About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

3 Replies to “EU Debate – Oxford Union. Daniel Hannan MEP”

  1. “Our ancient political system has lasted because it accepts that nobody is ever wholly right, and that nobody is ever right all the time.

    No Parliament can bind its successors. Every government knows that, in due time, it will lose office to its opponents who can overturn those changes they feel were wrongly forced on them.

    This imposes an important rule on our national debates. We must be conscious that our common nationhood binds us together in these islands. We must be civil to those with whom we disagree, however hard we fight them in debate. We must listen to them if we expect them to listen to us. We must always keep in the back of our minds the possibility that we may be mistaken.

    Forget this, even for a short time, and we begin to tread the unpleasant, slippery path that leads inexorably downwards, first to mutual spite and then to despotism.”


    This opening salvo, from the Mail on Sunday opinion-piece, is a sober reminder of what exactly democracy is in its ability to remove dictators, but then warps into an argument to remain subservient to an unelected European Political Class.

    This introduction therefore, was never meant to be read logically, but purely emotionally.

    The feeling engendered and not the literal meaning. Simply put, it is about the behaviour between us serfs and their agents, and not about us being equal before our Dear Leaders.

    The European Human Rights Act has exactly the same premise written through it. Be nice to each other. But the State has, in accordance with its own laws, a preference that it considers necessary and proportionate; and for one or more of the following legitimate aims:
    the interests of national security;
    the interests of public safety or the economic well-being of the country;
    the prevention of disorder or crime;
    the protection of health or morals; or
    the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    This is George Orwell’s Dystopia in 1984. The State that determines morals, disorder, national-interest, your health and the preferential freedoms and rights of others over yours.

    The American Constitution stand diametrically opposite to this International Socialism.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Whereas the European State does make laws respecting an establishment of religion and prohibits their free exercise thereof; and abridges the freedom of speech and also in the press, and restricts the right of people to freely assemble and to petition the government.

    To vote Remain, therefore, is a vote for Communism.

    As clear as day.

    But not so for the emotionally trigger-enabled to want protection from all scaremongering, that whatever starts off as emotionally-soothing, must end well.

  2. When do polite, law-abiding citizens lose their civility? People have varying thresholds, I realize, but this old German woman…it hurts to watch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *