Posted tagged ‘European Union’

We Saved Our Democracy

July 7, 2016

We Saved Our Democracy, Pat Condell via YouTube, July 7, 2016

(Perhaps American will vote for her own Brexit on November 8th. — DM)

Trump, Brexit, Iceland, Turin, and Rome

June 30, 2016

Trump, Brexit, Iceland, Turin, and Rome, Gingrich Productions, Newt Gingrich, June 29, 2016

There has been a lot of commentary about the British decision to leave the European Union and its implications for Trump and the American presidential race.

Trump was at his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland the day after the vote. He was enthusiastic about Brexit and claimed it was a model for the American choice. He suggested the British hostility to bureaucracy in Brussels paralleled the American hostility to bureaucracy in Washington. He felt the concerns about massive immigration and Syrian refugees were the same in both countries. He drew a direct comparison between the British desire to be independent again and the American desire to put America first in foreign relations. And of course, he did the entire press conference wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Clinton took the opposite approach. Despite the defeat of the British establishment and its “Remain” campaign, she was committed to stability and risk avoidance. She emphasized the dangers of Brexit whereas Trump had emphasized the opportunities.

Yet focusing on Brexit creates much too narrow a basis for understanding the winds of change sweeping through the Western world.

The first harbinger of change this year was May 23, the day of the Austrian presidential elections.

In the first round, the two parties that had dominated Austria for the past half-century came in fourth and fifth. An independent came in third. The two formerly minor parties in the run-off were a hardline conservative anti-immigrant candidate and a green who favored more immigration. The entire national establishment mobilized to block the anti-immigrant candidate. He got 49.65 percent of the vote.

The second big signal of change was the Italian municipal elections. Out of disgust with widespread corruption, an Italian comedian named Beppe Grillo launched the Five Star Movement in 2009. In the 2013 elections, it came in second. This month, the Five Star Movement candidates won the mayor’s offices in both Turin and Rome.

Virginia Raggi, 37, became the first female mayor in Rome’s 2,800-year history. In the midst of a corruption scandal which forced the previous mayor to resign, Raggi got 67 percent of the vote against the Prime Minister’s party. In Turin, the results were similar and the reform movement won in 17 other cities.

Brexit, then, was at least the third big-change election in the West this year. The entire British establishment, the business leadership, President Obama and Hillary Clinton all came out for the Remain side. They lost 52-48 in a stunning upset which the polls did not predict. In England and Wales, the margins were much higher as people voted to make Britain independent again.

Fourth and finally, last Sunday was the little-noticed election of a new president in Iceland. The former president had resigned in a scandal caused by release of the Panama Papers. He had broken no laws but his previously secret investments were very unpopular. The winner of the presidential elections with 39 percent of the vote was Gudni Johannesson, a history teacher. Second, with 28 percent of the vote, was Halla Tomasdottir, a businesswoman. The leading professional politician, a former prime minister, got 13 percent.

These results from four different countries show a consistent momentum toward throwing out established politicians and rejecting the establishment.

There are real warnings here for Clinton and real signs of encouragement for Trump.

Abbas’s Satisfied Customers

June 29, 2016

Abbas’s Satisfied Customers, Front Page MagazineCaroline Glick, June 28, 2016

abbas

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

One of the more remarkable aspects of the blood libel sounded by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in his address before the European Parliament in Brussels last week is the claim that he ad-libbed the part about rabbis poisoning Palestinian wells.

After refusing to meet President Reuven Rivlin who was also in Brussels last week, Abbas ascended the podium in Brussels and began his custom of demonizing Jewish and Israel. Clearing his throat, the man whose incitement is most responsible for the fact that the Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people in the world, began his speech by saying, “We are against incitement.”

Then, as is his wont, Abbas proceeded to incite mass murder of Jews by accusing rabbis of ordering the poisoning of Palestinian wells.

In his words, “Just a week ago, a week, a group of rabbis in Israel announced, in a clear announcement, demanding their government, to poison, to poison, the water of the Palestinians.”

“Is this not incitement? Is this not clear incitement, to the mass murder of the Palestinian people?” It’s not quite clear what it was that he was ad-libbing but a reasonable bet is that he was embellishing what was already in his planned speech. In the days preceding his speech, the Abbas-controlled PLO media put out stories claiming that a non-existent rabbi, who heads a non-existent rabbinical council issued an opinion that Jews in Judea and Samaria should poison Palestinian wells.

