What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolting!: How the Establishment are Undermining Democracy and What They’re Afraid Of
A short, sharp intervention in the crucial debate about the future of democracy, which has been brought to a head by events from Brexit to the Trump phenomenon.
We live in strange days in the history of democracy.
Every serious politician in the Western world supports democracy. Yet when the EU Referendum and American Elections both delivered the ‘wrong’ result, elites challenged the merit of the people’s will, and some even tried to block it. Preferring unelected institutions, from technocrats to the courts, self-appointed higher minds questioned whether voters are fit to be trusted with their own futures. Ours is the age of “I support democracy, but…”
And yet the answer will never be to impose limitations. Popular democracy must offer better choices, rather than removing choice altogether. It’s time to defend democracy and fight for more it, with no ifs, buts or backtracks.
We live in strange days in the history of democracy.
Every serious politician in the Western world supports democracy. Yet when the EU Referendum and American Elections both delivered the ‘wrong’ result, elites challenged the merit of the people’s will, and some even tried to block it. Preferring unelected institutions, from technocrats to the courts, self-appointed higher minds questioned whether voters are fit to be trusted with their own futures. Ours is the age of “I support democracy, but…”
And yet the answer will never be to impose limitations. Popular democracy must offer better choices, rather than removing choice altogether. It’s time to defend democracy and fight for more it, with no ifs, buts or backtracks.
238 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 23, 2017
18 people are currently reading
109 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
May 21, 2017
This book is for people who are looking for answers and understanding about how we are controlled today and what decisions we can still take to influence what happens to us, after a long trend toward public disempowerment. You may wonder why is it that the institution of the European Union is beyond any possible doubt the most hated organisation in the world from a British perspective and has been every single day since 1993. What did they do that was so bad? Why is it that every Prime Minister of the UK from 1993 until 2016 has sided with EU domination and set themselves against the majority will of their own population? Although its first fan Ted Heath (paedophile) predated membership of the EU and Tony Blair (alleged war criminal) wasn’t squeaky clean either, why would an act like signing the Maastricht Treaty by John Major, exactly replicating the action of Quisling, seem to be rational, common sense and for the good of the people to an educated national leader? I think that why leaders and political parties believed this course was right and the public were wrong can be answered, as can the question of why they ignored majority public opinion for so long. I think it can also be understood why it was reacted against so decisively by the population when they got their only chance to be heard in their 23 years of membership.
An important issue to consider is that of revolt itself. What does it look like? We have modern systems such as democracy and the law so our disagreements can be solved without any violence. When an institution like the EU overrules your law and cancels democratic decision making, leaving no lawful way to oppose it, do you really think that’s safe? Does anyone want the situation where the only way for your country to become a democracy and for the majority to be listened to is over dead bodies? Seriously? We need a civilised way to protest safely and lawfully, which was what the referendum was. If the referendum is overruled or staged again until they get a different result, a very serious and dangerous problem will exist, which I hope no one thinks is a good idea.
Over the last few years I’d come to most of the same conclusions as the author without any guidance, so Revolting was always going to be an easy sell as I understood most of the problems already, from a UK perspective, although the concern should be common to all EU populations. An author told me that a Conservative candidate and niece of a former well known cabinet minister in conversation with them had said to their face “What’s so special about democracy anyway?” – and they wished they’d taped it. As I come from what should be a traditional conservative background, it troubles me to know the professional party has diverged so far from what I thought were conservative core values. I am confident that people from traditional Labour backgrounds think the same. What has happened to these politicians? Why did they stop representing us and go to work for a foreign regime? This dangerous thought, “What’s so special about democracy anyway?”, isn’t confined to one party, as Labour, Liberal and Conservative policy since 1993 has been identical: The UK must be ruled by a government that no one has ever voted for, based in a different country. This must be imposed, against the will of the population. Indeed Hillary Clinton said the United Kingdom cannot be a democracy because our choices are different [to those of the US]. Bitch.
I hope you don’t mind but I’m in a mood to hijack this book review and add to what the author has said. I would define democracy as when the members of your highest law making government have been elected, voted for by someone, anyone at all. By this definition, all EU member countries cancelled democracy in 1993, as the European Commission proposes and makes our laws. Their directives pass into national law without even being debated, which is totalitarian.
The questions the people face became: Is that a problem or is it ok, if it’s more efficient? Have we been left with any lawful options to stop unelected government if it gets bad? If cancelling democracy is a problem for you and all democratic and legal methods of reversing it have also been blocked, IF the majority of the population feel the same about this, should they succumb quietly or should they take an opportunity to revolt? When you’re not a Marxist and you’re asking questions like that, isn’t it a sign you’ve been pushed too far?
