Politics
Damn Stats & Lies!
16/05/17 16:13
There seems to be a placid acceptance of the ‘economic argument’ for staying in the EU and stats are often trotted out to support this and rarely challenged. We all know it’s very hard to know everything and be sure of your stats just in terms of numbers, let alone being able to juggle them to counter others that are thrown at you. Accordingly they are often effective sucker punches for all politicians but equally toxic to them when used correctly as in the sad case of Diane Abbott.
Let’s be clear, the EU is not a booming economic zone. Only Antarctica are doing worse. When we joined the EEC it was 30% with better access to the rest of the world and their relative success it’s down to more like 17% now and will probably be less than 10% within a decade regardless of Brexit. 44% of our trade is often quoted to hinge on the EU market. Putting aside the amount of business that only passes through the EU on the way to somewhere else this is actually only a proportion of exports rather than the whole economy. More like 44% of a third of the economy rather than the whole of it. Still, not entirely insignificant but you have to remember we are paying a lot to be a member of this exclusive, protectionist club but is it paying off very well? The UK economy is as big as the smallest 20 in the EU combined. Also the six biggest exporters into the EU are not actually members of the EU, their trade might suffer by the imposition on tariffs but it obviously isn’t an insurmountable issue.
Around 90% of the world are not in the EU either. The EU has managed to reach trade deals with them so we can deal with them as well possibly as we might be able to outside of the EU but those not falling into that category we have no choice but to pay more for. A hard Brexit might make German cars 10% more expensive but Japanese ones will benefit from an equal reduction. There’s no doubt there’s an issue of scale. In terms of immigration the EU attracts about a third as many UK nationals as the UK manages to attract to move from the EU. There’s a similar ratio on jobs - 1.5 million in the UK rely on the EU but 5 million in the EU rely on the UK. We run a huge budget deficit to earn the nickname of ‘Treasure Island’ and are the biggest market for many sectors like German cars. It’s true the EU is bigger despite the size and importance of the UK but still it is very significant for their economy however they try to play down our importance. They are important to us, but we are very important to them also.
The other aspect that is often overlooked is that the whole of the UK economy is required to adhere to EU law but only around 10% trade with the EU and actually gain a benefit by doing so. The rest have to stick to the rules for no reason at all aside from sticking to the rules to give the 10% access. The removal of this red tape will only help business flourish when they are freed from this unnecessary admin. All this in a hope it redresses the balance a little bit. Naturally trade is good for everyone, but the EU desperately needs to find a way to work with it’s biggest and closest customer after Brexit.
Let’s be clear, the EU is not a booming economic zone. Only Antarctica are doing worse. When we joined the EEC it was 30% with better access to the rest of the world and their relative success it’s down to more like 17% now and will probably be less than 10% within a decade regardless of Brexit. 44% of our trade is often quoted to hinge on the EU market. Putting aside the amount of business that only passes through the EU on the way to somewhere else this is actually only a proportion of exports rather than the whole economy. More like 44% of a third of the economy rather than the whole of it. Still, not entirely insignificant but you have to remember we are paying a lot to be a member of this exclusive, protectionist club but is it paying off very well? The UK economy is as big as the smallest 20 in the EU combined. Also the six biggest exporters into the EU are not actually members of the EU, their trade might suffer by the imposition on tariffs but it obviously isn’t an insurmountable issue.
Around 90% of the world are not in the EU either. The EU has managed to reach trade deals with them so we can deal with them as well possibly as we might be able to outside of the EU but those not falling into that category we have no choice but to pay more for. A hard Brexit might make German cars 10% more expensive but Japanese ones will benefit from an equal reduction. There’s no doubt there’s an issue of scale. In terms of immigration the EU attracts about a third as many UK nationals as the UK manages to attract to move from the EU. There’s a similar ratio on jobs - 1.5 million in the UK rely on the EU but 5 million in the EU rely on the UK. We run a huge budget deficit to earn the nickname of ‘Treasure Island’ and are the biggest market for many sectors like German cars. It’s true the EU is bigger despite the size and importance of the UK but still it is very significant for their economy however they try to play down our importance. They are important to us, but we are very important to them also.