As the IsraellyCool website pointed out, by Abbas’s telling, it wasn’t just one non-existent rabbi, who heads a non-existent rabbinical council that told Jews in general to poison wells. In Abbas’s ad-libbed version, the entire non-existent council, led by the non-existent rabbi ordered the government to poison Palestinian water.

At any rate, whether Abbas winged the blood libel or just embellished a less powerful one, far from being a mitigating factor for judging the significance of his statement, the claim that he was speaking on the fly makes it all the worse.

Abbas simply couldn’t help himself.

There he was, facing the EU Parliament which has shoveled out billions of euros to fund his incitement for the past two decades, and either one of two things happened. Either his EU-funded Jew hatred took control of him and just couldn’t restrain himself, or he decided to show the Europeans that their investment in him has been well placed.

For their part, his European funders couldn’t be more pleased with the product of their investment.

And so we had the remarkable spectacle of Abbas receiving a prolonged standing ovation at the end of his remarks. Israelis expected the European parliamentarians to walk out, or boo, or interject a few cat calls.

But Abbas knew his audience better than the Israelis do. He gave them the red meat they paid for, and they rewarded him for it with a huge, enthusiastic ovation.

The least remarkable aspect of Abbas’s revolting claim is that two days later he walked it back after The New York Times called him on it.

Abbas libels Israel either directly or through his media every day. Every once in a while, a Western media outlet is moved to report on a specific lie he tells. When that happens, he walks it back. And then he says it again, or something equally racist the next day and everyone shrugs or ignores it completely.

Abbas felt comfortable accusing rabbis of ordering the Israeli government to poison wells in front of a room of European lawmakers because for the past 20 years, the EU has been underwriting what may be the largest anti-Semitic hate campaign since the Nazis rose to power. Abbas knows they do this because he has been depositing their checks.

Every year, the EU shovels more than a billion euros over to the Palestinians. As was the case in 2012, even in times of economic austerity in Europe, funds to the PA keep increasing. And with those funds, Abbas has indoctrinated the Palestinians to hate Jews and seek their mass murder and the destruction of the State of Israel as their highest aspiration.

And that of course is just the direct aid to the PA.

There is also the EU financing of anti-Israel NGOs, staffed by Israelis as well as Palestinians. Their job is to propagate blood libels like the one Abbas shared last Thursday. Every year, the EU and its member states give these groups millions of euros to spread tales of Israelis and Jewish avarice.

Two such groups – Breaking the Silence and B’tselem – have been enthusiastic parties in the water libels that come out in early summer every year. Both groups receive the lion’s share of their funding from foreign governments, mainly in Europe.

Last week, NRG website published candid camera footage of Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, spreading a well-poisoning libel nearly identical to Abbas’s to a group of tourists by the village of Susiya, in southern Judea.

Shaul told the tourists, “One of the [Arab] villages, this village actually, it’s new that they [the Palestinians] came back because a few years ago the settlers basically poisoned all the water systems of the village.”

The footage was taken by the Ad Kan organization two years ago. For the past several years, Ad Kan’s operatives infiltrated far-left, EU-funded NGOs and surreptitiously filmed their activities.

They took their findings public in January. Another film by Ad Kan, which was broadcast in January, showed Breaking the Silence members gathering tactical intelligence about IDF weapons systems and tactics deployed during the war with Hamas two years ago.

In the latest iteration of the water libel, of which Abbas’s well-poisoning story was just one product, B’tselem’s public relations director Roy Yellin tweeted, “While Palestinians suffer from severe water shortage, settlement swimming pools are full.”

As the Elder of Zion website noted, Yellin linked to a Haaretz report which made no such claim.

Moreover, as it noted, Palestinian water parks in Judea and Samaria are currently open for business and wet.

Lost in all the current coverage of the annual water shortage is that fact that Israeli communities in Samaria also had no water last week. Kedumim, Shilo and several other Jewish communities were without running water until earlier this week. Israelis were provided with drinking water from water tanks, just like the Palestinians were.

Also lost in the coverage is the clear fact that the Palestinians are solely responsible for the water shortage.

As Roi Sharon reported on Channel 10 news Sunday, there are two causes for current water shortages plaguing Palestinians and Israelis alike. First, there is the problem of massive water theft by Palestinians.

According to Sharon, over the past year, Palestinians stole five million cubic meters of water.

Second, for the past 20 years, Abbas and his associates have refused to agree to allow Israel to upgrade water infrastructure in Judea and Samaria to provide adequate water for the overall population.