This is a powerful book, whether you are aware of this stuff or not, written by a fair-minded journalist and composed in a very readable and accessible way. It is a balanced assessment but because it has been written about a problem that disgusts the public, it will naturally look bad for the established order of politicians. This book logs the institution of the European Union’s systemic bypass and nullification of democratic representation for the people of Europe everywhere except at the state/local level. National law is over-ruled automatically by EU legislation as it is superior. It’s all true. The unification of the continent under a single unelected body has been the goal of dictators through the ages and, in the institution of the EU, this has finally been achieved. Hurrah?
Here’s how I understand what’s going on, i.e. the reason why national leaders and the European Union thought it was right to do, what went wrong and why becoming democracies instead is the correct solution.
The EU was designed to bring the benefits of Group Theory and to provide the most efficient political form of population control (the path of least resistance to getting things done).
In Group Theory, what’s best for the individual (originally survival etc.) is not necessarily what’s best for the average member of the group. People might prioritise their own needs and think that being an individual is their optimal strategy (seen by others as selfish, ignorant and backward) or they can submit themselves to a group/society (optimal strategy for the average member of the group, which is seen as enlightened and progressive). “The good of the many outweighs the good of the one” (Spock), the collective economy (Marx). This is reasonable and makes good sense. With the EU so far?
Too many selfish individuals will crash the group, so that’s a threat and these people have to be stigmatised as uneducated and backward, to encourage compliance, which is a catch-all to be used even when the group’s opponents are clever and selfishness was not their motivation. Stigmatising people unfairly is like doing a bad thing for the right reason, to make the group cohesive. The idea of allegiance to nation and culture has to be painted as similarly negative, associated with racial prejudice, because when people have been conditioned to believe in something alternative to the supra-national group, they have to understand this is no longer available. The old flags must go in the bin or people won’t believe in the need for a skin graft over the top of their healthy skin. Preferably, they apply it and don’t even ask. It’s all about means to an end, optimal strategy for the new group over the individual. Still supporting the EU?
However, the leaders of the group (a sub-set) soon realise their own optimal strategy is to run the group for their personal benefit (exploit the mindlessly submissive followers and keep the group going, so they can keep unelected power and loot more for themselves over a longer period). Being a group member but not simultaneously being a member of the leadership set is no longer optimal at all, as the population only work to ensure the leadership set are enriched, retain unchallenged power and aren’t required to pay any taxes on their income. The population of Europe have then become the only threat to the leadership set’s lifestyle and taking the necessary action to exclude the public from decision making and remove their influence on appointments and retentions becomes the leadership of the group’s priority. Still supportive, or are you wavering?
Ordinary members of a group who realise they are being exploited under undisguised parasitical leadership (the intelligent members will notice first) naturally end their support for the group because the system is broken and again believe the selfish strategy is optimal, which it now is for the majority of the public. The leadership set stigmatize them with illogical connections (anyone who believes in elected government, equality and freedom must be a racist, fascist and ignorant – does that sound familiar?). This only works for a while because it’s unconvincing and people see through it, the group then crashes. That’s independence. The leadership set then moan and blame the rebellion for being ignorant and selfish, which is exactly what they themselves were doing on a larger scale. The leadership set has made group strategy sub-optimal to individual strategy for the average member by their own greed (you are a victim of the EU, unless you're one of them). This is what the EU has become today as it and most of the Western world has entered the final stage of decline and fall according to Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s classic book The Fate of Empires: Decadence and Corruption.
In summary, for group theory to work across the EU, it is essential to remove representative democracy in Europe. The public must be disconnected from decision making.
To institute the most efficient political form of population control (least resistance to getting things done), you can imagine it would be difficult to agree on anything unanimously and take all countries down the same path if at the individual or national level anyone had any say in what happened and could oppose it. For supra-national decision making to work efficiently and quickly across many regions without exceptions, decisions must be imposed without the possibility of opposition. To put this system in place, again done for the good of the group, it was essential for the EU design to remove representative democracy from Europe.
Have you changed your perception? Can you understand why the public think they’ve lost something?
In the UK, elitist politics is where a small minority of people, who usually define themselves as intellectual liberals, come to the conclusion that their beliefs are right. They then impose their decisions on everyone and treat the general population's opinion (the majority contrary view) as irrelevant, primitive and to be ignored. They see the public having the vote as the main problem in society, so work to disempower millions and millions of people, for their own good. The political elitists started with a liberal and enlightened intention but have moved full circle and become oppressive, anti-democratic and dictatorial. Anti-human-rights, from open minded to narrow minded and then just plain wrong. They wonder, amazed, why anyone would disagree and resist as they and their small circle of the blessed are ideologically faultless. To do so would be (insert stigmatizing insult word here), as words are soon all they'll have left to use in their epic fight against the humans.
