All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
35:16
#Brexit Aftermath #2 - Anti-Democracy Activists
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What do you like so much about the EU?
Don't fairly.
It gives us free we have all have free movement citizenship of 27 countries.
We have access to the world's largest single market.
We've got people going from all over the EU to work for our NHS.
We've got amazing EU funding for science research.
I mean it's ridiculous.
It's just like a minute.
We have no idea when and on what terms we'll be able to guarantee access.
Again, so also the next two or three years are just completely fucked in this country because the uncertainty, nobody's going to invest.
The economy is going to slow down until there's certainty about how we're going to access Europe.
It's kind of a lost period.
Yeah, and then we've got someone like Farage still going to the European Parliament and just like pointing fingers and laughing at them.
Instead of, you know, we need that.
I mean he's quite a peripheral figure.
The fact that you feel so negatively about the prospect out of the EU, would you say that it's possibly been influenced by propaganda, by EU propaganda?
Since the EU referendum in which the British public decided they would like to leave the European Union, the establishment and many remain activists have been pulling out all the stops in order to overturn this result.
By fair means or by foul, these people seem determined to prevent the will of the people from being realised.
The most fair means I've found are legal challenges to the government as to whether they have the authority to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and trigger the process of Britain leaving the EU.
So, can the law stop Brexit?
According to the BBC, Article 50 says that any EU member state can leave in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
That phrase has given lawyers pause for thought as to what is lawful under our constitution.
In a piece co-authored by three legal experts for the UK Constitutional Law Association, it is argued that under our constitutional settlement, the Prime Minister cannot issue a notification under Article 50 without being given authority to do so by an act of Parliament.
The argument rests on the fact that without Parliament's backing, any Prime Minister would be exercising what are known as prerogative powers.
These are a collection of executive powers held by the Crown since medieval times and are now placed in the hands of ministers.
They are often used in foreign affairs Parliament has largely left to the government.
However, case law establishes these executive powers cannot trump an act of parliament.
Legislation can only be altered by legislation.
And so by extension, if a Prime Minister triggered Article 50 and so put the UK on a one-way road out of the EU without Parliament's backing, he or she would be overriding the 1972 European Communities Act, which provides for the UK's membership of the EU and for the EU treaties to have an effect in domestic law.
The Article 50 process would cut across and emasculate the 1972 Act.
So, the argument goes, the Prime Minister needs the backing of a new Act of Parliament to give him or her the constitutional authority to push the leave button.
Lord Panic, an eminent specialist in public law, said, Whether Parliament would enact legislation to allow for an Article 50 withdrawal is a matter for it.
However, without such legislation, the Prime Minister cannot lawfully give a notification.
If it was decided that the Prime Minister acting alone under prerogative powers lacked the constitutional authority to trigger Article 50, an Act of Parliament would need to be passed giving him or her that authority.
The passage of the Act would of course provide the opportunity for MPs to express their views on Brexit and in theory vote according to their consciences.
However, it seems constitutionally inconceivable that Parliament would fly in the face of the leave vote, secured through a national referendum and refuse to pass an act that gave the Prime Minister authority to begin the divorce process.
And indeed, it does sound inconceivable that British MPs would override a democratic mandate by the people with a 72% voter turnout, which is the highest voter turnout the UK has ever seen for anything.
But of course, it's eminently conceivable that someone from say, oh I don't know, plucking a random undemocratic institution out of the air, say the European Commission, you might email MPs all across the country and order them not to allow this to go through.
Which is precisely what an anonymous bureaucrat from Brussels did.
An extraordinary attempt to block Britain leaving the EU has been revealed after a European Commission staff member sent a letter to all MPs demanding they vote to prevent Brexit.
Tory MP Henry Smith highlighted the missive sent from a British citizen working for the EU in Brussels and has sent a copy to the mail online.
The employee who has remained anonymous due to data protection laws says politicians should not support invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty despite the clear leave vote in the referendum.
She wrote a list of remarkable claims on why MPs should block last month's Brexit vote.
Among the most outlandish was a claim that the referendum was not an exercise in real democracy.
She also told MPs to reject the Brexit result because the decision was too complex for the uninformed electorate.
Unwittingly demonstrating precisely why people don't need any further information about whether they should stay in the EU or not.