Unlike Abbas and his PLO, Israel still upholds the agreements it signed with the PLO. In 1995, the sides agreed that they would only act together to improve the water infrastructure. And the Palestinians – as Abbas again proved – would rather have their people suffer from water shortages, victims in the EU-funded PA’s endless propaganda war against the Jews – than improve their lives and remove their talking point.

The same goes for Abbas’s Israeli partners in blood libel dissemination and of course, for the Europeans, who pay for the whole operation.

Abbas’s most recent anti-Jewish diatribe, and the warm reception it received from the Europeans who paid for it bear an important lesson for the many Israelis who search endlessly for ways to build friendlier relations with Europe.

The hard truth is that we cannot do anything to influence them. They operate in a closed intellectual circle.

They pay for blood libels. They receive them with standing ovations. They disseminate them at the UN and their media. And then they organize “peace” conferences, where Israel is expected to accept as fact or spend its entire time dispelling the lies they create through their Israeli and Palestinian employees and disseminate through their media.

The only option Israel has in the face of this circle of hatred is to attack the Europeans mercilessly for their Jew hatred and anti-Jewish discrimination.

Our only prospect for impacting this diseased, racist environment is to appeal to the conscience of those Europeans who still have one. Beyond that, the time has come to write them off.

Right Angle Special Edition: The Brexit

June 29, 2016

Right Angle Special Edition: The Brexit via YouTube, June 28, 2016

(Bill Whittle tried to turn the conversation to the U.S. 2016 elections, briefly and without much success.)

Cartoons of the Day

June 28, 2016

H/t Power Line

Brexit-Cuck-copy

 

Brexit-Dog-copy

 

Brexit-Fimger-copy

 

Brexit-Tea-Party-copy

Leaked document: Germany and France to replace Brussels in charge of EU?

June 28, 2016

Leaked document: Germany and France to replace Brussels in charge of EU? RT via YouTube, June 26, 2016

According to the blurb beneath the video,

Document leaked by Polish media indicates Germanу and France could be taking matters in their own hands without bothering to consult Brussels or any other EU countries. Document claimed to be presented to Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia at the meeting in Prague. It reportedly discloses intention to create ‘superstate’ within EU with center of power split between Paris and Berlin.

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech

June 27, 2016

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech, Fox News via YouTube, June 27, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJlQgN5p7EE

Humor | Op-Ed: My chat with Abbas’s “blood libel” rabbi

June 27, 2016

Op-Ed: My chat with Abbas’s “blood libel” rabbi, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, June 27, 2016

Last week PA “president” Mahmoud Abbas went to Europe with a bagful of accusations against Israel, namely that “rabbis are calling on Israel to poison Palestinian water.” In return, people accused Abbas of bringing up the oldest, vilest and most discredited blood libel of all time.

Some said no such rabbi existed and that no real rabbi would ever say such a thing.

But wait just a moment, please. I met this rabbi, the particular one Abbas had in mind.

I happened to be in San Francisco where this rabbi preaches and where he davens Zen with Michael Lerner, the renowned Seer of Berkeley. I caught up to him during a bowling tournament on Saturday, normally the Sabbath and a day of rest, but these were the finals. We talked when it wasn’t his turn to throw.

Rabbi Matt belongs to BDS Clergy for Abbas, which goes back to Jews for Arafat.

This rabbi knows Jewish suffering. His parents died during the Holocaust – in Cleveland.

He was happy to say that he knew Abbas personally and that Abbas had quoted him correctly.

“Too late,” said the rabbi when I told him that Abbas was trying to walk back that kind of talk. “You can’t UN-spill the beans.”

But the entire world already heard Abbas tell a big fat lie. “You can call it what you want,” challenged the rabbi. “You’re forgetting truth.”

Truth?

“We call it truth Palestinian-style.”

Good point.

“Don’t forget,” the rabbi said. “Like Abbas himself says, Palestinians were here before anybody.”

So was the cockroach.

The rabbi was full of information.

“Jesus was a Palestinian. Did you know?”

Incredible news.

“Just ask Mahmoud. He says so right here on Google.”

I will check this out.

“Columbus was a Palestinian. My pal Mahmoud. I choke up when he speaks. Don’t you?”

Absolutely.

“Abbas gets standing ovations at the EU and the UN. They love it when he talks dirty. One zinger after another. Abbas really knows how to kill.”

That is a fact.

“So is this. The Palestinians invented the wheel, the automobile, the airplane and the computer. Just ask him.”

Does he have proof?