The 500,000,000 citizens of the EU have no way at all to appoint or remove any member of their senior government, the European Commission. In contrast, the European Parliament does not propose or enact laws and is simply intended to be a distraction from where the power of law creation is held and allowing people think they’ve voted for something.
This book describes “implied approval”, the way the organisation takes away our freedom in stages under their self-serving assumption that you agree to give up your rights unless you openly state otherwise – and then they allow no possible opportunity, democratic or legal, for you to make that contrary statement.
There is a positive conclusion that I reached after finishing this book which has given me real hope for the future. The thing is, I’m pretty sure I don’t share the author’s political affiliation and might even be his diametric opposite as I quite like capitalism and think incentive to try harder works, yet I found I agree with almost every point he’s made about democracy, the EU’s actions and the public rejection of their control in this book. Think about this: If the Left and Right, who previously accused each other spitefully of being Marxists and Thatcherites, can completely agree on this most essential of all political issues, the importance of being a Democracy, and unite against a common enemy to demand its return, doesn’t that suggest they are correct? The struggle between Left and Right or between social classes has been put on hold to save something more essential: Freedom. There are just two sides now, today, those who want to live in a democracy vs those who don’t.
Tony Benn advised that when you meet the powerful, ask these five questions to see if they are right for you. Here they are, with answers added for the role of a member of the European Commission:
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
Absolute power. I can make any law I like over you and apply it without fear of opposition. If I make a law, it over-rules the law of your country. My court will consider your objection and will always rule in favour of me.
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
I took it without your approval. I was not elected and your population were never asked if they wanted to convert to this system. I am not answerable to any national leader.
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
In the interests of the leadership set of the EU. I do not represent the people or nations of the EU.
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
No one. There is no electorate. I have the same powers as a king and rule by royal prerogative.
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?
Ha ha. You can’t. There is no legal or democratic way to remove me from power. You can only try to remove me by breaking the law; and then you will be arrested. Terrorists are always wrong, so we will all call you that if you take this course. What a good idea! If a single person ever tries anything violent, even if they have been left with no other recourse, any future member of the public who gets caught saying they think that politicians should be elected to their jobs can be arrested as a terrorist sympathiser. If you want to replace a European Union Commissioner, you can forget it now.
Then in 2016, when the EU had never been as popular in the UK, the Prime Minister permitted a referendum to ask for the very first time (after 33 years inside) whether people wanted to be part of it. He only did that because he was sure the answer would be Yes, if he threatened people enough with consequences. The answer was ‘No’. The establishment thought that asking the question had been an expensive mistake, rather than joining the EU itself being the expensive mistake, and, as in Ireland (2009), they began looking for ways to reverse it.
The EU believes that the scourge of populism must be removed by design from Europe. Unfortunately, democracy and populism are the same thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re from the Left, Right or the Middle, if you want to live in a democracy, in the EU’s and the political establishment’s eyes, that’s utterly REVOLTING.
An important issue to consider is that of revolt itself. What does it look like? We have modern systems such as democracy and the law so our disagreements can be solved without any violence. When an institution like the EU overrules your law and cancels democratic decision making, leaving no lawful way to oppose it, do you really think that’s safe? Does anyone want the situation where the only way for your country to become a democracy and for the majority to be listened to is over dead bodies? Seriously? We need a civilised way to protest safely and lawfully, which was what the referendum was. If the referendum is overruled or staged again until they get a different result, a very serious and dangerous problem will exist, which I hope no one thinks is a good idea.
Over the last few years I’d come to most of the same conclusions as the author without any guidance, so Revolting was always going to be an easy sell as I understood most of the problems already, from a UK perspective, although the concern should be common to all EU populations. An author told me that a Conservative candidate and niece of a former well known cabinet minister in conversation with them had said to their face “What’s so special about democracy anyway?” – and they wished they’d taped it. As I come from what should be a traditional conservative background, it troubles me to know the professional party has diverged so far from what I thought were conservative core values. I am confident that people from traditional Labour backgrounds think the same. What has happened to these politicians? Why did they stop representing us and go to work for a foreign regime? This dangerous thought, “What’s so special about democracy anyway?”, isn’t confined to one party, as Labour, Liberal and Conservative policy since 1993 has been identical: The UK must be ruled by a government that no one has ever voted for, based in a different country. This must be imposed, against the will of the population. Indeed Hillary Clinton said the United Kingdom cannot be a democracy because our choices are different [to those of the US]. Bitch.
