Wanting to remain in the EU is extremist minority viewpoint – and other things not to be learnt from the election

It is the role of the corporate-media, after an election, to assist politicians in an exercise of interpreting the result for the electorate: to tell the people how they voted beyond the obvious facts of winning and losing. A component of this function actually takes place before the votes are counted so that rules can be established by which to gauge the relative success of each main political party: crucial, of course, for building the overall interpretive narrative. The furthest-reaching expectation-management takes place in television studios (presenting to an audience as if it were comprised of children) after the polling stations have closed, but material is also published to the internet and to print media on election day itself – and a piece of this particular ilk was proffered yesterday by The Guardian (or The Observer, in fact). Produced by Deborah Mattinson, a founder of the research and strategy consultancy, BritainThinks (because perception shaping for Government is an industry beyond its corporate-media frontage), the piece is going to serve as an example from which to sample talking points and take them on.

The first thing to notice about this particular piece is that the most important aspect of this election is treated as a mere footnote. The following is the penultimate paragraph in its entirety:

Turnout will also be interesting. Usually in the mid-30s for European elections – in 2014 it was 34.2% – our Brexit Diaries work [polling?] suggests a higher than usual turnout, given that almost two-thirds of voters are very motivated by Brexit – around half by leaving and half by remaining.

To introduce turnout in these terms is to tell the reader that it must be treated as an incidental oddity. The truth of the matter is that if there ever was an election where turnout was crucial, it was this one. Turnout was the be-all and end-all in this election, because this election was all about motivating people to turnout. It wasn’t just about having people engage in contract forming activity with the EU by claiming representatives in the European parliament – something that has been dealt with aplenty at FBEL and doesn’t need any more words spent on it. A new factor has emerged (the author realising it graudally as this election day wore on), which is the maintenance of a false impression of parity between those who support Leave, and those who support Remain. At stake is the survival of a psychological image where support for remaining in the EU is presented and seen as being very much larger than it really is.

Essential in creating this paradigm is the idea that this European election was about whether people want to remain in, or leave the EU – and this of course is how the Guardian piece primarily framed it: “Leave v Remain?” Moreover, both the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats have especially appealed to this idea when campaigning (in fact, Mattinson cites the Lib Dem’s charmingly named, “Bollocks to Brexit” approach). Indeed, with the Brexit Party clearly being controlled opposition (see here), and a place holder substitute for the Tories, all the signs are about us that tell of an operation conceived by strategic planners higher up in British Government than the level that political parties inhabit. For the raw truth is that this European election cannot empower a group of people to do anything to control or affect Government’s handling of Brexit†, and that therefore the likes of Vince Cable and Nigel Farage have no way to make good on any promises that might have been made in this regards. As such, the election cannot possibly be about whether or not Britain remains in or leaves the EU. It can, however, be made to appear as if it is.

As the reader can perhaps see for himself, the Guardian piece would contribute to the grand fantasy: BritainThinks believes it knows about turnout from finding that almost one-third of voters are very motivated by leaving the EU, and that another similarly sized group are very motivated by remaining in the EU. Of course, the results in this election do not bear out the statement, because the turnout was not verging on 60%. While there are many reasons that Government and its various tools for perception-shaping would normally ignore or misrepresent turnout, the doing so here means that a false impression is given that support for remaining in the EU is on a par with support for leaving.

Moreover, the Guardian piece proffers a clever little device for inviting its readership to discover the false parity between Remain and Leave for themselves. It suggests a method by which to find out whether Leave or Remain won:

The straightforward calculation will be to add up both the Leave parties, Brexit and Ukip, and compare that with the overtly Remain parties – the Lib Dems, Greens, Change UK, SNP and Plaid Cymru.

A further sophistication involves allocating a proportion of the Labour and Tory votes to each side. This is tricky as there is little agreement among pollsters as to what this proportion should be. The Brexit Diaries project of BritainThinks suggests Tory voters on 80% Leave and 20% Remain, and Labour 60-40 in favour of Remain.

After performing this operation on the results (according to the BBC service, at 1:47am, 27th May, with 371 of 373 of the counts complete [minus Northern Ireland]), it can be discovered that Leave scored 51% of the vote, while Remain racked up 48%. One can’t help but notice how this is incredibly reminiscent of the 2016 referendum result – but it is, ultimately, a completely fallacious picture due entirely to a disregarding of the turnout – hence why the factor is so crucial. The low turnout of this election – most recently reported as being 36.7% – means that there has been an overall failure for and by Government to psychologically manipulate the public as it has traditionally been able – and this must be a grave concern – and then, at a lower level of execution, and for those who would motivate a large expression of support for Remain, there has been a failure to muster the necessary numbers at the polling booths. Ironically, this failure is mitigated by the participation of the Brexit Party – created, as we have before noted, specifically for the purpose – because with the Brexit Party in the mix and, in the collective imagination that can be created by corporate-media, going up against the Lib Dems in a restaging of the referendum by a kind of proxy, the illusion of parity between Remain and Leave is maintained. It would have been a different matter if Nigel Farage had led a boycott of the election, instead of standing in it. In that case, the BBC and Sky News, in their as-if-to-children television presentations, would have had to sell a completely skewed map of British political attitude, formed by roughly 20% – or much less – of the electorate, that would have no bearing on, or grounding in reality whatsoever. The results of that election would appear suspect (even to a childlike audience), especially if a well publicised boycott had warned of the effect that it would have in these respects. The illusion of parity between Leave and Remain could not so easily be maintained.