“It’s enough that he’s a man of peace. He’s all in for a two-state solution. One half for Hamas, the other half for Fatah.”

That’s been clear for some time.

Zipping right along, was this rabbi aware that no legit rabbi would ever say what he’s been quoted as saying?

“I AM a legit rabbi. How dare you!”

“Where,” I asked him, “did you make smicha?”

“What’s that?”

I explained that it’s about being ordained from a qualified and certified yeshiva.

“Hell yeah I’ve been ordained. Cheap. For $180 I can get you ordained, too. For that price, anybody can become a rabbi.”

“Where?”

“Right around the corner. Mack’s Tattoo Shop.”

“Are you Jewish?”

“That costs an extra 800 bucks. For an additional 650 you can be an accredited expert in Cabbala. A 10-minute course. In and out.”

“I’ve heard enough.”

“No you haven’t. Mack is running a Tuesday Special. For a measly 2,000 bucks you get the works and Mack will throw in a full-body tattoo job. Like mine.”

Wow!

“Tell him Rabbi Matt sent you and he’ll discount 10 percent. Interested?”

“Sure. Maybe later. Right now I just wanted to know where Mahmoud Abbas gets his facts and information.”

“So now you know. His word is as good as mine.”

Right, truth Palestinian-style.

The EU-Progressive Paradigm is Falling Apart

June 27, 2016

The EU-Progressive Paradigm is Falling Apart, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, June 27, 2016

op_2

In short, millions of ordinary people in America, England, France, and many other Western nations know that the paradigm of transnational hegemony and technocratic rule created not a utopia, but an arrogant privileged class that believes it is superior and thus entitled to boss other people around and lecture them about backward superstitions and bigotry. And it looks like these average citizens have had enough.

******************************

Long-developing cracks in the Western political establishment’s century-old paradigm suddenly widened this year. In the US Donald Trump, a reality television star and real estate developer, improbably became the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Bernie Sanders, a socialist and long-time Senate crank, challenged the Democrats’ pre-anointed nominee Hillary Clinton, who prevailed only by dint of money and un-democratic “super-delegates.” Meanwhile in Europe, the UK voted to leave the European Union, perhaps opening the flood-gates to more defections.

These three events share a common theme: populist and patriotic passions roused by arrogant elites have fueled a rejection of Western establishments and their un-democratic, autocratic, corrupt paradigm.

That political model can be simply defined as technocratic and transnational. Starting in the 19th century, the success of science and the shrinking of the world through technology and trade created the illusion that human nature, society, and politics could be similarly understood, managed, and improved by those trained and practiced in the new “human sciences.” This new “knowledge” said people are the same everywhere, and so all humans want the same things: peace with their neighbors, prosperity, and freedom. The absence of these boons, not a permanently flawed human nature, explains the history of war and conflict. National identities, along with religion and tradition, are impediments to institutionalizing this “harmony of interests.” International organizations and covenants can be created to enforce this harmony, shepherd the people towards the transnational utopia, and leave behind the misery and wars sparked by religious, ethnic, and nationalist passions.

Technocracy, however, is by definition anti-democratic. So how can the foundational belief of Western governments – the sovereignty of free people and their right to be ruled by their own consent–– coexist with an administrative state staffed by “experts” and armed with the coercive power of the state? Quite simply, it can’t. As for the transnational ideal of a “harmony of interests,” it was repudiated by the carnage of World War I, when the Entente and Central Powers sent their young to die under the flags of their nations on behalf of their particular national interests.  Yet the West still codified that transnational ideal in the League of Nations, even as it enshrined the contrary ideal of national self-determination, the right of people to rule themselves free of imperial or colonial overlords.

This gruesome war demonstrated that people are still defined by a particular language, culture, mores, folkways, religions, and landscapes, and that nations have interests that necessarily conflict with those of other nations. That’s why the League failed miserably to stop the aggression of its member states Japan, Italy, and Germany, and could not prevent an apocalyptic second world war that took at least 50 million lives. Yet the Western elites continued to pursue the transnational dream of technocratic rule after World War II, creating the UN as yet another attempt to trump the reality of national differences with some imagined harmony of interests. In reality, the UN has been an instrument used by states to pursue those interests at the expense of other nations.

Still not learning their lesson, the transnationalists created yet another institution that would subordinate the nations of Europe to its control, on the debatable assumption that the carnage of two world wars was wrought by national particularism. They confused genuine patriotism and love of one’s own way of living, with the grotesque political religions of fascism and Nazism, both as much avatars of illiberal tribalism as nationalism grown toxic. Thus was born the supranational EU, which began modestly in 1958 with the European Economic Community, and then relentlessly expanded over the years into today’s intrusive, unaccountable bureaucracy of anonymous technocrats that has concentrated power in Brussels at the expense of national sovereignty.