I hope you don’t mind but I’m in a mood to hijack this book review and add to what the author has said. I would define democracy as when the members of your highest law making government have been elected, voted for by someone, anyone at all. By this definition, all EU member countries cancelled democracy in 1993, as the European Commission proposes and makes our laws. Their directives pass into national law without even being debated, which is totalitarian.
The questions the people face became: Is that a problem or is it ok, if it’s more efficient? Have we been left with any lawful options to stop unelected government if it gets bad? If cancelling democracy is a problem for you and all democratic and legal methods of reversing it have also been blocked, IF the majority of the population feel the same about this, should they succumb quietly or should they take an opportunity to revolt? When you’re not a Marxist and you’re asking questions like that, isn’t it a sign you’ve been pushed too far?
This is a powerful book, whether you are aware of this stuff or not, written by a fair-minded journalist and composed in a very readable and accessible way. It is a balanced assessment but because it has been written about a problem that disgusts the public, it will naturally look bad for the established order of politicians. This book logs the institution of the European Union’s systemic bypass and nullification of democratic representation for the people of Europe everywhere except at the state/local level. National law is over-ruled automatically by EU legislation as it is superior. It’s all true. The unification of the continent under a single unelected body has been the goal of dictators through the ages and, in the institution of the EU, this has finally been achieved. Hurrah?
Here’s how I understand what’s going on, i.e. the reason why national leaders and the European Union thought it was right to do, what went wrong and why becoming democracies instead is the correct solution.
The EU was designed to bring the benefits of Group Theory and to provide the most efficient political form of population control (the path of least resistance to getting things done).
In Group Theory, what’s best for the individual (originally survival etc.) is not necessarily what’s best for the average member of the group. People might prioritise their own needs and think that being an individual is their optimal strategy (seen by others as selfish, ignorant and backward) or they can submit themselves to a group/society (optimal strategy for the average member of the group, which is seen as enlightened and progressive). “The good of the many outweighs the good of the one” (Spock), the collective economy (Marx). This is reasonable and makes good sense. With the EU so far?
Too many selfish individuals will crash the group, so that’s a threat and these people have to be stigmatised as uneducated and backward, to encourage compliance, which is a catch-all to be used even when the group’s opponents are clever and selfishness was not their motivation. Stigmatising people unfairly is like doing a bad thing for the right reason, to make the group cohesive. The idea of allegiance to nation and culture has to be painted as similarly negative, associated with racial prejudice, because when people have been conditioned to believe in something alternative to the supra-national group, they have to understand this is no longer available. The old flags must go in the bin or people won’t believe in the need for a skin graft over the top of their healthy skin. Preferably, they apply it and don’t even ask. It’s all about means to an end, optimal strategy for the new group over the individual. Still supporting the EU?
However, the leaders of the group (a sub-set) soon realise their own optimal strategy is to run the group for their personal benefit (exploit the mindlessly submissive followers and keep the group going, so they can keep unelected power and loot more for themselves over a longer period). Being a group member but not simultaneously being a member of the leadership set is no longer optimal at all, as the population only work to ensure the leadership set are enriched, retain unchallenged power and aren’t required to pay any taxes on their income. The population of Europe have then become the only threat to the leadership set’s lifestyle and taking the necessary action to exclude the public from decision making and remove their influence on appointments and retentions becomes the leadership of the group’s priority. Still supportive, or are you wavering?
Ordinary members of a group who realise they are being exploited under undisguised parasitical leadership (the intelligent members will notice first) naturally end their support for the group because the system is broken and again believe the selfish strategy is optimal, which it now is for the majority of the public. The leadership set stigmatize them with illogical connections (anyone who believes in elected government, equality and freedom must be a racist, fascist and ignorant – does that sound familiar?). This only works for a while because it’s unconvincing and people see through it, the group then crashes. That’s independence. The leadership set then moan and blame the rebellion for being ignorant and selfish, which is exactly what they themselves were doing on a larger scale. The leadership set has made group strategy sub-optimal to individual strategy for the average member by their own greed (you are a victim of the EU, unless you're one of them). This is what the EU has become today as it and most of the Western world has entered the final stage of decline and fall according to Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s classic book The Fate of Empires: Decadence and Corruption.
In summary, for group theory to work across the EU, it is essential to remove representative democracy in Europe. The public must be disconnected from decision making.
