourage others.
Cited by the FT, a senior adviser to one the eurozone’s most powerful leaders said that “this is a matter of survival for us. We cannot allow these tactics to succeed.”
Countries such as France and the Netherlands that were once sympathetic to Britain’s plea for curbs on free movement of workers would now be some of the most opposed to further concessions.
As the FT adds, yielding to British pressure would be a gift to anti-EU politicians that the French and Dutch leaders are trying to defeat in elections early next year. Eastern European leaders, meanwhile, appear as implacably opposed to overturning cherished free movement rights.
Then again, as we reported last night, it is now too late, and most likely by design: sensing the Brexit crisis “opportunity”, Italy is already planning how to bend Eurozone rules against the use of public funds for bank bailouts, and is strategizing how to funnel €40 billion of European cash into its insolvent banking system. Should Europe reject Italy’s overture? Then Italy’s PM Renzi will simply threaten with his own referendum, which considering the recent shocking wins by the Euroskeptic 5 Stars Movement in the Rome and Torino mayoral election, will be all he needs to say to get his way.
Or rather not his way, but the way of the person who is quietly covering up all his tracks: after all why are Italy’s banks insolvent? Well, who was governor of the Bank of Italy from 2005 to 2011 when he blessed all of the hundreds of billions of now non-performing loans? Why former Goldman Sachs employee and current head of the ECB, Mario Draghi of course, who just may end up the biggest winner from the Brexit crisis. Because as everyone knows, one should never leave a crisis go to waste.
Brexit and populist movement to EU and NWO agents: drop dead; we are rising against your nonsense and maneuvering
As long as we breathe there is hope. Today let us revel in sweet success and chase defeatism from our ranks, in gratitude for the bite of the British bulldog.
The gods of this world and their zombie enablers and marionettes are currently in a state of panic. Against all odds, Britain left the European Union (hence, the name Brexit). The Wall Street Journal itself has called this “a very British revolution.” The Washington Post has reported,
“The fear of E.U. supporters now is that the British vote may have captured a zeitgeist, a deep-seated resentment of globalization that spans the Atlantic, a feeling that may translate into greater nationalism and a stand-alone mentality.”
No power on earth was strong enough to stop that “British revolution.” David Cameron tried but failed miserably and pathetically. As a result, he is out of the Zionist game. Cameron has been a puppet of the Israeli regime since the beginning time, and the regime is now sad because the populist movement kicked him out of the political equation.
Last April, the Israel newspaper Haaretz said that “a British exit from the EU should worry Israel.” Why? Again, their puppet in England has been humiliated by decent people who are fed up with psychological warfare in the Middle East, political machination in much of Europe, and economic disasters virtually everywhere. Alex Massie of Foreign Policy declared,
“No prime minister in living memory has suffered a defeat of such cataclysmic proportions; none has been so thoroughly humiliated by his own electorate.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that President Barack Obama, who is obviously part of the oligarchic rule, “flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook.”
The Journal lamented: “And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.”
Obviously this “British revolution” is pregnant with meaning, but it is too early to come up with a definitive conclusion. What we can say so far is that the movement indicates that New World Order Agents and their puppets are not immortal. They can politically and ideologically bleed. They can be defeated.
Moreover, NWO agents can go down in a second largely because they are just a small group of people who for decades have refused to submit their political appetite and passion to practical reason and have inexorably embraced an essentially diabolical ideology, which over the years has produced nothing but misery and chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, and now in Syria.
This “British revolution” can also create a ripple effect across the globe. In fact, it has already sent shockwaves across the political spectrum. “Over 10,000 Sign Petition to Hold Brexit-Style Referendum in Finland.” TheWashington Post has admitted: “Populists across Europe lauded the British vote as an opportunity to abandon the ‘European project’ of political and economic unity.” The Wall Street Journal again has lamented:
“The implications of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union will reverberate through the Continent’s politics and economy for years. But it may have an even more immediate global political significance with resonance here in the U.S. as the most powerful demonstration yet of a rising populist tide transforming the established order across the West.”
Obviously the oligarchs are responsible for this. As Gilad Atzmon has recently pointed out, “Britain, like the rest of the West, has been subject to an invasive and brutal paradigm designed to vitiate the working class.” The working class is no longer silent, and the oligarchs are obviously in retreat.
It can easily be argued that the oligarchs began to suppress the majority with their wicked activities since World War I, when Churchill started to utter essentially diabolical statements so that Britain and the US could get involved in the so-called Great War.