It is only when we consider turnout that the illusion of parity can be dispelled. Returning to the calculation that produces that referendum-like result, even though the pro-Brexit vote is still in the majority, it is actually redundant in terms of interpreting the election when turnout is taken into consideration. To explain: Leave, and Brexit, is the default attitude of the country. Many who were on the losing side of a vote that created this matter of fact have accepted the result. Most importantly, Government officially started to put it into motion – regardless of whether it meant it or not (which was a vital mistake on its part from its own perspective, because it meant that no one had to go out and protest for Brexit). On the other hand, Remain is the “extremist” position. This is a matter of simple definition in English, although we can certainly discover factual reasons why wanting to stay in the EU is an attitude of extremism (and we are about to do just that). Moreover, if the election was about mustering a voice to say “bollocks to Brexit”, then, with the turnout being only 36.7%, it means that only a tiny fraction of people in Britain were motivated to express the concept by voting for it: 18%, to identify the quantity a bit more clearly. Of course, there is the matter of EU citizen involvement in this election, permitted to do so on the grounds that they would be returning representatives to their country’s parliament (meaning the EU). How many of this 18% that voted Remain would be foreign nationals with no right to be involved in matters of Britain’s independence?

What this election actually tells us about Remain is that it has the support of a minority, and not just the remainder of a pie that is shared nearly half and half with Leave. Support for Remain is in a substantial minority. And if we allow that at one point there was a high percentage of the British electorate that supported the country remaining in the EU, then the decline from that position to the current situation speaks of support now being of a hard core nature. We could also call it extremist, as pointed out above, because it is an unreasonable reaction to the moderation between viewpoints that the referendum afforded the country; it is the antipathy of the default position. Moreover, it is extremist because it gives succour and support to a ruling class that has lately been participating in an economic warfare waged against Britons‡, who are displaced by immigration, and reduced into dependency – not just on welfare, because that is norm for Briton and EU citizen alike as a kind of benchmark for living in the UK (resulting in yet another element of EU membership that is unnecessarily and avoidably costly) – but on the charity of foodbanks. In what are inevitably provocative terms – what else could they be, given the reality – there is a situation that exists in Britain whereby it is open to colonisation, and has been for a decade, from countries that not too long ago were fully fledged members of the international brotherhood of Nazism, and who fought against this one in the second world war. On the other hand, people from the family of English speaking nations do not have the rights afforded to citizenry of the modern iteration of the Neuordnung Europas (explained here) [and, with the former being more likely to be racially diverse than anything that washes up from Central and Eastern Europe (the Neuordnung heartlands), surely, one would think, it would be a situation much lamented by those with “social justice” sensibilities].

The offensiveness of the EU is not to be tolerated even before one considers matters of rights from sovereignty, the survival of common law, and being able to have government on the leash that it should, by rights, be on. And speaking of which, here we are, in 2019, three years after Britons pooled their individual sovereignty to order the British Government to withdraw the country from the EU, and the situation has not changed. The powers that rule illegitimately in Britain contrary to the wishes of the people, and those who would give them succour, these are in fact the seditionists who are enemies domestic of the rightful commonwealth. Like the Israelites who would return to Egypt, these are the rebels against the law who for too long have been able to get away with having airs of a political righteousness, though being corrupt, to induce acquiescence to them. The last thing that the British Government should be allowed to do is to come away from this election having made the public think that the result showed parity between the followers of the foreign golden-gilt tyranny, and those who want the law.

And yet, it goes without saying that the elections are going to be interpreted as indicating support for Labour and the Tories with regards Brexit. The Guardian piece doesn’t go into it, but the talking point, introduced on the night, had it that the result would influence the Tories to take a “harder line” on delivering Brexit, and Labour to support a second referendum; the former being pressured by the Brexit Party, the latter being pressured by the Lib Dems et al (the “Remain front”). One again, then, here is the fake parity – this time leading to a furtherance of a stalemate that already was engineered through the supposed concern that a Brexiteer should have for the position of the side that didn’t want to leave the EU: hence the apparent need for negotiated compromise, parliamentary managing and the overruling of prerogative. Of course, it was and merely is an excuse for not leaving the EU in the straightforward way that was demanded in 2016, but instead conjuring up the Fake Brexit that binds Britain just as if it was a member. It really would have been better if the Brexit Party had boycotted – but then, that wasn’t its remit, and the activity certainly would not have featured in designs for whatever advantage over the British people could be achieved for Government with the EU election.

† Please note that the Brexit Party wants to be involved in negotiating Brexit – this would indicate that the party is in favour of some kind of Article 50 treaty. Not only is the Brexit Party the electoral holding place substitute for the Tories while it gets over some temporary Theresa May trouble, but it is also the Tories not-so-lite in terms of Brexit.

‡ Please read Economic warfare against Britons by the Westminster Puppet – a taboo subject – an FBEL article from 2014 (link).