Tag Archives: Hypocrisy

Patriotic vetting and hypocrisy

The Guardian underlined its slightly odd take on the world (presumably suffering under the delusion that the UK had any real impact globally of the affairs of same) by bemoaning the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong saying “China’s top law making body has formally unveiled plans to ensure that only “patriots” can govern Hong Kong, as Beijing tightens its grip on the city with electoral changes including a vetting process for all parliamentary candidates”.

As Grumpy has pointed out several times in this blog, the writer seems to have set aside the fact that Hong Kong was ruled by the British for 155 years as a colony, with precisely zero ability of the citizens to vote for their leader, or have independent control of the laws they were subject to. Even worse, this state of affairs came about because the UK took the territory by two acts of war, to establish their right to act as a narco state and kill Chinese mainland citizens with heroin. This is hardly a position of holding the moral high ground.

The objection the Guardian raises is the wish of the Chinese government to ensure that those elected (democracy ?) to rule the territory recognise that it is, and will continue to be, integral with China in perpetuity, and not to work to subvert that fact, which is not open to a local government to change.

The Guardian, as well as setting aside the brutal colonial past of the UK, conveniently ignores that the United Kingdom too enforces the same exactly the same undertakings on members of its own parliament. Sein Fein’s democratically elected members are unable to take a seat at the Westminster, because they have refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Head of State, which they are required by law to take. This seems to mirror the Chinese position in that it ensures that only patriots can participate in the government and is clearly a form of “vetting” – just as in Hong Kong.

Many of the pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong have a stated goal to subvert Chinese authority and push for independence and secession. As Grumpy pointed out elsewhere in this blog, European citizens in Catalonia, Spain, are current spending years in prison for merely seeking to hold an illustrative referendum – something the Chinese wish to avoid. Might Nicola Sturgeon also find herself incarcerated if she declares UDI and holds a referendum, if Boris follows the example of his European friends ?

Soubry hypocrisy

In spite of his old age, Grumpy admits he has always harboured a politically incorrect frisson when seeing old photographs of Anna Soubry. She has the look of a girl who, shall we say, enjoyed a full social life before marriage and responsibility called, if you get the drift.

That aside, the fact is that she is an unprincipled hypocrite who has recently turned her back on the constituents who voted for the party she the was a member of. Further although Broxtowe, her constituency, voted to leave in the 2016 referendum, Soubry has subsequently consistently disregarded party policy, the citizens who voted for her to represent that party – note, not for her – and the wishes of Broxtonians in the referendum. This in spite of having voted previously to leave the EU, for the 2016 referendum, and for the serving of the Article 50 notice.

Any principled politician would stand aside immediately so that her constituents could be represented by someone who subscribed to the policies they voted for – but not her.

However, that is almost a minor sin in comparison with her attempt to bend truth in her pursuit of frustrating a democratic process. This subversion takes many forms, but Grumpy will use just one, telling, example here.

To deny the results of the 2016 referendum and her voting record in support of leaving would be a step too far. So instead, she (along with Chuka Umunna and the other rattus rattus ship jumpers in The Independent Group), are promulgating the fiction that “people didn’t vote for…”, and “people will have changed their mind now they know what is involved”. Setting aside the arrogance of purporting to know what motivated ‘people’ (somehow lumping them together as a homogeneous set with the same motivations and beliefs) this is simply not true, and Soubry knows it.

David Cameron, in the throes of regret in having called the referendum, made a number of widely distributed presentations on exactly what it would mean. His final throw, two days before the referendum was standing outside Number 10, in a network wide broadcast. Here are just some of the statements he made to the nation as a whole:

“Expert after expert … have said it {leaving the EU} would shrink our economy . In the short term facing recession; in the medium term, enduring a decade of uncertainty, and in the long term, living with fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices”

He went on “Remember, they {children in our schools} can’t undo the decision we take. It we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe – for good. and the next generation will have to live with the consequences.

Grumpy is of the view that all of this was not really relevant to a large number of the 17m. They were fed up with the EU. They were fed up with politician A saying something was white and politician B saying it was black. They gave no credibility to any of them. Further, they were repeatedly told by the establishment that they would be idiots to vote “leave”. Justified British bloody-mindedness reigned, and as a body they said ‘whatever’ and voted “out” to be done with it.

How was this picture of gloom not clear to the listener ? Read it again. Soubry said they didn’t vote to make themselves poorer – read it again ; they did. Soubry said they didn’t know what it wold entail – read it again; they did. Soubry would have us believe that they somehow disregarded this highly credible testimony and subscribed fully to a picture of the world offered by a buffoon like Boris?

The sad thing is that in spite of this, for 3 years the political establishment has been fighting their own partisan wars, and ascribing to the populace their own twisted and unjustified analysis (by telepathy?) to fit their own prejudices. Westminster should be hanging its collective head in shame. Remainers should careful of what they wish for – they are banking that a re-run would go to remain. Grumpy suspects that there may well be a shock if that happens – so back to square one.