Brexit is a reaction to years of psychological warfare by the rich and powerful who always want to use their power to suppress the weak and the unfortunate. British justice secretary Michael Gove started the Brexit movement, and he lamented that he had to deal
“constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
“Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow ‘the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back’ and ‘become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.’ Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.’”
Populist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of the leaders of the movement, put something on the political table when he said that the EU “was created by the financial mafia, globalists and all others.” Vladimir Putin added: “Apparently the British people are not satisfied with the way problems are being solved in the security sphere, these problems have become more acute lately with the migration processes.”
Obviously the Brexit campaign is also caused by economic problems and suffering across Britain. Bloombergdeclared that the issue was “fed by stagnant wages and resentment over inequality since the Great Recession…” The oligarchs, who have already lost trillions of dollars because of this movement, are sad and mad. There is no doubt that they will try what one might called an ideological coup in the next weeks and months so that they can get the masses back to economic and political slavery once again. Your turn, Mark Dankof.
Dankof: The Brexit vote in the UK on June 23, 2016 is the most promising beginning of a revolt against the New World Order and its Globalist Elite in my lifetime.
Two things should be noted by all: First, the Globalist Media Consortiums were proven wrong about Brexit and voter support for it in Britain.
The second point to be absolutely reiterated is the Elite’s panic over the developments of June 23rd. The UK Express Story of June 27th is but the latest example of their ruthless counter reactions to come. They will stop at nothing to destroy this nationalist uprising in both Europe and the United States. This includes the deliberate manipulations of markets, money supply, exchange rates, and food supplies to convince the public to Return to Their Masters.
It also means more False Flag operations to artificially stimulate fear accompanied by the concurrent Globalist Media Consortium and Hysterical Public demands for new Domestic Police State measures with the installation of more profiling and electronic surveillance without court warrants of peaceful populist, anti-globalist, anti-Zionist activists, parties, and movements.
It also means renewed resolve on the part of the New World Order elite for a global war after the American Presidential Election in November. This will be accompanied by a declaration of martial law in the United States if this war transpires, the disarmament of the American public, and the suspension of Constitutional liberties and the Bill of Rights for those who exercise their lawful First Amendment right to protest and resist the Beast.
The Brexit vote is only a beginning. In the United States, whose Political Elite comprises the backbone of the Beast’s Advancing System in America and its accompanying exportation of New World Order “Democracy“ abroad, the Brexit vote in the UK must be followed by the ultimate achievement of the following goals of the American Populist Movement and the Real Right in this country:
These include the termination of the Federal Reserve Board and a return of monetary policy to the Congress of the United States; and the termination of American involvement in NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Import-Export Bank, NAFTA, GATT, the FTAA, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and any future Globalist Trade Treaties designed to facilitate World Government. Control of American borders and the rejection of the agenda of the disastrous Immigration Reform Act of 1965 have to be included in this package.
The recovery of American national sovereignty over its economy and the rejection of the targeted destruction of a once vibrant American Middle Class must be accompanied by the achievement of three (3) additional essential elements in restoring the Old American Republic:
First 1): The blatantly un-Constitutional Domestic Police State advancements of the New World Order must be repealed. These include the USA Patriot Acts; the Military Commissions Act of 2006; the warrantless surveillance and data mining programs of the National Security Agency (NSA); and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Transportation Safety Administration(TSA) needs to be terminated, along with the involvement of Israeli affiliated companies and individuals in both this agency, and every other agency of the American National Security Nexus.
The use of Israeli training seminars for domestic American police departments must end, along with the known direct involvement of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) in working with Federal Law Enforcement and State Law Enforcement in profiling American citizens whose sole offense consists of lawfully opposing the hijacking of the country by our Globalist Masters.
Establishment of the Constitutional understanding of the lines of delineation between Federal and State Law Enforcement is an imperative in this context, as is the reinforcement of adherence to Posse Comitatus laws proscribing American military involvement in Domestic Law Enforcement. In this last regard, this priority should be especially obvious with the burgeoning Drone Strike technologies and what The Empire has already done with these technologies in the backyards of other people.
Second 2): The recovery of the Old Republic also involves the repudiation of the employment of the American Military as a Janissary Force for Israel, the Central Bankers, and the Multinational Corporate Elite. I have already mentioned the need for the United States to withdraw from NATO.