To institute the most efficient political form of population control (least resistance to getting things done), you can imagine it would be difficult to agree on anything unanimously and take all countries down the same path if at the individual or national level anyone had any say in what happened and could oppose it. For supra-national decision making to work efficiently and quickly across many regions without exceptions, decisions must be imposed without the possibility of opposition. To put this system in place, again done for the good of the group, it was essential for the EU design to remove representative democracy from Europe.
Have you changed your perception? Can you understand why the public think they’ve lost something?
In the UK, elitist politics is where a small minority of people, who usually define themselves as intellectual liberals, come to the conclusion that their beliefs are right. They then impose their decisions on everyone and treat the general population's opinion (the majority contrary view) as irrelevant, primitive and to be ignored. They see the public having the vote as the main problem in society, so work to disempower millions and millions of people, for their own good. The political elitists started with a liberal and enlightened intention but have moved full circle and become oppressive, anti-democratic and dictatorial. Anti-human-rights, from open minded to narrow minded and then just plain wrong. They wonder, amazed, why anyone would disagree and resist as they and their small circle of the blessed are ideologically faultless. To do so would be (insert stigmatizing insult word here), as words are soon all they'll have left to use in their epic fight against the humans.
The 500,000,000 citizens of the EU have no way at all to appoint or remove any member of their senior government, the European Commission. In contrast, the European Parliament does not propose or enact laws and is simply intended to be a distraction from where the power of law creation is held and allowing people think they’ve voted for something.
This book describes “implied approval”, the way the organisation takes away our freedom in stages under their self-serving assumption that you agree to give up your rights unless you openly state otherwise – and then they allow no possible opportunity, democratic or legal, for you to make that contrary statement.
There is a positive conclusion that I reached after finishing this book which has given me real hope for the future. The thing is, I’m pretty sure I don’t share the author’s political affiliation and might even be his diametric opposite as I quite like capitalism and think incentive to try harder works, yet I found I agree with almost every point he’s made about democracy, the EU’s actions and the public rejection of their control in this book. Think about this: If the Left and Right, who previously accused each other spitefully of being Marxists and Thatcherites, can completely agree on this most essential of all political issues, the importance of being a Democracy, and unite against a common enemy to demand its return, doesn’t that suggest they are correct? The struggle between Left and Right or between social classes has been put on hold to save something more essential: Freedom. There are just two sides now, today, those who want to live in a democracy vs those who don’t.
Tony Benn advised that when you meet the powerful, ask these five questions to see if they are right for you. Here they are, with answers added for the role of a member of the European Commission:
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
Absolute power. I can make any law I like over you and apply it without fear of opposition. If I make a law, it over-rules the law of your country. My court will consider your objection and will always rule in favour of me.
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
I took it without your approval. I was not elected and your population were never asked if they wanted to convert to this system. I am not answerable to any national leader.
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
In the interests of the leadership set of the EU. I do not represent the people or nations of the EU.
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
No one. There is no electorate. I have the same powers as a king and rule by royal prerogative.
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?
Ha ha. You can’t. There is no legal or democratic way to remove me from power. You can only try to remove me by breaking the law; and then you will be arrested. Terrorists are always wrong, so we will all call you that if you take this course. What a good idea! If a single person ever tries anything violent, even if they have been left with no other recourse, any future member of the public who gets caught saying they think that politicians should be elected to their jobs can be arrested as a terrorist sympathiser. If you want to replace a European Union Commissioner, you can forget it now.
Then in 2016, when the EU had never been as popular in the UK, the Prime Minister permitted a referendum to ask for the very first time (after 33 years inside) whether people wanted to be part of it. He only did that because he was sure the answer would be Yes, if he threatened people enough with consequences. The answer was ‘No’. The establishment thought that asking the question had been an expensive mistake, rather than joining the EU itself being the expensive mistake, and, as in Ireland (2009), they began looking for ways to reverse it.
The EU believes that the scourge of populism must be removed by design from Europe. Unfortunately, democracy and populism are the same thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re from the Left, Right or the Middle, if you want to live in a democracy, in the EU’s and the political establishment’s eyes, that’s utterly REVOLTING.
April 4, 2018
I have been increasingly interested in reading and listening to more political books and this one tackles a topic that I've thought about a lot over the last two years or so, 'how democratic are "democratic" countries such as the UK and US?'. We are constantly barraged with everyone from politicians to the media shouting about the end of democracy but this book lays out issues surrounding the UK's parliamentary system, the Brexit referendum and particularly the European Union, touching on issues surrounding Donald Trump's election.