Similarly, in the US the progressives of the early 20th century began transforming the American Republic based on similar assumptions. They believe that economic, social, and technological progress rendered the Constitution––particularly its separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalist protections of the sovereignty of the states––an anachronism. “The age of enlightened administration had come,” F.D.R. proclaimed, and he set about creating the federal bureaus and agencies that have over the years expanded in scope and power, and increasingly encroached on the rights and autonomy of the states, civil society, and individuals.

But the Eurocrats and progressives forgot one of the most ancient beliefs of the West, and a fundamental assumption behind the structure of the Constitution––that a flawed human nature, vulnerable to corruption by power, is constant across time and space. As Benjamin Franklin wrote during the Constitutional convention, “There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice: the love of power and the love of money,” which when combined have “the most violent of effects.” As much as the democratic mob, any elite, whether of birth, wealth, or education, is subject to power’s corruption and abuse. That’s why our Constitution checked and balanced power: to limit the scope of any part of the government, and thus safeguard the freedom of all citizens no matter their wealth, birth, or education.

In contrast, the conceit of progressives and EU functionaries is that they are somehow immune to the seductions of power. They think their presumed superior knowledge and powers of reason make them more capable and trustworthy than the fickle, ignorant masses and the elected officials accountable to them. History, however, shows that technocrats are as vulnerable to the corruption of power as elites of birth or wealth, and that power is, as the Founders were fond of saying, “of an encroaching nature” and must “ever to be watched and checked.” The expansion of the EU’s tyrannical regulatory and lawmaking power at the expense of national sovereignty is the proof of this ancient wisdom. So too are America’s bloated federal executive agencies aggrandizing and abusing their powers at the expense of the people and the states.

Thus the dominant paradigm that has long organized politics and social life in the West is now under assault, for history has presented this model with challenges it has failed to meet. The resurgence of Islamic jihadism and terror has been met with sermons on Islamophobia and therapeutic multiculturalism. A newly assertive Russia has pursued its national interest with state violence, only to be scolded by our Secretary of State for “behaving in a 19th century fashion.” The financial crisis of 2008 was caused in part by government political and regulatory interference in the market, the same policies that have kept economic growth sluggish for over seven years. Feckless immigration policies have been worsened by a failure to monitor those who get in, and to assimilate those that do. And most important, the redistributionist entitlement regime has weakened the citizens’ character, fostered selfish hedonism, and is on track to bankrupt this country and many in Europe. All these crises have in the main been the offspring of progressives and Eurocrats, whose only solution is to cling to the policies that empower and enrich them, but degrade their own cultures and endanger their own peoples.

Millions of citizens both in the US and in Europe have been watching these developments and living with the baleful consequences that the hypocritical, smug progressive and EU elites seldom encounter in their daily lives. This long-festering anger and resentment of those who smear them as stupid racists, neurotic xenophobes, and fearful “haters,” has now burst to the surface of political life. People can see that the “we are the world,” “global village” cosmopolitanism enriches and empowers the political, cultural, and business elites, but passes on to the people the risks of careless and often deadly immigration policies, and the economic dislocations of a globalized economy. They see that coastal fat cats, who can afford the higher taxes and the costs of environmental regulations, care nothing for the flyover-country working and middle classes pinched by higher electric and gasoline bills. People who live in tony enclaves of white professionals and hipsters support unfettered immigration, while others have to live with the crime and disorder that comes from thrusting into their midst people from very different cultures and mores, including some who have a divine sanction to kill the same people who have welcomed them in.

In short, millions of ordinary people in America, England, France, and many other Western nations know that the paradigm of transnational hegemony and technocratic rule created not a utopia, but an arrogant privileged class that believes it is superior and thus entitled to boss other people around and lecture them about backward superstitions and bigotry. And it looks like these average citizens have had enough.

England has spoken in favor of popular sovereignty and self-government. Soon it will be America’s turn. Our British cousins made the right choice. Let’s hope we do too.

Why Brexit Is More Entrance Than Exit

June 26, 2016

Why Brexit Is More Entrance Than Exit, PJ MediaRoger Kimball, June 26, 2016

(The petition for a new referendum poll was apparently a scam.

The BBC, The Mirror, France 24, The Telegraph, Manchester Evening News, The Guardian… all reported on the bogus petition.