This must be accompanied by the cessation of the obvious attempts to militarize Eastern Europe and the southern underbelly of Putin’s Russia. The illegitimate involvement of the United States in supporting the illegal coup d’etat in the Ukraine in February of 2014 and the Wahhabic Sunni terrorists in Libya and Syria must end, as must the pursuit of the Zionist threat to Iran, and all of the American military and intelligence operations in the Middle East designed to enforce the Sykes-Picot Treaty, the Balfour Declaration, and Bretton Woods. This includes most of what has been supported by the United States in the Middle East since 1948, including the acceleration of all of this since 9-11.
In this regard, bringing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) under the strictures of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, ending the role of Dual Citizens and Israeli linked companies in every branch of the American government, and repudiating the insane campaign finance policies of the Citizens United v FEC and McCutcheon v FEC decisions are critically important in regaining control of our own house.
You may add to this the application of antitrust legislation to regulate the activities of Corporate Media Conglomerates where legitimate, and the termination of the activities of the New World Order agenda in NGOs like that of the Open Society Foundation of George Soros and his ideological ilk.
Third 3): American Old Right Populists must regain the initiative in the Culture Wars catastrophically lost in the last half century. It is essential to understand that a true rejection of the economic and political agenda of the minions of the New World Order must be accompanied by a rejection of the agenda of Cultural Subversion deployed by these people to deliberately target and destroy the moral and spiritual fiber of those who would otherwise constitute the constituency of Massive Resistance to their Game Plan for both the United States and the world at large.
I am referring here to the Freudian Psychotherapeutic Minions of the Frankfurt School’s Institute for Social Research, and their targeted sexual defoliation of this country by Hollywood, the Will and Grace and Oprah Winfrey crowd in the American television industry, the Helen Gurley Browns of the Womens Magazine industry, the pornographers in the image of Al Goldstein and his Screw magazine empire of a generation ago, the LGBT hijacking of American culture which culminated in the Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court decision of a year ago, and the insidious advancements of the abortion industry via the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision of January of 1973.
In regard to a total macrocosmic evaluation of these matters, it is legitimate to see the advancement of the Culture of Death as more than the mere pacification and disarmament of those who otherwise would resist the New World Order.
Along with the Empire’s global military expeditions, this domestic agenda for the Cultural Subversion of formerly sovereign nation-states is designed to subvert, divert, destroy, and kill millions physically, even as it destroys the religious, moral, and spiritual resistance and autonomy of those who should be resisting the arrival of the most evil World System ever seen in world history.
The understanding of the tragedy of what has happened in the United States is understood by President Putin of Russia and the present leadership of Iran. The recovering of understanding in the United States and Western Europe is the only hope the West has. It may be too late. Time and history will tell.
Time and history will reveal whether the Brexit vote of June 23rd will reveal a longer term string of victories for the recovery of Western Civilization or only a mere tactical gain by those who resist the Beast in a just and righteous cause already lost in the United States and Western Europe. My own evaluation of the prospect of the recovery of Western Civilization in the 21st Century is decidedly pessimistic. I pray I’m proven wrong.
In any event, I maintain my internal peace by my faith in the love, grace, and sovereign control of time and history by the Biblical God who has revealed Himself and his future Kingdom in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Alexis: I am indeed optimistic, despite the fact that chaos currently rules in politics. If men like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Friedrich Hegel, and Richard Wurmbrand refused to be pessimistic in the midst of complete chaos and destruction and despair, then people of reason can do nothing less than to submit their fear to Logos, the essence of the moral order and intellectual freedom. It is for this reason that St. Paul wrote:
“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed…”
Solzhenitsyn and others would have agreed here. That should excite us all to be on the optimistic side of the ideological battle, regardless of what current events may produce. Michael Hoffman, your take on the Brexit campaign.
Hoffman: No people can sustain themselves on repeated defeats. The British have defied the elites and voted to leave the Brussels-based European Union (EU). This is beautiful for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the British media trotted out a corpus of “expert opinion” ordering the flinty citizens of the island nation to stay in the EU for the sake of consumerism and globalism.
Money was held aloft as the supreme motive for remaining, and the ones raising this banner of mammon were from the “financial services industry,” which is a media-euphemism for the usurious gang who dominate almost every western country.
In Russia, under Vladimir Putin, the highest value is placed not on the economy but rather on the Church, the land and the people. Due to their loyalty to these ancient Slavic priorities, Russians are libeled, financially sanctioned and threatened with war by NATO and Hillary Clinton. The British meanwhile are beginning to return to the venerable verities championed by populists like Mr. Putin.
Under the laws of the European Union’s super-state, the tiny island nation had to admit any number of immigrants, no matter how large, from member nations. This includes millions of angry and alienated Muslim youth in EU member countries like France and Germany.
