Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?
David
Lammy has recently written about his idea that Brexit being the Will of the
People is “bollocks”. Here is what he
posted on the 27th July:-
Why
the government's "will of the people" Brexit mantra is bollocks:
1.
Vote Leave cheated.
2. It was based on lies e.g. £350m for NHS.
3. Only 37% of the electorate voted for it.
4. Scotland & London voted against.
5. 69% say Brexit is going badly.
6. Public supports a #PeoplesVote.
7. Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against.
8. Russia interfered and influenced the result.
9. The referendum was advisory and non-binding.
10. The government has no mandate for Chequers or No Deal - the only options left on the table.
2. It was based on lies e.g. £350m for NHS.
3. Only 37% of the electorate voted for it.
4. Scotland & London voted against.
5. 69% say Brexit is going badly.
6. Public supports a #PeoplesVote.
7. Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against.
8. Russia interfered and influenced the result.
9. The referendum was advisory and non-binding.
10. The government has no mandate for Chequers or No Deal - the only options left on the table.
Here
is what I have to say in reply to him:-
1.
“Vote Leave cheated” – No they didn’t.
The fact of the matter is that the main “cheat” was by Remain, as the
Electoral Commission has recently reported, with the £9m mailshot by the
Government of their dodgy leaflet.
The
system of controls on spending are in any case politically motivated and
amorally illegitimate attempt to stitch up the result. Any minor breaches of the expenses rules are
of no significance as regards the outcome.
Personally I think Remain’s concerted campaign between the various
entities that were campaigning for Remain are a much clearer instance of
breaking the spending rules than the piffling instances that have been brought
against the Leave campaigns by an Electoral Commission that is rapidly becoming
a byword for bias. See >>> https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/
2.
“It was based on lies e.g. £360m for NHS” – For any Remain campaigner to claim
that the Leave campaign based itself on lies is a breath-taking hypocrisy, given
the absolute blatant nonsense that the Remainers talked about the catastrophe
that would be Brexit and misusing the machinery of government in order to
produce such nonsense. In fact the £360m
a week for the NHS is a good political figure to use because it is justifiable
and it usefully triggered idiots like David Lammy into arguing about the exact
number of pounds that was going to the EU, whilst revealing to the public that
even the Remain campaign accepted that it was a vast number of
millions.
The political usefulness of the claim was to trigger Remainers
to argue about the detail. The factual defensibility is that the £360million is
the total going to the EU per week. The rebate comes back with strings attached
so it couldn't be spent on the NHS. The NHS point is therefore key to the
defensibility of this claim. So far as England is concerned the rebate goes
almost all to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in what is known as the EU
'Conduit Effect' so an English Nationalist could remove the NHS element of the
claim and just add the expense of belonging to the EU to the £49 billion plus
per year cost to English taxpayers of being in the Union of the UK.
3.
“Only 37% of the electorate voted for it” – For David Lammy to make anything of
that when no elected government has ever received the votes of 37% of the
electorate, just shows the extent of his idiocy. Since Parliament voted, including David
Lammy, for a referendum in which this result would be decisive, his argument is
not so much boll@cks as bullsh1t!
4.
“Scotland and London voted against” – Is there any relevance to this
comment? So far as London is concerned
London remains part of England which voted overwhelmingly to leave.
So far as Scotland is concerned I
am more than happy for them to make something of it and become independent. The only relevance to his comment might be a
definition of who the “People” are? So
far as I am concerned the only “People” that I am interested in are the English
nation. England was and remains overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit.
5. “69% say Brexit is going badly” – Given the
ridiculous incompetence, dishonest and lack of patriotism of the Conservative
Government I agree they are making a mess.
If you follow my blog then you will have seen that I am rather licking my lips at
the prospect of seeing the dying body of the Conservative Party circled by
hungry vultures!
6.
“Public supports a #peoplesvote” – No they don’t. We have already had a People’s Vote and that
is it.
7. “Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland,
which also voted against” – I don’t believe that Brexit does threaten any peace
in Northern Ireland. One of Theresa
May’s many mistakes was to get involved in commitments over Northern Ireland
which she was never going to be able to deliver, given that she is dependent
upon the DUP following her ludicrous decision to have a General Election when
she didn’t need it.
As
an English nationalist I am more than happy for Northern Ireland to either
become a separate independent state or to join with Southern Ireland. In any case what opinion polls do show is
that most English people would prefer to lose Northern Ireland rather than lose
Brexit. I would certainly agree with
that opinion!
8. “Russia interfered and influenced results” –
Ridiculous nonsense for which there is no evidence of any actual influence. Given our history it is utter hypercritical
of British politicians to complain about outside interference. Blithering on about this is probably however
a measure of Remainer desperation!
For a well written and thoughtful explanation of the result read >>>> https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
For a well written and thoughtful explanation of the result read >>>> https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
9. “The referendum was advisory and not binding”
– Given the way that the British constitution is fitted together that remark,
from a legalistic point of view, would have to be true of almost any democratic
input. The issue is about legitimacy of the Establishment. If the mask drops and the Establishment
proves that voting doesn’t achieve anything, the only sensible future recourse
is to the natural way of settling disputes i.e. force.
10.
“The Government has no mandate for Chequers or no deal – the only options left
on the table” – I agree that the Government has no mandate for Chequers but it
certainly has a mandate for “no deal”.
The mandate is, and it is a mandate from both political parties which
also campaigned on this at the last General Election, to implement Brexit in
full and unequivocally. Personally I
will be very happy with a “no deal” outcome.
More
generally I think David Lammy falls into the category of the type of Leftist
that is simply not a democrat and therefore rather likes the internationalist,
multi-culturalist, statist elitism of the EU.
So I am not surprised that he is on the side of remaining in the EU at
all costs and of welshing on the Labour Party’s manifesto in the last election
previous commitments to an in/out referendum.
David Lammy is not only thick but also dishonest.
The
perfect illustration of David Lammy’s intellectual initiative is shown in his
staged appearance on Celebrity Mastermind where he was thrown as many soft balls
as possible to try and build him up but he still flunked it!
Here
is the priceless link to Lammy's lamentable Mastermind performance.
The 13-Point Mastermind:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE▶
Enjoy!
Around 2015 when he came up in an online conversation I had the idea that Lammy had acquired a First Class in law from SOAS but thinking back, I can't now recall where I got that idea from. Was it Wikipedia? Maybe those familiar with its journalling capabilities will know how to check, but today (maybe then too) Wikipedia states he got a 2(i). A very good achievement withal, especially if for someone from an underprivileged background.
ReplyDeleteHere however (2015) it is catergorically stated that he got a First:
https://jennifrazer.com/david-lammy-for-mayor-of-london/
Bigging up? I could say more on that piece, but I won't.
Anon, It makes no difference whether he got of First or 2(1), it makes him either a first class idiot or upper second class idiot that is all.
DeleteAs a former employer I will tell you graduates with First and Upper Second Class degrees made by far the worst employees, lacked critical thinking and problem solving abilities. I gave up on graduate recruitment in the late 90's.
Then only a few years ago a former Uni friend now professor explained why this observation of mine is very often true. University grading is subjective even if external examiners are involved. Secondly universities have often marked BAME and women students up to degree classifications they don't deserve while simultaneously penalising white male students over alleged plagiarism or having political views they disagree with. Even a Mathematics degree is subjective because at that level it about proving facts, not learning of them.
The result is university grading is not indicator of merit, just a biased view from most often leftist professors.
Lammy was never underprivilged ever, that is a marxist myth. He is as useless as any graduate with an over inflated ego.
francis