The other aspect that is often overlooked is that the whole of the UK economy is required to adhere to EU law but only around 10% trade with the EU and actually gain a benefit by doing so. The rest have to stick to the rules for no reason at all aside from sticking to the rules to give the 10% access. The removal of this red tape will only help business flourish when they are freed from this unnecessary admin. All this in a hope it redresses the balance a little bit. Naturally trade is good for everyone, but the EU desperately needs to find a way to work with it’s biggest and closest customer after Brexit.
The Enemy Within
30/03/17 14:52
We are now finally negotiating with the EU. All you hear from some people is what a bad deal we will get and how we should give away everything and ask nothing in return. Then how bad it will be... yes, if you were doing the negotiations I am sure it will be. These people really are the enemy within.
It’s perfectly ok to have the debate and a vote by all means, but when they then argue constantly against their own countries interests and try to constantly materially undermine it, you have to wonder where they are coming from. IMHO it explains a lot and shows that their original position is actually a reflection of whose side they are on rather than what is actually best for us. There's a big difference between arguing for what we should want from a negotiation and actually spending all your time and effort arguing FOR the position of those you are going to negotiate with. It'd be like Brexiteers arguing for a 'worse' EU so that it fails and people vote out rather than constantly trying to reform it because they didn't like it. All sides should want the best possible outcome for Europe, the UK and the world. Argue for what you want for sure, but when you're actually arguing against your country for some strange misplaced guilt, just just to win an argument you already lost or something, then it's verging on treason. I honestly think a fair proportion of remoaners are literally brainwashed and genuinely believe that the UK cannot survive outside the EU. That the EU knows what is best for the UK and is trying to do that more than we could for ourselves. For some unfathomable reason their loyalties lie with the EU and not their country. But not one of them can adequately explain to me why the hell this would be.
It’s perfectly ok to have the debate and a vote by all means, but when they then argue constantly against their own countries interests and try to constantly materially undermine it, you have to wonder where they are coming from. IMHO it explains a lot and shows that their original position is actually a reflection of whose side they are on rather than what is actually best for us. There's a big difference between arguing for what we should want from a negotiation and actually spending all your time and effort arguing FOR the position of those you are going to negotiate with. It'd be like Brexiteers arguing for a 'worse' EU so that it fails and people vote out rather than constantly trying to reform it because they didn't like it. All sides should want the best possible outcome for Europe, the UK and the world. Argue for what you want for sure, but when you're actually arguing against your country for some strange misplaced guilt, just just to win an argument you already lost or something, then it's verging on treason. I honestly think a fair proportion of remoaners are literally brainwashed and genuinely believe that the UK cannot survive outside the EU. That the EU knows what is best for the UK and is trying to do that more than we could for ourselves. For some unfathomable reason their loyalties lie with the EU and not their country. But not one of them can adequately explain to me why the hell this would be.
Genius Stupidity
13/03/17 22:16
His name is Clint, he calls himself Richard but to me he’ll always be a Dick. He might be a professor but Richard ‘Dick’ Dawkins is not very bright when it comes to his stance on Brexit. He displays all the intellectual depth of a puddle in the Sahara when he talks about how stupid the population were to vote for Brexit. The argument he puts forward is that the average person shouldn’t be able allowed to vote on something so complex, something apparently you need a PhD in economics to understand. He also claims that you need a two thirds majority on something so significant as Brexit.