If you're going to outright try to subvert the democratic process, that is enough of a reason on its own.
This is how the Guardian decided to approach this issue.
Forget the politics.
Brexit may be unlawful.
Panic not.
There are good reasons to believe the government's decision to withdraw from the EU would not be legal and that the UK is not going anywhere.
So let me get this straight.
They're saying that Britain is trapped in a political union against its will due to a legalistic reading of a treaty that the British public did not get to vote on that was imposed upon them by the very political union they are currently trying to leave.
At this point, I have no doubt that my American friends are currently frenziedly in the comments, typing out a certain Thomas Jefferson quote, because they are finding the actions of the EU and the political establishment here reprehensible.
And if this is the case, what would be the point of a second EU referendum that the Remain camp have been so hypocritically petitioning for?
And don't worry, a pointless second referendum is certainly legally possible, according to a former Attorney General.
A second EU referendum could be justified if it becomes clear public opinion has shifted strongly against Brexit, according to Dominic Greave, a Conservative MP who was the government's chief legal advisor until 2014.
In correspondence seen and verified by The Independent, Mr Greaves tells a constituent that the result of the first referendum cannot be ignored, but that a second plebiscite could become democratically justifiable if only we propagandise the people enough.
The remarks by the MP come after research suggesting 1.2 million leave voters regret their vote.
A survey by Opinium, which accurately predicted the EU referendum result, found that up to 7% of people who voted for Brexit now regretted it.
That polling was conducted after widespread anecdotal social media reports of people saying they only voted to leave the EU as a protest and now regretted doing so.
It's weird, I noticed you don't do a poll of people who were remain and now are glad we leave.
I mean, can I give some anecdotal evidence?
Since we're on the subject, my aunts and uncles voted remain, and then the next day they found out that the EU was planning an army.
And of course they were like, well, hell, if I'd known that, I'd vote leave.
Is that going to be on the news?
Is that going to be in any papers?
You can do any polls about that?
No!
Oh.
Would you say that it's possibly you've been influenced by propaganda by EU propaganda?
No?
Well, it's bad news for the EU propagandists then, because apparently their propaganda isn't very good, as the British public opposes a second referendum by almost 2 to 1.
The latest research from UGO of Channel 5 shows that most British people, 58%, oppose holding a second referendum.
This includes not only 91% of leave voters, but also 29% of remain voters, with 11% saying they just don't know.
Even in an extreme situation such as the breakup of the United Kingdom, 51% still oppose holding a second referendum.
In the event of Scottish independence, only 30% would support holding a second referendum.
The thing I find most amusing about the people calling for a second referendum is that they think they will win it.
Idiots.
You thought you were going to win the first one.
Why the hell would you think you'd win a second one?
There appears to be a great deal of emotional toll on many of the people who voted to remain, mostly, I'm guessing, the younger people.
There are many students claiming that they will fail their exams because they are so depressed about Brexit.
A thread on a popular forum, The Student Room, entitled, Does Anyone Else Feel Genuinely Depressed About Brexit?, has around 300 replies.
One student wrote, I've felt so down all day because of this, and just having this constant sick feeling in my stomach.
I genuinely feel like I'm grieving.
I feel like I'm grieving for our growing economy and grieving for our loss of cultural enrichment.
Another added, it took about an hour for my hands to stop shaking and for my knees to return to some semblance of working order after I saw the result.
One complained, I have felt sick all day and ashamed, and angry with special peaks of rage dedicated to the claptrap by degrees, either ignorant, racist or both, that leavers have peddled as reasons.
Other students suggested that the political turmoil had affected their preparation for exams and insisted they deserved extra marks because they were so upset.
One wrote, can I class Brexit as a traumatic event when I fail my exams next week?
Because I'm honestly so distracted now because of it.
Another said, I wonder if I can get special consideration for my further maths and physics exams because I was stressed about Brexit.
If you're noticing that there seems to be a trend of these people having a distinct emotional connection to the EU, it's because they genuinely seem to.
For instance, poll reveals young Remain voters reduced to tears by Brexit result.
Almost half of voters aged 18 to 24 cried or felt like crying when they heard that the UK had voted to leave the European Union.
The findings were released last night after tens of thousands of people demonstrated in central London against the concept of democracy itself.