On the whole this was an interesting book that has made me think more about my own political beliefs. However, I feel that the author was biased, not only in regards to the way he himself voted which would be acceptable in a book like this, but mostly with regards to academics. Mick Hume is very against academics and their views, and as someone who works in publishing and in particular with academics on a daily basis I was a little offended by this.
Overall I think that the author brought up some good points that definitely made me think but some of the sweeping judgments just made me angry and made me distrust the author slightly. It's okay to disagree on opinions but the judgmental attitude of the author made me a little uncomfortable.
On the whole this was an interesting book that has made me think more about my own political beliefs. However, I feel that the author was biased, not only in regards to the way he himself voted which would be acceptable in a book like this, but mostly with regards to academics. Mick Hume is very against academics and their views, and as someone who works in publishing and in particular with academics on a daily basis I was a little offended by this.
Overall I think that the author brought up some good points that definitely made me think but some of the sweeping judgments just made me angry and made me distrust the author slightly. It's okay to disagree on opinions but the judgmental attitude of the author made me a little uncomfortable.
June 6, 2017
Mr Hume is a polemicist who cannot resist the jibe - Prescott - 2 jags or Miliband - many kitchens. This book retreads and dresses up many UKIP style arguments of freedom, using the same arguments over and over.
I think there are some important things to mention;
1 There were "elites" in favour of leaving the EU. The writer seems to think that all the elites were for remain in some way against the people. I think some newspaper proprietors have waged a war against Europe for 40 years. Others may think they have much to gain - freed of some rules and regulations.
2. He spends a long time outlining the democratic deficit of the EU, which is correct. However, this forgets to examine the lack of democracy in the UK. Now local government is denuded of power and resources and Police and Crime commissioners and Metro Mayors are foistered on the population. This seems little better than the EU. Plus the EU was able to constrain the UK government.
3. He has no real arguments- apart from platitudes- about to develop real democracy in the UK
4. It is true that the EU was never loved, but it was certainly rabidly hated by a hardline minority. I am reminded about the ex PM Gordon Brown. He is the man responsible for the pensioner bus passes and winter fuel allowances. He got little credit for these things, even from those who benefitted the most. This is similar to the EU. When if you sit sit down and think about it ( Like what have the Romans ever done for us? - Life of Brian), there is a long long list, but we just took it all for granted.
5 Unfortunately, this decision will be us for a long time. How much sovereignty will we get back Mr Hume ? and will it be worth all the upheaval?
I think there are some important things to mention;
1 There were "elites" in favour of leaving the EU. The writer seems to think that all the elites were for remain in some way against the people. I think some newspaper proprietors have waged a war against Europe for 40 years. Others may think they have much to gain - freed of some rules and regulations.
2. He spends a long time outlining the democratic deficit of the EU, which is correct. However, this forgets to examine the lack of democracy in the UK. Now local government is denuded of power and resources and Police and Crime commissioners and Metro Mayors are foistered on the population. This seems little better than the EU. Plus the EU was able to constrain the UK government.
3. He has no real arguments- apart from platitudes- about to develop real democracy in the UK
4. It is true that the EU was never loved, but it was certainly rabidly hated by a hardline minority. I am reminded about the ex PM Gordon Brown. He is the man responsible for the pensioner bus passes and winter fuel allowances. He got little credit for these things, even from those who benefitted the most. This is similar to the EU. When if you sit sit down and think about it ( Like what have the Romans ever done for us? - Life of Brian), there is a long long list, but we just took it all for granted.
5 Unfortunately, this decision will be us for a long time. How much sovereignty will we get back Mr Hume ? and will it be worth all the upheaval?
January 22, 2023
The book is a polemic as to why populism has taken over and why populism is actually a good thing. The book argued that the election of Donald Trump and Brexit was good because they undermined the establishment. It argued the elite were wrong and had established systems that were unfair. The polemic argued it was time that educated people should learn to respect those who were less educated because otherwise democracy couldn't exist.
The reason why I gave it two stars is because the fundamental assumptions of the book are wrong. Brexit and the election of Trump were not a rebellion against the elites; they were the triumph of one set of elites against another. Whilst the educated, internationally liberal elites associated with university education were losers, Trump and Brexit had elite interests particularly oil and fossil fuels (in the support of Trump) and banking (as in Brexit).
The book also views the assumption that popular= right as the holy basis of how democracy works. Except it isn't; democracies work with constitutions and legal frameworks that protect people from authoritarianism. There is no consideration that authoritarians have used referendums to further their will. And what about the young that have opposed Right-wing populism over the last decade? The book seemed to ignore that Brexit was completely rejected by younger voters and that it was older voters that were the critical mass for its support.