So let’s think about this. Is it difficult to understand? Is it scientific? Quantitive or qualitative? He doesn’t have a clue. Certainly economics is extremely complicated but, like the vote itself, it’s colored by the prevailing ‘mood of the people’. Everyone knows about supply and demand and that something is worth ‘what someone will pay for it’ don’t they? Apparently not Dick. No. He thinks you can just ‘know enough’ to have the right answer. Why aside from the obvious - what about all the predictions of a meltdown pre-Brexit by the great and the good? Open your eyes Dick! OK, make the excuses. It hasn’t happened yet, etc. Sure. I heard all these qualifications pre-vote when tempering the fear with any reasonable considerations would not really ‘work’ would it? Nope, not a dickie bird. The fact is you can create very complicated models to try and predict the future but ultimately it comes down to people, just like the stock market. You can make more informed guesses of course but Dick would be able to make a fortune in his imagined world of economic certainty. This is self evident.
Secondly many economists with PhDs saw the benefit of Brexit for economic reasons alone, although it isn’t just about economics anyway. Quality of life comes into the equation and more widely issues of sovereignty that you cannot factor into any economic model. You’re a clever chap aren’t you Dick? Did you really think it was only about the complex economy? Is that all you thought about when making your arrogant proclamations? Back to those pessimistic economic models too. Whenever you run a model you have to make assumptions about a huge number of factors. Your point of view will have a HUGE impact on the the results you get. One of the main models that predicted assuming that the government would do nothing to respond to anything that happened in the economy and created a recession on the back of two consecutive quarters (I think it is) of negative growth of just 0.1%. The smallest possible margin. Basically making the model say exactly what you want and believe and then tweaking it to make the result appear as bad as it could possibly be. A minute tweak somewhere and recession would not enter into the equation. It’s not to say that any model can’t work and the assumptions cannot be fair and reasonable but they will be the result of the opinion of the person making them, however qualified. Dick Hawkins is supposed to be clever but he clearly hasn’t got a clue about the basics of economics and as for democracy…
Despite all his reservations about the requirement for qualifications to be able to make a decision on a very complex matter on purely economic terms what is his solution? That if there was a 3/3rds majority it would be OK? Seriously? So if there are enough stupid people then your initial point is moot? What an idiot. He can’t make the most simple point without putting forward two totally contradictory arguments. He certainly shouldn’t have voted leave. He lacks the balls, common sense or ability to consider the bigger issues of the day and the sentiment of the people. He’s an old enough person to have had time to figure this out for himself but he’s obviously a bit slow in addition to having a complete lack of self-awareness.
Lord protect us for simpletons like Dick Dawkins. Stick to what you know Clint. Whatever I think about your views on Brexit you picked the perfect name out of all those available though Dick.
So let’s think about this. Is it difficult to understand? Is it scientific? Quantitive or qualitative? He doesn’t have a clue. Certainly economics is extremely complicated but, like the vote itself, it’s colored by the prevailing ‘mood of the people’. Everyone knows about supply and demand and that something is worth ‘what someone will pay for it’ don’t they? Apparently not Dick. No. He thinks you can just ‘know enough’ to have the right answer. Why aside from the obvious - what about all the predictions of a meltdown pre-Brexit by the great and the good? Open your eyes Dick! OK, make the excuses. It hasn’t happened yet, etc. Sure. I heard all these qualifications pre-vote when tempering the fear with any reasonable considerations would not really ‘work’ would it? Nope, not a dickie bird. The fact is you can create very complicated models to try and predict the future but ultimately it comes down to people, just like the stock market. You can make more informed guesses of course but Dick would be able to make a fortune in his imagined world of economic certainty. This is self evident.
Secondly many economists with PhDs saw the benefit of Brexit for economic reasons alone, although it isn’t just about economics anyway. Quality of life comes into the equation and more widely issues of sovereignty that you cannot factor into any economic model. You’re a clever chap aren’t you Dick? Did you really think it was only about the complex economy? Is that all you thought about when making your arrogant proclamations? Back to those pessimistic economic models too. Whenever you run a model you have to make assumptions about a huge number of factors. Your point of view will have a HUGE impact on the the results you get. One of the main models that predicted assuming that the government would do nothing to respond to anything that happened in the economy and created a recession on the back of two consecutive quarters (I think it is) of negative growth of just 0.1%. The smallest possible margin. Basically making the model say exactly what you want and believe and then tweaking it to make the result appear as bad as it could possibly be. A minute tweak somewhere and recession would not enter into the equation. It’s not to say that any model can’t work and the assumptions cannot be fair and reasonable but they will be the result of the opinion of the person making them, however qualified. Dick Hawkins is supposed to be clever but he clearly hasn’t got a clue about the basics of economics and as for democracy…
Despite all his reservations about the requirement for qualifications to be able to make a decision on a very complex matter on purely economic terms what is his solution? That if there was a 3/3rds majority it would be OK? Seriously? So if there are enough stupid people then your initial point is moot? What an idiot. He can’t make the most simple point without putting forward two totally contradictory arguments. He certainly shouldn’t have voted leave. He lacks the balls, common sense or ability to consider the bigger issues of the day and the sentiment of the people. He’s an old enough person to have had time to figure this out for himself but he’s obviously a bit slow in addition to having a complete lack of self-awareness.
Lord protect us for simpletons like Dick Dawkins. Stick to what you know Clint. Whatever I think about your views on Brexit you picked the perfect name out of all those available though Dick.
Confused Democracy
12/03/17 17:18
What is democracy again? I forget. Or at least I’m having trouble remembering because of all the different interpretations of what it’s apparently about that suddenly seem to be all the vogue.
We all got the German-printed pamphlet we paid nearly £10m of our money to tell us what we were voting for and which way to vote and it was pretty clear. There was no mention of advisory, no one heard of Gina Miller or her very fine tuned sense of what is right and her inability to ‘cross the road’ and ignore any injustice. She had to intervene again and again, ultimately achieving nothing of course. Apparently there had never been anything in the decades previously that had shown up on her fine tuned radar apparently.
Hearing Tim Farron whine on about ‘not knowing the destination’ yet like a spoilt brat on the back seat of your car week after week was positively nausiating. We voted out. We elected our government to give us that choice and then see it through. We can give Timmy his vote. It’ll be a vote to go to the seaside whether or not the sun is shining or turn around the car and go back home, aka a hard Brexit, if he can’t behave and stick to what we agreed.
Brexit has revealed that there some very different ideas of what democracy is. It has revealed that these days people only expect the answer they want to hear and cannot accept anything else. I dread to think the response to the next election if it wasn’t going to be such a walkover.
We all got the German-printed pamphlet we paid nearly £10m of our money to tell us what we were voting for and which way to vote and it was pretty clear. There was no mention of advisory, no one heard of Gina Miller or her very fine tuned sense of what is right and her inability to ‘cross the road’ and ignore any injustice. She had to intervene again and again, ultimately achieving nothing of course. Apparently there had never been anything in the decades previously that had shown up on her fine tuned radar apparently.
Hearing Tim Farron whine on about ‘not knowing the destination’ yet like a spoilt brat on the back seat of your car week after week was positively nausiating. We voted out. We elected our government to give us that choice and then see it through. We can give Timmy his vote. It’ll be a vote to go to the seaside whether or not the sun is shining or turn around the car and go back home, aka a hard Brexit, if he can’t behave and stick to what we agreed.
Brexit has revealed that there some very different ideas of what democracy is. It has revealed that these days people only expect the answer they want to hear and cannot accept anything else. I dread to think the response to the next election if it wasn’t going to be such a walkover.
Equality? Sometimes...
22/02/17 18:17
I am all for inclusivity and equality. The big problem with it is that it often isn’t paired with a sense of proportionality and common sense. By all means fight for equality when it genuinely doesn’t exist but once you achieve your aim know when you have done it and avoid going too far any undermining the key principle you have established - that we are all equal. It’s perfectly understandable that after working so hard for victory you might be prone to some unnecessary ‘over celebrating’ as you have put so much effort into your victory. When you score a goal the best advice is always to play everything safe, don’t get over excited and give away a goal as it’s then that you are also at your most vulnerable. The point is the tail mustn’t start to think it can wag the dog.
There’s no doubt there have been huge strides in sex, race and social equality in recent years, much of which was necessary. It needed to happen and the job isn’t done. The point is that whilst we are all equal, we are not the same. Perversely this is actually the whole argument that is being made. Where it goes wrong is when you forget you are not fighting for a side but for all of us. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, not because of any issue other than my belief that that is not what marriage is actually about. By all means have the same ‘service’ available and allow the same legal rights and so forth but not in any way to seek to alter a traditional church marriage. That should remain exactly how it is but variations and options providing the same result should be provided as to exclude no one. No one at all. The previous status quo shouldn’t be removed for the sake of progress. The same with sex definition. Of course there should be acceptance of every scenario but the idea that this has to go hand in hand with an exclusion of any common sense and a demand for multiple public toilets to be provided to every possible variation is crazy. It makes a spectacle of a person rather than normalizing them in my opinion.
That woman who spent years pretending to be black and campaigning for black rights is now coming out with the idea that race is actually something that can be equally as fluid as sex apparently. I don’t know. Where do you draw the line? The argument, which I buy into, is you are born ‘the way you are’ and you do not choose. You feel like you should be the other sex or gay, but not the right race too? You can be whatever you feel? Sex and sexual preference I can understand but surely being black or white or whatever? Isn’t the whole point supposed to be when it comes to that that we are all the same. You are what you are, it’s the same, equal, defines nothing about you any more than your height or hair color. Maybe next we will have short people demanding to be tall as they were ‘born tall’ really. The other thing is where people expect and demand every walk of life to be equal. The same numbers of every category of person in every profession. Firstly it’ll never happen, secondly there are biological and cultural reasons why people might be more suited to different jobs. Just make sure there are no barriers, but vive la difference after that surely, again the whole point. It drives me nuts that people constantly complain about there being too few black football mangers. If there was any manager who is qualified to win more games then they will get the job. Prejudices go out of the window completely in this area more than any other when it comes to success in sport. Show me examples of successful black mangers getting sacked or overlooked when winning games and I will adjust my opinion. The greatest ever manager might be around the corner and might just as likely be black but there just haven’t been too many successful so far. Who knows the reason it might be, be are all equal, but not the same and maybe this is just one of those weird quirks.
Whenever these subjects need to be addressed I’d like to see more emphasis on the basic idea we are all equal and different rather than just the same, which we are not and should be celebrated. Education is the basis for all progress in these matters and it’s important that that remains at the core rather than the dogma of zealous campaigning that might well have been necessary in the past.
There’s no doubt there have been huge strides in sex, race and social equality in recent years, much of which was necessary. It needed to happen and the job isn’t done. The point is that whilst we are all equal, we are not the same. Perversely this is actually the whole argument that is being made. Where it goes wrong is when you forget you are not fighting for a side but for all of us. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, not because of any issue other than my belief that that is not what marriage is actually about. By all means have the same ‘service’ available and allow the same legal rights and so forth but not in any way to seek to alter a traditional church marriage. That should remain exactly how it is but variations and options providing the same result should be provided as to exclude no one. No one at all. The previous status quo shouldn’t be removed for the sake of progress. The same with sex definition. Of course there should be acceptance of every scenario but the idea that this has to go hand in hand with an exclusion of any common sense and a demand for multiple public toilets to be provided to every possible variation is crazy. It makes a spectacle of a person rather than normalizing them in my opinion.