The polling, once again by Opinion, was conducted as part of the LSE Electoral Psychology Initiative called Inside the Mind of the Voter.
Found that the electorate's verdict on EU membership prompted a far more emotional reaction than the results of most other elections or referendums.
So let's take a look at some of these people who protested in London, and see what their opposition to democracy is based on.
Why do you like the EU?
What makes you like the EU?
I don't like the EU.
It's more about the fact that we're better off as a country in the EU, socially, politically.
I voted to remain because it's the right thing.
Why so?
We should be part of the EU.
We should be part of our neighbouring countries and we should be that's the best thing for the government, best thing to be in the UK.
On a concrete level, factors that mean that the EU is better for the UK.
I would like to, maybe one day in the future, I would like to go work in other countries in the EU.
And that means that I can't anymore.
But, I mean, it's a social thing.
It's like, it's divided the country.
It's a country that I love.
So, yeah, I mean, that's the main reason I'm here today.
Because I believe that it's the right thing that we should be in the EU.
this is trying to explain your three favourite things about the EU God, only three?
Shame on you!
I don't know, I love it.
Excuse me, young fellow, could you tell me you're hungry?
An EU flag.
What are your three favourite things about the EU?
Free travel, freedom of education across Europe, anywhere I want and leave, increase the car, but the economy in the EU is the lowest growth in the whole world this year.
I don't really want a dinner sorry, so soon, all right.
Well, it's the lowest growth within work, but I don't believe in growth.
I believe in people.
Thank you very much.
I'm doing a little video blog can ask just why you've come here today and the post today is, uh, miss you.
You already are one of us.
Um, so what was your name Amy?
And Amy, why did you come here today?
Horrified at the outcome of a referendum, and we want to do anything we can about it and come to make our voice heard, which it hasn't been so far.
And what horrifies you by it?
The thought that we might leave the EU and the consequences that I don't think were publicized in any way well, weren't listened to.
And what were the consequences?
Well, the economy, the rise in racism that I've seen in my local area and well, with the unknowns that we face.
So, as an EU fan Amy, what would be the three best things about the UK staying in the EU?
The stability oh goodness Georgia, help me out here and to have a mix of people living in our country and for us to go to the countries we're on to, and just, a general social cohesion.
That the problem with this result is that it gives the impression that the UK isn't a welcoming place and that most people are racist, and we want to make it clear that that's not the case.
thank you excuse me excuse me can I ask why you are what makes you like the EU so much and your daughter face today I like the ability to go and work and create love and create friendships anywhere in the world I feel like by leaving the EU we lose a lot of those opportunities you can still create love and friendships aren't it I know but I think inside the EU it gives us more opportunity in terms of free movement we can travel there very easily we don't have the hassle that we have when we go to other countries Countries outside that thing, it's better to be in something bigger than just Britain.
Who's your favourite, for example, member of the European...
...enough to say who my favourite MEP is, but then again...
And there we go.
These people appear to be low-information voters who don't really know a lot about the EU, the benefits, if any, it brings, the drawbacks, if any, it comes with.
They don't seem to understand their own democratic rights and they don't really seem that involved in any political process within the EU.
So they seem to be voting and talking about an ideal.
They seem to be talking about this grand idea of the free movement of peoples and the ability to work anywhere in Europe, which if you're educated, you can do anyway.
But not only that, at this protest there seemed to be a high number of European nationals.
Shame on- Fuck off.
Shame on- Why shame on you?
Shame on you!
Shame on you!
Why shame on?
Shame on you!
Can you explain the why shame on them?
Have you watched this referendum?
I did.
Have you?
I'm from Great Britain.
Are you?
Indeed.
Where are you stepping in back marsh ran?
So why?
Where are you from?
I can tell you precisely why I shame you.
Where shame is you?
I'm just going to listen and we'll chat to the moment.
Okay, where are you from?
What's it your business?
Because this is Great Britain.
I'm just saying.
Is it?
It's not great in any way or shape or form.
It is, but you can stop.
How dare you?
I'll kiss all of you.
Shame on you!
More cut to the public services, more prices, more taxes, more unemployment, more division, more races.
I think if you want just an EU water and win anything, it will increase racism.
It will authorize racism, it will condemn diversity.
How are you using?
Because I'm European.
I live in Germany, so I feel like I'm a citizen of Europe before anything else.