Polls repeatedly revealed that this deluge was the driving force behind the vote for a British exit (“Brexit”) from Brussels. The English and Welsh chose their land and their people—national sovereignty and independence—over the Money Power and the EU’s Tower of Babel. Thank God!
American Indians are praised for considering how any action they take will impact the next seven generations. This stems from the realization that we don’t own the future — we are only custodians of it for the benefit of our posterity. There is today a Britain and a United States because our ancestors chose to create pathways for our preservation.
When Angela Merkel, the gentile-Zionist agent who leads Germany, last year opened the borders of the nation to an invasion by more than one million immigrants from the Middle East and western Asia, with her treason she was spitting on a thousand years of stewardship by the ancestors of the Germans who had sacrificed, fought and died to preserve the Teutonic people and their homeland.
Merkel’s Germany is precisely the deracinated consumer utopia which the Cryptocracy has decided is the future of the United States and Britain. Yet against all odds, Britain’s “bulldog breed” responded at the ballot box with a howl of rage and frustration against their elite Overlords and the “experts” who dispensed hypnotic cues on how to think and vote.
Here in America the television networks and print media are routinely telling the plebes that their skepticism toward Hillary Clinton, trans-gender bathrooms and amnesty for illegal aliens, is a horrible sin. My, my, the “sinful” British appear to have paid no attention to their would-be moral masters in Britain, and increasingly Americans are defying the mainstream media’s demonization of traditional values and common sense.
Lest we conflate a victory in one great battle in Britain with a decisive defeat of Satan’s kingdom in the West, we ought to examine the bigger picture, which entails factoring the Zionists’ plans for Britain and Europe. They have a long memory and forgiveness forms no part of their gestalt. They view Britain and Europe as hereditarily and ineradicably tainted by their former resistance to Judaism.
Influential Orthodox rabbis have let the cat out of the bag by smirking at the growing presence of Sunni-Wahhabist terrorists scourging Britain and Europe. Inevitably these rabbis cite the “unforgivable” Christian resistance to Judaism in the past, as justification for gloating over the immigration invasion, and self-extinguishing rates of abortion, contraception, suicide and euthanasia in Europe and Britain.
One of the main Zionist outlets for their undying hatred is the controlled media of the West, where Europeans and the British are perpetually targeted with movies, TV shows and publications portraying them as moral lepers, fiendishly sadistic mass murderers and in general possessed of a tainted genetic stock.
The relentless negative stereotyping amounts to mental colonization followed by a kind of mental genocide: the commitment by our youth to withhold births of “more wicked whites.” Demographic statistics testify to the efficacy of the media onslaught.
No doubt the Establishment was banking on the inculcation of sufficient levels of this self-hate in numbers large enough to ensure the defeat of Britain’s vote on leaving the European Union. A miracle occurred however, and it was the Cryptocracy that was defeated, in this round at least.
The next battle consists of building on the defiance. This entails a revival of the family and the absolute necessity of three children or more per married couple, with offspring “trained up in the way they should go,” and populist political parties free of the networks of masonic secret societies, usury bankers and multinational corporations.
As long as we breathe there is hope. Today let us revel in sweet success and chase defeatism from our ranks, in gratitude for the bite of the British bulldog.
 Fraser Nelson, “Brexit: A Very British Revolution,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2016.
 Anthony Faiola and Michael Birnbaum, “British exit from the E.U. sets up a European crisis of diminished power,” Washington Post, June 24, 2016.
 See for example “David Cameron: Britain needs to be in the EU to stand up for Israel,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 21, 2016; Anshel Pfeffer, “WATCH: British PM Says Israel Needs United Kingdom to Remain in EU to Fight BDS, Iranian Nukes,” Haaretz, June 21, 2016.
 Jacques Lafitte and Denis MacShane, “Why a British Exit From the EU Should Worry Israel,” Haaretz, April 4, 2016.
 Alex Massie, “David Cameron Was a Historic and Disastrous Failure,” Foreign Policy, June 24, 2016.
 Nelson, “Brexit: A Very British Revolution,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2016.
 See Raziye Akkoc, “How Brexit could lead to other EU countries following the UK out,” Telegraph, May 10, 2016; Yaron Steinbuch, “EU worried about other countries taking Brexit-like leave,” NY Post, June 24, 2016; “All About the Base: US Worried Brexit Will Mean Loss of US Bases in Europe,” Sputnik, June 26, 2016; Tariq Ali, “Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment,” Counterpunch, June 24, 2016.
