NY Times: Due To Brexit, America Should Break With Britain Again

Like most liberals, the NY Times Editorial Board seems rather upset regarding a day that celebrates Freedom. So, why not combine it with their hatred of Brexit?

Freedom, Fireworks and Brexit

This year, the commemoration of the break with the British Empire on the Fourth of July is particularly rich in material for mulling the state of democracy and trans-Atlantic relations.

Those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union, and their admirers in the United States and Europe, will no doubt aver that this is a similar break with an unresponsive, alien power and a bold bid by a free people to take control of their destiny. As Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party in France, wrote recently in The Times, “The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.”

The trouble with that argument, like many others advanced by the Leave crowd in Britain — as well as by Donald Trump’s nativist legions in the United States and by the xenophobic parties across Europe — is that it’s wrong.

The “Brussels” against which British voters rebelled is not the “absolute Despotism” that the authors of the Declaration of Independence broke with, but a bureaucracy answerable to 28 contentious governments that has never constrained British sovereignty in defense or fiscal policy, or in dealing with refugees from outside the E.U. And as the Britons will soon realize to their regret, they benefited handsomely from participating in a large common market.

There’s little point in arguing that so many EU citizens feel that there is absolute Despotism, especially when they are being told which appliances they can and cannot buy, what cars they can drive, and being inundated with violent, rapist, criminal fighting age men from Islamic countries, among other issues, and feel powerless.

All that has been amply chronicled, along with the real motives behind the Leave vote (and the politically analogous Trump phenomenon): the sense among older, provincial, white voters that they are somehow being marginalized by globalization; a nostalgia for a simpler and often mythical past.

Speaking of White, have you seen the NY Times Editorial Board? Considering how many beaches are near Manhattan, a tan might be in order. Of course, and as usual, they are Very Upset that people were allowed to engage in this whole voting thing

They would argue, in the populist tradition, that the British referendum demonstrated the will of the people and was therefore richly democratic. Referendums may have their occasional role in democracy, but if abolition, voting rights, or same-sex marriage, for example, had been put to national referendums, who knows where we’d be? As a Tory (and staunchly pro-Europe) prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, once argued, referendums sacrifice constitutional protections and parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency.

Except, this was not about internals, but breaking from the EU. Liberals only love voting when they win.

The Declaration of Independence exists on an entirely different moral plane. Its invocation of the natural and legal rights of people born equal is the standard for human rights the world over. And the political system created on its principles made sure to protect these self-evident truths from public passions.

So, the NY Times is good with treating Hillary Clinton exactly like every other citizen, and believes she should be in jail, right? Because if any of us did what she did, we’d already be in jail. Anyhow, here it comes

So perhaps on this Fourth of July, Americans should once again proclaim a break with Britain — this time a break with the misguided British vote to turn back the clock on freedom of movement, on tolerance, on diversity, on free trade, on all the things that have made the free world great.

Or, perhaps we should embrace them, realizing that they are trying to take control back from the people who come willy nilly to their country and no only refuse to assimilate, but expect the Brits to cowtow to the immigrants. “Diversity” led to the Rotherdam sexual assault scandal. Is that what the NY Times wants?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “NY Times: Due To Brexit, America Should Break With Britain Again”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The EU allows migration of citizen workers between EU member nations, but not from nations outside the EU. England has 3 million immigrants, out of 53 million residents. Almost a million of the immigrants are Polish. Economic studies show that immigrants add more to the English economy than they take.

  2. Dana says:

    Both Jeffrey’s and the Times’ editorial board show the same bias: the patricians are simply better and wiser than the plebeians, and therefore it is their wisdom which should, and must, prevail. That idea is hardly new: Plato expressed the same concept in his Republic, with the first class, the philosopher-kings, as the rulers. Philosophers, Plato held, were the only people who truly had access to “ideas,” as expressed in his theory of ideas, more commonly known as his theory of forms. Being the wisest people in existence, while philosophers could still err, the probability that they would make mistakes was less than that of the common man.

    The next class in Plato’s ideal republic were the soldiers, who would enforce the rule of the philosophers. Plato lived during the first century of Athenian democracy, but Athenian democracy was still the ‘democracy’ only of male citizens — slaves were not considered citizens — and at times property ownership requirements were in place. Plato, in effect, was looking at Athenian democracy as the rule of the better people — male citizens — and restricting in more by looking only to the rule of the best of the best, the philosophers, excluding the carpenters and shop keepers and the like.

    The patricians hold that the UK benefited more from membership in the EU than they would by leaving it, and, perhaps for the patricians themselves, they were right. But it is very apparent that the majority of the public disagreed; perhaps the plebeians saw less benefit to themselves than did the patricians. Perhaps not being part of the ruling class, the plebeians saw only the disadvantages accrue to themselves.

    We saw this happen here, 240 years ago. Had the colonies remained part of the British empire, it is very likely that, at least for the then foreseeable future, the colonies would have been more prosperous than they would be after eight years of ruinous war and separation from His Majesty. There were many loyalists in the colonies, you know, people who believed that the revolution was a mistake. But perhaps, just perhaps, the ideas of freedom from His Majesty’s government outweighed arguments of economic uncertainty for many patriots.