France is already in Europe.
This is for the United Kingdom.
Yeah, but I live here, so will it impact me somehow.
It's always nice to see a sample of our European cousins out on the streets of London protesting against the democratic decision of the British people.
Believe it or not, standing in front of 10 Downing Street in the Houses of Parliament shouting, shame on you, while the Prime Minister and the Conserving Government were both pro-Romain, is not the stupidest thing to come out of all this.
The stupidest thing has been the near-universal condemnation of the vote and the concept of voting from the mainstream media.
This is from The Guardian.
Don't mourn, organise a seven-step plan for fighting back against the Brexit vote.
There should be no fighting back, you morons.
The vote itself was the fight, and you lost.
The author begins by explaining to us exactly why they are not being rational about this and why they are arguing explicitly from emotion.
Like many of my peers, I reacted to the referendum result with something resembling the seven stages of grief.
It started with denial, going to bed at 4.30am on Friday morning thinking, maybe I'll wake up and it'll be okay.
Next came guilt.
I should have done more.
That was quickly replaced by anger.
How could so many vote leave?
Shame on the liars who conned them into it.
Followed by an overwhelming sense of sadness as the stories of emboldened racists rolled in.
Then I saw this message on social media.
Don't mourn, organise.
Don't scorn, organise, organise.
There's nothing like the shouting cats to jolt you from an impending spiral of depression.
Maybe you should just skip to the acceptance, because I don't know what you think you're organising against, if it isn't the concept of accepting a democratic vote.
I mean, what do you think you are organising for?
Against people's right to self-determine.
That's, I mean, maybe I'm being too dramatic, but I just, what are you doing?
It's mostly complete nonsense, but I'll skip to this final stage.
Unlike stage 7 in the grieving process, which is acceptance, the key to effective social change is dogged determination in demanding the impossible.
Do your thing over and over again until you succeed.
I'm not denying the looming prospect of Brexit is terrifying, but we are where we are.
Grieving and gifts of levers depicted as turkeys who voted for Christmas gets us nowhere.
So don't mourn, don't scorn, organise.
Organise what?
A revolution?
Are you going to storm the houses of parliament?
Are you going to force people to take back their votes?
What is your plan to subvert democracy?
Guardian.
Why, their plan is to try and persuade you that elections are bad for democracy.
This argument is nothing but sophistry, and as such, it's very, very long in order to bamboozle the reader into thinking that maybe the author has a genuine point.
So I'm just going to summarise a few things before getting to the meat of it.
So the author states that most people don't have very much faith in their national parliaments, and says that Western democracies are currently afflicted by we might call democratic fatigue syndrome.
Accurately pointing out that there is a malaise in European democracies, but failing to understand why that is.
Apparently, symptoms may include referendum fever, declining party membership and low voter turnout.
Combined with government impotence and political paralysis, relentless media scrutiny, widespread public distrust and populist upheavals.
If you ask the average voter, they will tell you something like, these people do not represent me.
They do not work in my best interest, therefore I'm not going to vote for them.
However, he thinks that it's not caused by the people, the politicians or the parties, or the corporations that are basically running the show behind the scenes, it's caused by the procedure.
Democracy is not the problem.
Voting is the problem.
You would have thought that the record turnout for the EU referendum would make the author stop and think.
Something along the lines of, well, they do turn out if there's an interest in it for them.
If it's something they don't really care about, then they don't bother voting.
Therefore, that would indicate a disenfranchisement between the average voter and the political class.
Instead, this Guardian author has decided that the problem is the very concept of voting.
Referendums and elections are both arcane instruments of public deliberation.
If we refuse to update our democratic technology, we may find the system is beyond repair.
We may find even, after the folly of Brexit, that Donald Trump wins the American presidency later this year.
This may have less to do with Trump himself or the oddities of the American political system than with a dangerous road that all Western democracies have taken.
Reducing democracy to voting.
Now, I know that makes this person sound like a lunatic, but let's stay with him.
He's got a solution.
And when I say solution, I mean a solution to the pesky problem of universal suffrage.
And the problem with that, of course, being that people didn't vote as he would prefer.
You can tell that what he's engaging in is sophistry when he says this.
Isn't it bizarre that voting, our highest civic duty, boils down to an individual action performed in the silence of a voting booth?
