British or some people, confused on the Brexit vote?

Michael Dingake | Tuesday July 5, 2016 16:29

Admittedly, the referendum decision, by the British to leave the EU after 43 long years in which the United Kingdom (UK) had been an integral part was unexpected by outsiders, worldwide.

 Indeed for a long time, it was right to view the UK as interchangeable with the EU, it was a member by majority decision then. More than a generation later the majority has swung. Nothing wrong! Democracy doesn’t bind the living to the dead in perpetuity; democracy isn’t good time religion which was good for my father and must ipso facto be good for me! Democracy is a process, dynamic in nature. Stock markets may gyrate and financial markets overreact, they always return from the jitteriness induced by fallible men/women who want to entrench the status quo. It’s business unusual. All must adapt.

But can we honestly say the British people were confused by holding the referendum and voting to leave the EU? Confusion would apply had the British voters been taken to the polls blindfolded and asked to mark X on a blank paper. On the contrary, in the previous general elections the Tory Party had explicitly stated in their manifesto, that should it win the elections, it would call a referendum to give the British people an opportunity to indicate whether they wanted Britain in or out of the EU.

Obviously, a sizeable quota seems to have been on edge, itching for the country to leave right from its inception. The Tories, having won the general elections on the mandate to call a referendum, had to do so. No confusion, one can detect here. In the referendum campaign, the ‘leave’ and the ‘remain’ options were thoroughly canvassed and explained to the voters - the benefits and the non-benefits of leaving were clear. The whys and the wherefores were fully addressed. None could have been suffering confusion.

The British voters exercised their constitutional right to state whether they wanted to remain or leave. The results of the referendum saw the majority opt to leave and the minority wishing to remain: 52 percent against 48 percent. Was there any confusion there? No! Only Nicola Sturgeon the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament sounded confused. She reckoned that since Scotland majority of 62 per cent wanted to remain in the EU, she was entitled to remain.

How she mistook Scotland to be the member of the EU, baffles one. How she became First Minister of Scotland with such ignorance is a mystery. Her Scotland was only a part, a fraction of Britain, not the whole sum. Poor woman, under the delusion, she  ran to the European Parliament to pledge Scotland’s continued membership and loyalty. I don’t know how she was received by the EU Parliament.  If the Members of the Parliament were equally confused, at least one Spanish member, had forewarned he’d exercise his veto to stop the whole confused mess on its tracks!

Nicola Sturgeon was/is confused, not the British people. I watched Nigel Farage, the leader of the new UK party – United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) haranguing the EU parliamentarians: “Seventeen years back, I told you Britain would withdraw from the EU. And you laughed.

You are not laughing now, are you? The problem with you is that you’re in denial! ” he ridiculed the skeptics who had derided him when he argued and demonstrated the shortcomings of the EU as seen by the British eye, even then. First Minister Sturgeon’s confusion apparently extends to a section of the EU Parliament. The exit of the British from the EU has been met with anger and emotional outbursts, from some members. Threats, warnings, bravura and other noisy displays came thick and fast from the 27 residual of the panicky EU. Why all the panic, you may ask?

The EU a man-made social mechanism, dons dimples and warts. The UK wasn’t the only member, that saw the EU’s warts. Perhaps it was the only one that thought surgical treatment was overdue. The reason why EU leaders are jittery about the British referendum results, is their knowledge that British action, may trigger a domino effect. Groups, within other nationalities want to emulate the British example.

The masses hanker after participatory democracy, whereas the leaders prefer autocracy. I listened to Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the EU, drooling about Europe becoming socialist! What kite flying! What balderdash! From a distant EU may look like an organisation keen to extend democracy within Europe. But socialism? Deeper analysis reveals centralisation of power at the top and backward march on the periphery; in the process disempowerment of the masses ensues.

Distance may lend enchantment to the view, remember!? Nato is the military wing of USA and Europe; EU is the political wing of USA and Europe. A deadly anti-non-western combination.

A grand plan to make the world dance to Western discordant tune. Putin’s Russia first target, not the last. Security intelligence, military power and economic sanctions are best coordinated in the two wings to dominate the world!

 Not surprised African leadership (represented by Khama), handcuffed by neo-colonialism views the British step as confusion, not participatory democracy, in action. To his dog, every man is a Napoleon! African leaders, awake! Shake-off the colonial cobwebs. Africa wasn’t created to be slave of  Western institutions; Africa is Africa, free to develop interdependently, but proud!