 “Over 10,000 Sign Petition to Hold Brexit-Style Referendum in Finland,” Sputnik News, June 25, 2016.
 Faiola and Birnbaum, “British exit from the E.U. sets up a European crisis of diminished power,” Washington Post, June 24, 2016.
 Gerard Baker, “Britain Fires a Shot Heard ’Round the World,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2016.
 Quoted in Howard Amos, “Brexit Vote Applauded by Russia, Kremlin Officials Relish Weakened EU,”International Business Times, June 24, 2016.
 “Putin on Brexit: No one wants to support weak economies,” Russia Today, June 24, 2016.
 “Brexit Casts Dark Shadow on World’s Great Move to Openness,” Bloomberg, June 25, 2016.
 “Brexit strips world’s 400 richest people of $127bn,” Russia Today, June 25, 2016.
 Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds, 12 Years a Slave, Hostels, A History of Violence, A Dangerous Method, Cosmopolis, are just a few of those movies.
16 Reasons To Celebrate Brexit’s Win
Watching the Brexit campaign generated mixed feelings: it was a little like the man who saw his mother-in-law drive his new Mercedes off a cliff. In the United Kingdom, some people who hated free trade, immigration and market innovation challenged the officious, wannabe superstate headquartered in Brussels. Who to cheer for?
We should cheer for the Brexiteers, who deserve at least a couple of hurrahs. The European Union created a common market throughout the continent, an undoubted good, but since then has focused on becoming a meddling Leviathan like Washington, DC. For Britain, the virtues of remaining appeared to pale in comparison to the likely costs of continued subservience to Brussels. In a variety of imperfect ways, Brexit promoted liberty, community, democracy and the rule of law. In short, the good guys won.
Here are sixteen reasons why the United Kingdom was better off Brexiting:
1. Average folks took on the commanding heights of politics, business, journalism and academia and triumphed. Obviously, the “little guy” isn’t always right, but the fact he can win demonstrates that a system whose pathways remain open to those the Bible refer to as “the least of these.” The wealthiest, best-organized and most publicized factions don’t always win.
2. Told to choose between economic bounty and self-governance, a majority of Britons chose the latter. It’s a false choice in this case, but people recognized that the sum of human existence is not material. The problem is not just the decisions previously taken away from those elected to govern the UK; it’s also the decisions that would have been taken away in the future had “Remain” won.
3. Those governed decided that they should make fundamental decisions about who would rule over them. The Eurocrats, a gaggle of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, academics, lobbyists and businessmen were determined to achieve their ends no matter what the European people thought. A constitution rejected? Use a treaty. A treaty rejected? Vote again. A busted monetary union? Force a political union. And never, ever consult the public. No longer, said the British.
4. The rule of law will be respected—or at least not flagrantly flouted. Those signing up as EU members did not realize that the EU would be a transfer union. At least some countries likely would not have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, expanding Brussels’ writ, had they realized that explicit strictures against bailouts would be ostentatiously ignored. No doubt the usual suspects believed they were doing the Lord’s work by violating legal guarantees. But today no one living under the EU has any assurance that laws made, rules issued and promises offered would be kept.
5. Routine incantations of the need for “more Europe” and importance of “European solidarity” no longer will be confused with arguments. Those in charge always want more—more money to distribute, publicity to satisfy, rules to enforce and power to wield. Their vision of “more Europe” is Europe giving them more. “European solidarity” means others caring for them after they have wasted everything under their control.
6. Democracy will have triumphed over bureaucratic inertia. The EU is known for its “democratic deficit”, a Hydra-headed, unelected executive and a parliament chosen by people usually voting on domestic issues, using the polls for the European Parliament to punish errant governments at home. The Brussels bureaucracy has become the perfect means to impose policies that lack political support among member governments and peoples.
7. The pretensions of the EU as Weltmacht never looked so silly. There is a flag that no one salutes, and an anthem no one sings. There are multiple presidents: three, four or five? There is enervating duplication, including an EU foreign minister and diplomatic service along with those representing twenty-eight individual member states. Constant talk of creating a continental military while countries steadily shrink military outlays. Insistence that all which is good and decent comes from the EU as ever more people organize and vote against it.
8. The great satisfaction of watching smug smiles disappear from the faces of Eurocrats on both sides of the English Channel. The Brexit battle never was supposed to be a fair contest. It was intended to solve a Tory political problem, allowing the irreconcilables to make fools of themselves while the best and brightest led voters to the light. But it didn’t work out that way.