    For the patricians of today, the idea of a larger, greater, more encompassing government, culminating in a single world government, makes perfect sense, but it seems that, for the plebeians, such is not so desirable. We aren’t seeing any popularly-based greater, larger government movements, but separatist movements exist all across the world. The common people do not want government further away from themselves; they want government closer and more accountable. London is too far away for many of the people of the United Kingdom, but it is nevertheless closer than Brussels.

    I neither supported nor opposed the BrExit; it really didn’t matter to me, being neither an Englishman nor an EU citizen. But the vote demonstrated to me that the political phenomenon that Donald Trump has seized is not limited to our shores: the Leave people were voting to make their government theirs again, and not something ruled by Angela Merkel, who has achieved by diplomacy a German rule greater than der Führer ever did by force of arms.

    • John says:

      Putin has supported all the right wing nationalistic parties in Europe
      He looks forward to dealing with a divided Europe and a weakened NATO
      anyone else here think that us s good idea and in our own national interests?

  3. […] Thanks to William Teach, I found this gem from the editors of The New York Times: […]

  4. Hoagie says:

    Jeffery and the Times certainly do share the same bias: they’re both anti white racists and both oikophobes. They all preach that by bringing in peole who cannot/will not assimilate to American culture we will somehow miraculously become better and stronger. They know it’s a lie but their true desire is the weakening of America, not it’s strengthening. Therefore, anyone holding to the Founding Father’s ideas of a nation, culture, society and what is America must be bad.

    Basically the Jeffery’s of America would give our birthright away simply because they don’t believe we have a birthright. It’s a word they don’t understand and never use. They want a government of like-minded Pajama Boys and beta males to rule over us little people. They know better. They also seem to be very sad, sour and mean people. I guess when one ascribes to oikophobia that is the resultant condition.

    I spent yesterday watching George Washington and The Sons of Liberty. Today drinking bourbon and beer, eating burgers and potato salad and watching fireworks with my family, friends and neighbors tonight. A happy day celebrating the 240th birthday of a country those NY Times types neither love nor will ever understand.

    Happy Independence Day even to you anti-American heathens out there. You know who you are.

  5. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Studies also show that cholesterol is a horrible substance that causes disease, but then we found that cholesterol has nothing to do with any disease state and lowering it causes illness, look it up in the BMJ.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Now what does that mean, it means that even 40 years of studies are often wrong, in fact, more so than one would think. It also means that liberals have formulated policy on data that is often wrong, as we see in the cholesterol myth and hoax. In fact, your drug company may have been one of those that gave out false data to support worthless, harmful statins and other cholesterol lowering medication. In spite of the overwhelming information not supporting cholesterol as a problem, we still have the government telling doctors they have to prescribe cholesterol lowering drugs and other efforts that are actually harmful. So, we see how socialism is very bad in our society.

    For the rest of you, a parallel exist between how they sold us on cholesterol and are attempting to sell us on climate, immigration and all other aspects of our society. In short, lying studies and data.

    • John says:

      And a happy Independence Day to you too hoagie and to all others who seem to find so much to fault about living here in our great country

    • John says:

      So David I guess what you are saying is that government shouldn’t interfere with the free market because the government isn’t right 100% of the time.
      Conservatives always complain the loudest for the failings of government, an institution they wish did not even exist yet fault when it does not perform yo their expectations
      And no David the government doesn’t force doctors to prescribe, many don’t. But certainly the free market drug producers DO reward doctors who write for them and keep their profits so high
      Fortunately as I approach 70 I can say I rarely visit the doctor and average about 10 years between prescriptions for antibiotics

  7. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    The worldwide medical establishment nor the research community have caught up with your forward thinking on cholesterol management.

    Are you familiar with the widespread opinions of Dr. Joseph Mercola?

    but then we found that cholesterol has nothing to do with any disease state and lowering it causes illness

    So reducing cholesterol does not reduce cardiovascular disease? Or is it only lowering cholesterol with statins that is the culprit?

  8. David7134 says:

    Didn’t even research it did you. You are doing just what I said, all you do is keep up discredited liberal carp.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    What do you love about America?

  10. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You’re the iconoclast reversing 50 years of data. It’s up to you to be at least a little persuasive.

    Here you have a skeptic you can convert to your side with evidence. I distrust big pharma just as you do.

    Can you at least supply the top 3 scientific citations that support your view? Is that asking too much?

  11. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    Hoagie, What do you love about America?

    I don’t know if he’ll be back to see your question, but Hoagie was an American soldier who served our country, putting his life on the line in Vietnam.

    • John says:

      Well that service was in the past all I hear now is complaints about our great country

  12. Hoagie says:

    Well that service was in the past all I hear now is complaints about our great country

    No you don’t, you hear my observations about how the laws and the Constitution are being twisted to adhere to some distorted idea of political correctness. What you think are complaints about our country are actually complaints about some of our countrymen who seem to believe they have the right to demand everyone obey their latest proposal.

    BTW John, thanks for your service too. You’re a real class act. I guess since my service was in the past I’m all used up and worthless to a snowflake like you. That’s all you leftists are good for, using other people. You do realize all of us who came before you built this country you ungrateful little a$$.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9528 access attempts in the last 7 days.