Is this really the place where we turn individual gut feelings into shared priorities?
Is it really where the common good and the long term are best served?
Madness.
Absolute madness.
We're talking about a system that allows every individual to have some measure of control over the government and over the course of their own country.
And he's complaining that it boils down to an individual action.
That's a fucking privilege.
That you get to go and say, I want this, and you have to listen.
But to him, that's an issue, because there are people out there who simply don't agree with him.
The words election and democracy have become synonymous.
We have convinced ourselves that the only way to choose a representative is through the ballot box.
How exactly do you think the power of the people, you know, the demos, can utilize the kratos without having some kind of method of finding out what the opinions of the demos are?
How else do you plan on doing that if not through elections?
He calls this electoral fundamentalism, which is an unshakable belief in the idea that democracy is inconceivable without elections, and elections are a necessary and fundamental precondition when speaking of democracy.
Well, call me an electoral fundamentalist then, because I don't think you can know what my vote is going to be if I don't get to have it.
According to him, elections are the fossil fuel of politics, whereas once they gave democracy a huge boost, much as oil did for our economies, it now turns out they cause colossal problems of their own.
What?
If we don't urgently reconsider the nature of our democratic fuel, a systemic crisis awaits.
If we obstinately hold on to the notion of democracy that reduces its meaning to voting in elections and referendums, at a time of economic malaise, we will undermine the democratic process.
Unbelievable doublethink.
Here's a democratic process that doesn't involve elections.
Well, how do you know what the will of the people is?
Oh, well, I'll tell you what the will of the people is.
And you know what?
It turns out that the will of the people happens to be very much in line with people like Richard Branson, George Soros, you know, billionaires who do very well in the EU and want to see it perpetuated, as opposed to the poor working man who doesn't like the EU and wants to get out.
Here's his brilliant suggestion for the new democracy.
So what kind of democracy is appropriate to an era of fast decentralized communication?
How should the government deal with those articulate citizens who stand shouting from the sidelines?
Well give them a vote, I would say.
But imagine having to develop a system today that expressed the will of the people.
Would it really be a good idea to have them all queuing up at polling stations every four or five years with a bit of card in their hands and go into a dark booth and put a mark next to their names on the list, names of people about whom restless reporting has been going on for months in a commercial environment that profits from restlessness?
Well, yes, actually.
In fact, it's the only way to find out what every eligible voter thinks.
People care deeply about their communities and want to be heard, but a much better way to let people speak than through referendum is to return to the central principle of Athenian democracy.
Drafting by lot, or sortition, as it is presently called.
In ancient Athens, the large majority of public functions were assigned by lot.
Renaissance states such as Venice and Florence worked on the same basis and experienced centuries of political stability.
Okay, I'm just gonna carry on.
With Sortition, you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision.
Holy shit, I...
Okay.
You're going to be drafting the people you are objecting to having the vote.
They are going to be just as ill-informed.
And when you say, make sure they come to grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision, that's a bit fucking subjective, isn't it?
I mean, a sensible decision is anyone's guess as to what you actually mean.
Athenian democracy was a direct democracy.
You did have parties, but people were elected to positions by lot, as in it was random.
However, they still had referendums on almost everything.
To tax rates, to invasions of other countries, to fucking anything you can think of.
They had votes.
They had slaves who would go through the marketplace and round up people who were supposed to be on the Pnix voting that day because they were citizens and that was their responsibility.
The idea that you can say that Athenian democracy is somehow anti-voting is the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my fucking life.
But the thing is, what makes this idiot think that if you take a random representative sample from the population and only allow that small number of people to vote, that you will come up with a different verdict?
I can only assume that in our sophist's mind, they're picturing what I can only really think of describing as a corrupt system.
A system that picks certain types of people on certain attributes, even though it's supposed to be random by lot, to produce the result that he wants.
But this is the fundamental problem I have with it.
I'm not having someone else cast a vote on my behalf.
It's my vote.
If I don't get to cast it, it's not a democratic system.
If this author thinks removing the franchise from millions of people to put it into the hands of a random tiny selection is a democratic process, then the Guardian is done.
I don't see why anyone takes anything The Guardian puts up seriously from now on.
I just can't understand it.
Why does anyone read that piece of shit?