Overall a disingenuous polemic that attacks the wrong places.
The reason why I gave it two stars is because the fundamental assumptions of the book are wrong. Brexit and the election of Trump were not a rebellion against the elites; they were the triumph of one set of elites against another. Whilst the educated, internationally liberal elites associated with university education were losers, Trump and Brexit had elite interests particularly oil and fossil fuels (in the support of Trump) and banking (as in Brexit).
The book also views the assumption that popular= right as the holy basis of how democracy works. Except it isn't; democracies work with constitutions and legal frameworks that protect people from authoritarianism. There is no consideration that authoritarians have used referendums to further their will. And what about the young that have opposed Right-wing populism over the last decade? The book seemed to ignore that Brexit was completely rejected by younger voters and that it was older voters that were the critical mass for its support.
Overall a disingenuous polemic that attacks the wrong places.
Read
June 10, 2017"...the solution to the 'democratic deficit' in the UK cannot be even less democracy."
A timely reminder that democracy is a fragile social experiment worth defending, and that we should not be fooled into buying the thinly-veiled anti-democractic message that the masses are too stupid to make their own choices, under the banner of 'post-truth politics'. This book offered a succinct account of the history of democracy in the US and UK, coupled with poetic quotes from philosophers from Plato, Socrates, Spinoza, Locke to Kant.
Perhaps the most memorable is the case against technocracy underpinning the whole institution of EU, at its crux the maxim 'better leave it to the experts'. To that Hume presented this quote by Moses Finley, 'When I charter a vessel or buy passage on one, I leave it to the captain, the expert, to navigate it - but I decide where I want to go, not the captain'.
My only complaints are that the arguments are repetitive at times, and not convincing enough on the issue of the rise of far-right populism, which is precisely what got people on their toes.
January 8, 2021
Has been on my shelf basically since it came out and now I am honestly upset I ever helped push up the sales numbers of this and contributed to the earnings. Can't even believe I made it through this ridiculous rant defending right wing democracy, disregarding the idea of liberal constitutionalism in favor of majority rule. Today, 3 years on since this writing, it seems even more silly and out of touch considering the evolution which has taken place in the political arena and the world's challenges - the extreme harm which can be caused by the peddled narrative that academics can't be trusted has been exposed in the covid cirsis and Trump's graceless defeat and his supporters actions in Washington have shown how it actually isn't that hard to distinguish between free speech and inciting of violence and hate crimes. Big surprise there....
May 23, 2017
If you are interested in democracy and what democracy actually means, then this is the book for you. It not only gives a brief history of democracy, but it explains why democracy hasn't actually been as popular as we thought it would be. For those who feel that democracy doesn't work for them, then they should read this book to understand what democracy actually means and what an lack of democracy really is! So many have fought and died for the right of every citizen to have a vote. If we do not continue to treasure this, then we will lose it as there are those for whom democracy is inconvenient.
January 18, 2019
I voted to leave the EU because having learned about what that institution stands for I realise that nothing is greater than the struggle to maintain our (Great Britain) right to self-determination. This book expands on that historical struggle we Brits have have throughout history. Mick Hume covers briefly the Levellers and the Suffrage movement. Reading this really opened my eyes to the controls put on our learning of our own struggles for democracy - that's a terrible sentence but hopefully you get the idea.
In a nutshell - if you're left wing and you voted to leave the EU this book is perfect for expounding on the reasons we wither intrinsically know, or instinctually know. If you're left wing and voted to remain in the EU, this book will give you insight into how left wing people like me, and I imagine Mick Hume, voted to abandon the European Union.
In a nutshell - if you're left wing and you voted to leave the EU this book is perfect for expounding on the reasons we wither intrinsically know, or instinctually know. If you're left wing and voted to remain in the EU, this book will give you insight into how left wing people like me, and I imagine Mick Hume, voted to abandon the European Union.
November 2, 2020
I enjoyed this book. The democracy we see today is being often abandoned to experts.
Reading this during the corona virus outbreak in 2020 this book highlighted how mick Hume is correctly reading this phenomenon. Seeing the UK government being taken to task over bypassing parliamentary process and trying to dictate without debate sums up his points that the elite political members have a distaste for the plebs.
Brexit also was an example of this.
Real well researched book with views that made me think.
I like this author and his other book also made me think.
Reading this during the corona virus outbreak in 2020 this book highlighted how mick Hume is correctly reading this phenomenon. Seeing the UK government being taken to task over bypassing parliamentary process and trying to dictate without debate sums up his points that the elite political members have a distaste for the plebs.