But they got punked. The poll was manufactured by 4Chan and Anonymous hackers who loaded up the signatures with fake names from The Vatican, Ghana, North Korea and elsewhere. [Emphasis in original — DM]

The petition fit the meme, so it deserved and got no fact-checking — DM)

Pop psychologists tell us that grief proceeds through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Have been blindsided by the stunning victory of Brexit on Thursday,  members of the camp of  the Remainders are now vibrating somewhere between anger and bargaining. This followed hard on a brief period of stunned denial that often expressed itself as gulping incredulity. As the psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple observed in City Journal,

For a long time, Britons who wanted their country to leave the European Union were regarded almost as mentally ill by those who wanted it to stay. The leavers didn’t have an opinion; they had a pathology. Since one doesn’t argue with pathology, it wasn’t necessary for the remainers to answer the leavers with more than sneers and derision.Even after the vote, the attitude persists. Those who voted to leave are described as,ipso facto, small-minded, xenophobic, and fearful of the future. Those who voted to stay are described as, ipso facto, open-minded, cosmopolitan, and forward-looking.

At this point it is not clear exactly when the Brits will formally invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and officially begin the withdrawal negotiations. But Thursday’s vote made Britain’s congé in the most stinging and public manner.

As of this writing, early Sunday morning, the Remainders have yet to take that rebuke on board. They have, however, moved firmly from denial to white hot anger, as the movement to invalidate the referendum by holding a second referendum attests. As of last night, a petition demanding that Parliament force a new referendum had attracted some 2 million signatures.

The fatuousness of that effort is as patent as it is contemptible. Back in 2009, Barack Obama smugly observed that “elections have consequences.” Thursday’s vote was a non-binding referendum, not an election, but it most assuredly has consequences, as (for example) the immediate announcement by David Cameron, the prime minister, that he would soon be resigning demonstrates.

I expect that the Remainders will soon abandon the petition and move on to more circuitous, backroom maneuvers to subvert or nullify the will of the people. It is at that point, when the delayers and dispensers of red tape arrive with their megaphones, that we’ll know that the bargaining stage has been definitively reached. (I am no psychologist, but my observation is that most people, even if they  do progress through the five stages described, do not entirely leave behind the earlier stages. There generally persists, I believe,  a bit of denial and more than a bit of anger.)

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, put his finger on one of the most extraordinary features of the Brexit phenomenon: that the vote turned out the way it did despite the Establishment’s mobilization of every resource at its command against it. “Never,” he wrote in an article for The Wall Street Journal,  “has there been a greater coalition of the establishment than that assembled by Prime Minister David Cameron for his referendum campaign to keep the U.K. in the European Union.”

There was almost every Westminster party leader, most of their troops and almost every trade union and employers’ federation. There were retired spy chiefs, historians, football clubs, national treasures like Stephen Hawking and divinities like Keira Knightley. And some global glamour too: President Barack Obama flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook.And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.

I’d say that 52%  is closer to “decisive” than “slender,” but Nelson’s point is well taken. The Remainders threw everything they had into this campaign, but it availed them nothing. The British people don’t like what the commissars in Brussels have been doing to their country. What is euphemistically called “immigration” — really, it is a sort of invasion – was part of the story, but only a part. Remainders seized on immigration as the motivating issue because it was easy to weaponize and use it to castigate those who favored Brexit as troglodytic nativists and reactionaries.

As I noted yesterday, the Brexit vote was less an “anti-Europe” vote than a positive assertion of freedom. Indeed, it was by accentuating the positive, by underscoring Brtain’s native strengths and potential, that Brexiteers like Boris Johnson were able to give affirmative voice to the people’s disenchantment. The unease that many Brits felt under the regulatory yoke of the EU is felt by many other people, including many Americans.

As has been often pointed out, that unease helps to explain the success of Donald Trump.  Would that Trump had a scintilla of the insight and affirmative spirit of Brexiteers like Boris Johnson, Dan Hannan,Michael Gove, and Nigel Farage.  Despite desperate howls to the contrary, the campaign these men waged triumphed not because of what they were repudiating but what they were saying Yes to. Sure, the campaign involved a No to officious interference by corrupt and unaccountable officials across the channel. But the main course was Yes: Yes to freedom, Yes to individual responsible, Yes to deciding for ourselves how we will govern ourselves.

There’s a moral here for politicians, and for political pundits.  It’s unclear, however, whether many people are bothering to read the script.