And if you think people don't pay attention to politics now, I can't think of a better way of getting people to pay even less attention to politics than by literally disenfranchising them, by taking away their vote and saying, don't worry, someone else will do it.
Just, this is the worst proposal I've ever heard.
It is fundamentally anti-democratic.
But then they're not the only people saying it.
This was on fusion.
Brexit, Hamilton and the limits of democracy.
And this is a common meme.
Democracy is not the act of voting.
Democracy is a system of government.
Yes, but the act of voting is how we determine what the people want to do with their power.
And that's why referendums like the one we just saw in the UK are deeply undemocratic.
They overrule the government without being able to replace.
I love this.
I love the idea that the democracy, the power from the people, is overriding an elected government and that's somehow undemocratic.
The government is elected to call a referendum.
They call the referendum and because this person doesn't agree with the result, this is now undemocratic.
This whole person's argument is an argument from authority.
It's the government's elected to do this job and they do it professionally, therefore you shouldn't have a say in how they do it, even if they ask you what your fucking opinion is.
In reality, go on, tell me about reality, referendums in their various forms are a betrayal of the highest goal of democracy, which is, to be clear, the best form of government yet devised.
Calm down, Winston Churchill.
Government is not a sequence of yes-no decisions.
Rather, it is an increasingly complex and difficult job done by millions of dedicated professionals around the world.
Well, I'm not saying that's not true, but we're not having a government by referendum.
We're having a single-issue decision because the government simply doesn't know what to do.
No stable government can ever be run by referendum.
No one's suggesting we run a government by referendum.
And when a government calls a referendum, that's a clear abdication of its democratic responsibilities.
Oh my god, just, this is the problem with these, and I know they're all regressives as well, because they all think in the same way.
They think top down rather than bottom up.
That's the entire problem with these people, and that's why they're against democracy.
But bear this in mind.
So he says, after I moved to America in the late 90s, I started paying a bit less attention to what was going on in the UK, until one day I saw that David Cameron had allowed Scotland to decide in a referendum whether or not it could become an independent nation.
So, you know, self-determination.
This made no sense to me at all.
Cameron didn't want Scotland to become independent.
None of the main British parties wanted Scotland to become independent.
If there was a free vote on Scottish independence in Parliament, it would have overwhelmingly been against.
And David Cameron would have led the vote for retaining the union.
But even though he knew what was best for his country of 64 million people, and even though the rest of parliament agreed with him, Cameron decided he would outsource the decision to about 3.5 million Scots.
Oh yeah, God forbid government be predicated on the consent of the governed and the idea that they can have the option to have a referendum for self-determination and make their own fucking decision.
Did you forget you are talking about democracies?
The will of the people, the power of the people.
If the people can't make these decisions, it's not a democracy, you dummy.
Luckily, the Scottish vote broke the right way.
Okay.
There is no right way.
There is no wrong way.
The way is what the majority of Scottish people want.
That's what it is.
That's the right way.
You have presupposed your own conclusions.
You have said, in a classic bulvarism, you have said, I want this to be the case, and therefore I'm going to explain my way to this result.
Regardless of whether my explanation makes sense or not, regardless of whether my result is even what I claim it to be, I'm going to do this.
In other words, once again, Cameron abandoned his job, which was to govern.
He's not a fucking autocrat, you moron.
And decided instead just to cross his fingers and hope that people get the right answer.
Again, you've presupposed what the right answer is, instead of whatever the British people decide.
This hijacking of the technocrats by the people is by no means a purely British phenomenon.
The people are calling the shots more and more in a way that never used to happen.
Okay, I think I see your problem, but let's carry on to this next paragraph where you can just demonstrate it for me.
He says, so here's the problem.
If you move from a democracy of the elites to a pure democracy of the will of the people, you'll pay a heavy price.
A democracy of the elites.
A democracy of the elites.
Come on, you fucking idiot.
A pure democracy of the will of the people, that is what a democracy is.
There is no such thing as a democracy of the elites, you fucking idiot.
It's called an oligarchy, you political illiterate.
Holy shit.
So there we are.
The Brexit result has brought out all the anti-democratic protesters from the woodwork.
Whether they realize that they are against democracy or not, whether they are just running on their feelings or not, they are absolutely against the concept of democracy.
Some of them implicitly, some of them explicitly, but all of them in practice.
▲
Export Selection