Brexit also was an example of this.
Real well researched book with views that made me think.
I like this author and his other book also made me think.
May 7, 2017
A very good analysis on the roots of discontent of large parts of the Western World's population and Mick Hume also draws the right conclusions on the undemocratic EU (5 stars). Unfortunately, this is spoiled by a very one sided view on the societies' elites by blaming everything that went wrong in the past centuries on them - even the raise of Hitler - where apparently the rest of the population is who supported the Nazis are excused!
September 13, 2019
At last.
A good honest appraisal of where we stand today. I have been worried for sometime about developments between Britain and the EU. The book encapsulates the way I feel about our logical class regards the electorate. The sight of Emily Thorjberry looking down her nose at the question time audience speaks volumes.
A good honest appraisal of where we stand today. I have been worried for sometime about developments between Britain and the EU. The book encapsulates the way I feel about our logical class regards the electorate. The sight of Emily Thorjberry looking down her nose at the question time audience speaks volumes.
February 4, 2018
It's an exploration of how our democracies are becoming less democratic and explores what changes we would have to make to stop that process. It also examines what stances are essentially undemocratic and why having a negative result of a vote isn't enough reason to doubt democracy.
April 15, 2020
Succinct arguments and very readable layout.
Though already of a similar opinion to which the author sets out, his case for voting in favour of Brexit is pretty compelling, and it is a good read for anybody somewhat antagonised by our current political climate/debate
Though already of a similar opinion to which the author sets out, his case for voting in favour of Brexit is pretty compelling, and it is a good read for anybody somewhat antagonised by our current political climate/debate
July 6, 2021
Mick Hume sets out the anti-democratic impulse lay behind the elite's reaction to the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump's election. It is disdain for the ordinary man or woman in the street. A disdain that is shredding the Labour Party's vote in the UK.
February 2, 2019
Predictable . Boring
December 25, 2019
Could barely go past 20 pages, dragged myself to 100 but godddd what a disastrous read. Do not recommend.
May 6, 2020
Excellent Read
Well worth a read for those of us who are not blinded by Politicians and brainwashed by the media. We all need to think for ourselves.
Well worth a read for those of us who are not blinded by Politicians and brainwashed by the media. We all need to think for ourselves.
September 19, 2022
Not bad, many good and clear analyses of the liberal response to the Trump election and Brexit. I would almost recommend this book, but Mick really goes the extra mile with drilling the same few core ideas into your skull. Especially annoying, the last chapter sees Mick completely patronize the reader with a cringeworthy political acrostic spelling out the meaning of democratic freedom. Not recommended.
May 16, 2017
Indeed a revolting book. The author is trying to justify the Brexit referendum and Trump victory as the rise of true democracy. He berates all intellectuals, think tanks, experts, stars opposing Breuer and Trump as pompous elitist forces who cannot accept the ordinary majority rejection of their informed advice. All Brexit and Trump supporters should definitely read this book while all Remain and anti-Trump supporters should avoid wasting their time and money on this one as it will only make their blood boil.
Read
June 23, 2017A well researched and interesting read.
I enjoyed this book and it made me think differently about some of my own views, however I did find it quite 'negative' on some of the arguments. This may seem obvious when the author is arguing against but it didn't seem quite right when they continue on the ideas and principles of 'experts, free press and making up your mind'. I did agree with a lot mentioned and made me think differently. Good read
I enjoyed this book and it made me think differently about some of my own views, however I did find it quite 'negative' on some of the arguments. This may seem obvious when the author is arguing against but it didn't seem quite right when they continue on the ideas and principles of 'experts, free press and making up your mind'. I did agree with a lot mentioned and made me think differently. Good read
June 25, 2018
The author delivers on his core ideas, often in a deeply biased way. Failing to mention the 3 million+ people that weren't allowed to vote in the UK Brexit referendum isn't a mistake, it's a deliberate ommission to support his views that the vote was fair and square. This one point, alongside a full chapter dedicated to his dislike of the EU, tarnishes a series of valid points for popular democracy (namely on the electoral college in the US and the
history of anti-democray).
This specific choice puts him in the same 'Some people are more equal than others' bucket as people he so obviously disagrees with. All in all, a read that could have been really insightful if it had a non-partisan view on the topic. Overall, it's an ineffective demonstration.
history of anti-democray).
This specific choice puts him in the same 'Some people are more equal than others' bucket as people he so obviously disagrees with. All in all, a read that could have been really insightful if it had a non-partisan view on the topic. Overall, it's an ineffective demonstration.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews