Why the Brits voted to leave the European Union

The dust has not settled yet. Arguments rage as to what Brexit means. Was it the beginning of a populist revolution against the elites, or a triumph for xenophobia and suicidal narrow-mindedness? Or both? Walt will try to sort it out, and divine some lessons for North American politicians.

To begin with, it wasn't "the British" who voted to leave the European Union. The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. The people of Northern Ireland also chose the "in" side, although not so decisively. It was the English and the Welsh who wanted out of the dysfunctional European "community".

That doesn't mean, though, that the Scots and Ulsterpersons voted against resurgent nationalism. The Scots now appear to be in favour of separating from the Disunited Kingdom. A second refendum on the issue is expected in due course, giving the Scots an opportunity to stay in the EU and take control of their country back from the English. The people of Northern Ireland voted along nationalistic and sectarian lines, with the pro-UK Protestants voting with their compatriots in England, and the Catholics voting to remain in the EU, which might well entail uniting Ulster with Eire, at last. Sinn Fein has already called for a vote on that proposition.

So we see that nationalism was one of the key factors motivating the voters on both sides. Those who voted "Out" had other things in mind. This week's Economist cites polling done by Lord Ashcroft (a Conservative peer) which suggests that "opposition to multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, the green movement, the internet and capitalism all translated into votes for Brexit."

Euroscepticism is about more than immigration, says their columnist. "It is unmistakably cultural, ineffably emotional. There is a feeling, he writes, "that the world is increasingly unknowable and uncontrollable.... It also has to do with the wider world: fears of terrorism, the erosion of national identity, the erasure of borders (and) politicians in the grip of shadowy international forces." Hence the Leave campaign's winning slogan "It's time we took back control."

There would seem to be some hard lessons in there for the political and other elites of North America -- the USA more so than Canada, since Canucks won't get a chance to upchuck the Trudeau Koolaid until 2019. So let's see if any of the issues identified by Lord Ashdown are in play in the Land of the Free(?).

Nationalism versus globalism? Not a problem for La Clinton, since Americans don't seem to want their country to be great again. What about multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism? What right-thinking person could be against those things? Look at all the "progress" that's been made under 7 years of Obama's maladministration. Who could want to undo that?

How about that green movement? Ah yes. Let's all put solar panels on our roofs, charge up our battery-powered cars and wind up our radios and TVs. Leave the oil in the ground. Decommission the nuclear power plants. (We know from The Simpsons how risky they are!) And will the last treehugger to leave the room please switch off the lights... Oh... wait...

I confess that I didn't understand Lord Ashdown's finding that those who voted "Out" were against the internet, unless he meant that to be a metaphor for "progress" generally. I'm all for the internet, insofar as it empowers the likes of YVT to get our ideas out there, in spite of the control of the lamestream media by the PC police and "shadowy international forces".

As for being against capitalism, if by that is meant resenting being in the thrall of the said "shadowy international forces" -- Hello Goldman Sachs! -- then I'm against that too. What about you? If you too are opposed to liberal globalism in all its guises, who are you going to vote for in November? The choice couldn't be more clear!

Further reading (on the last point, about globalization and capitalism): "Not just bigots and boors oppose trade deals" by Linda McQuaig in the Toronto Star.

Islamization of UK complete, England to disestablish Anglican Church?

Here's a news flash from Old Blighty! Walt's man on the Clapham omnibus [Seems to be a legal joke. Ed.] has sent us this article from today's Telegraph:
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge"

It's not really news, izzit. Everyone knows that only a small minority of Brits who call themselves Anglicans actually go to church except for "hatched, matched and dispatched" occasions -- baptisms, weddings and funerals -- and even those rituals are being skipped by Gen Y and the Millennials.

Are there any religious people left in England? Sure. Plenty of them. Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, some Jews, and... wait for it... hundreds of thousands of followers of the Prophet Mohammed. Yes, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in England, so a two-year commission into the place of religion in British society has called for public life to be systematically de-Christianized to reflect the reality of modern Britain.

The Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life, chaired by the former senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss and involving leading religious leaders, has discovered that secular humanism is the prevailing "belief system" in Britain. It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" for religion is needed in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths.

The Telegraph says that the report has provoked a furious row, being condemned by Cabinet ministers as "seriously misguided". The Church of England -- "The official church of Cool Britannia" -- said the commission appeared to have been "hijacked" by humanists. That is wrong. It's not the commission that has been hijacked, but the C of E itself!

The report has several controversial things to say, including a claim that faith schools are "socially divisive". So that will probably mean the end of Anglican and Catholic schools, and says that the selection of children on the basis of their beliefs should be phased out. It also accuses those who devise some "Religious Education" syllabi of "sanitizing" negative aspects of religion in lessons. And, it suggests, the compulsory daily act of worship in school assemblies should be abolished and replaced with a "time for reflection".

The report backs moves to cut the number of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords and give their places to imams, rabbis and other other non-Christian clerics as well as evangelical pastors.

As if that weren't enough, the Commission also calls for a rethink of anti-terror policy, including (get this!) ensuring students can voice radical views on campus without fear of being reported to the security services. Yessir, freedom of speech is a great thing, especially when it protects hate speech. Right? Oh... only for non-Christians, you say. Got it. Welcome to the new, diverse, multicultural, not-so-Great Britain.