9. Demonstrating that other EU members can throw off the cloak of, if not tyranny, bureaucratic obsession. Most previous continental episodes of unplanned independent thinking were crushed—the French and Dutch votes against the constitution, the Irish vote against the Treaty of Lisbon, opposition to bailouts and European Central Bank abuses. The Eurocrats always seemed to win. Until now.
10. The recognition that most human decisions are not wrong but different, and need not be uniform across a continent, especially one made up of such diverse peoples. Common economic regulations, currencies, employment policies, weights and measures, farm programs and legal rights are convenient. However, convenience is not the highest good. People often value different approaches and standards and are entitled to live their lives as they wish, even if inconsistent with the continent’s most progressive thinking.
11. England, which pays most of the bills, ignored political blackmail from Scotland, which threatened to hold another independence referendum. It’s not clear why the Scots didn’t choose to leave in 2014. One suspects too many of them were hooked on subsidies from London, which raised the question why the English were so determined for the Scots to stay. Anyway, in the EU poll the English felt as free as the Scots to vote as they wished.
12. The Brits ignored silly scaremongering about how Europe and, indeed, Western civilization, would be threatened if the UK left the EU. Britain would still be a member of NATO—just as Turkey belongs to the military alliance but not the EU. The latter is irrelevant to security: Proposals for an EU military have gone nowhere, in part due to steadfast British opposition. At the margin a more hawkish London might push the EU in a slightly more hawkish direction in the few cases, like Russia, when the continent moved together. But if Vladimir Putin really were the next Hitler, slightly less anemic sanctions wouldn’t stop him. World peace does not depend on Britain in or out of the EU.
13. Schadenfreude is a terrible thing, but almost all of us glory in the misfortune of at least some others. The recriminations among the Remain camp in Britain are terrible to behold. Labour Party tribunes blame their leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose Euroskeptic past created suspicions inflamed by his criticisms of the EU while nominally praising it. His supporters blame the Scottish nationalists for not turning out their voters. Former Liberal-Democrat Party leader and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg trashed Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne for seeking political advantage by holding the referendum. The Scots are mad at the English. Irish “republicans” in Northern Ireland also are denouncing the English, while their longtime unionist rivals are trashing the republicans. The young are blaming the old for ruining their futures. Apparently, America isn’t the only home for myopic bickering.
14. Sometimes the advocate of a lost cause triumphs. Nigel Farage has been campaigning against the EU forever, it seems. Yet every advance appeared to trigger a retreat. His United Kingdom Independence Party picked up support, but then had to shed some of those whose views really were beyond the pale. UKIP was able to break into the European Parliament, which it hated, but won only one seat at Westminster, despite receiving 3.9 million votes, or 12.6 percent of the total, in last year’s election. One reason was that Cameron and the Tories stole his issue, promising a referendum on the EU—in which they then opposed separation. Election night he admitted that it looked like the UK would choose to remain. Except the British people ended up taking his advice.
15. A bracing reminder that people want to believe that their views matter, that what they do actually makes a difference and those claiming to represent them actually listen. Today’s political consensus, in which certain concerns are treated as inappropriate for polite company, drive otherwise normal decent folk to the fringes to find political champions willing to speak for them. Debating such ideas might threaten values and policies held by those steeped in modernity and liberalism, including people like me. But otherwise frustration will boil over in far more dangerous ways.
16. The pleasure of disrupting a choreographed ending amid much crying and gnashing of teeth. Election night began with the comfortable assumption among those at the top of the social pyramid that the forces of tolerance, diversity and rationality had carried the day. Then came the shock of watching Brexit improbably take the lead in early returns. Remain “victory” parties emptied and politicians who orchestrated the Remain campaign contemplated the ruin of their careers. Those at the top suddenly found themselves in the political queue well behind their rural and working class compatriots.
Could Brexit turn out to be a mistake? Yes. Unfortunately, we live in an uncertain world with imperfect knowledge. We can only guess at the future. Both the UK and EU must handle separation with maturity unusual for politicians, especially those in Brussels. Europeans should apply the important lessons learned in changing EU policy and operations. The Brits must unilaterally follow an outward economic and political policy. None of these will be easy and much could go wrong.
However, Britain has been capably governing itself for hundreds if not thousands of years. In that light, Brexit appears likely promote the right people and ends. At its best, Britain’s departure will revive the UK’s most basic principles of self-governance and spur EU members to rethink the “European Project’s” attempt to create a superstate by stealth. Those wouldn’t be bad results for a measure that was never supposed to have much chance of passing.