That woman who spent years pretending to be black and campaigning for black rights is now coming out with the idea that race is actually something that can be equally as fluid as sex apparently. I don’t know. Where do you draw the line? The argument, which I buy into, is you are born ‘the way you are’ and you do not choose. You feel like you should be the other sex or gay, but not the right race too? You can be whatever you feel? Sex and sexual preference I can understand but surely being black or white or whatever? Isn’t the whole point supposed to be when it comes to that that we are all the same. You are what you are, it’s the same, equal, defines nothing about you any more than your height or hair color. Maybe next we will have short people demanding to be tall as they were ‘born tall’ really. The other thing is where people expect and demand every walk of life to be equal. The same numbers of every category of person in every profession. Firstly it’ll never happen, secondly there are biological and cultural reasons why people might be more suited to different jobs. Just make sure there are no barriers, but vive la difference after that surely, again the whole point. It drives me nuts that people constantly complain about there being too few black football mangers. If there was any manager who is qualified to win more games then they will get the job. Prejudices go out of the window completely in this area more than any other when it comes to success in sport. Show me examples of successful black mangers getting sacked or overlooked when winning games and I will adjust my opinion. The greatest ever manager might be around the corner and might just as likely be black but there just haven’t been too many successful so far. Who knows the reason it might be, be are all equal, but not the same and maybe this is just one of those weird quirks.
Whenever these subjects need to be addressed I’d like to see more emphasis on the basic idea we are all equal and different rather than just the same, which we are not and should be celebrated. Education is the basis for all progress in these matters and it’s important that that remains at the core rather than the dogma of zealous campaigning that might well have been necessary in the past.
Canada - Explain that to me again...
07/02/17 18:13
The EU was absolutely cock-a-hoop to finally manage to tie up a trade deal with Canada after 6 years or so, or was it more? They did finally do it, they had to, just about at the 11th hour. Well done. Canada is a significant trade partner but not one of the big 5 outside the EU. A group that the UK would soon be entering and no doubt be courted with similar vigor and on similar terms if not far more attractive ones bearing in mind not only its size and history but also proximity and potential as a ‘gateway’ to the rest of the world post-Brexit surely… No?
No. Apparently not. We have to be ‘punished’. We have to pay a huge fee to leave this club event though we’ve been one of very few paying into it for 40 years. How does that work? In what world would you accept this sort of ‘deal’? Having been one of three who have financially propped up the whole of the rest of the EU for decades you can certainly understand the fear about losing this particular contributor to the gravy train. You can even understand that there might need to be some payments to complete some schemes that still make sense to all involved and can be agreed to continue beyond the duration of full EU membership expiring. However to imagine that the recipient of such huge investment over so many decades should be given a huge bill as a parting gift is surely spectacularly misjudged. Far from accepting any ‘bill’ we should be awaiting an offer to repay the capital investment made by the UK that we will no longer be able to enjoy in the long run.
What sense is there in being so keen on a deal with Canada but so dead set against the idea of trying to work with what will be your biggest single market once they leave your club. The lesson will be learned one way or another. It might be bitter or sweet but whichever way they take it the EU will get the worse of it. Hopefully they see sense and both sides are able to make a success of Brexit. Only time will tell.
No. Apparently not. We have to be ‘punished’. We have to pay a huge fee to leave this club event though we’ve been one of very few paying into it for 40 years. How does that work? In what world would you accept this sort of ‘deal’? Having been one of three who have financially propped up the whole of the rest of the EU for decades you can certainly understand the fear about losing this particular contributor to the gravy train. You can even understand that there might need to be some payments to complete some schemes that still make sense to all involved and can be agreed to continue beyond the duration of full EU membership expiring. However to imagine that the recipient of such huge investment over so many decades should be given a huge bill as a parting gift is surely spectacularly misjudged. Far from accepting any ‘bill’ we should be awaiting an offer to repay the capital investment made by the UK that we will no longer be able to enjoy in the long run.
What sense is there in being so keen on a deal with Canada but so dead set against the idea of trying to work with what will be your biggest single market once they leave your club. The lesson will be learned one way or another. It might be bitter or sweet but whichever way they take it the EU will get the worse of it. Hopefully they see sense and both sides are able to make a success of Brexit. Only time will tell.
Stages of Brexit Grief?
09/08/16 18:13
The stages of grief are well known. We had no idea the stages of Brexit would be quite so uniform and take quite so long to play out as has proven to be the case! Almost 9 months later and Article 50 is still not triggered and Tim Farron and his band of morons are still trying to delay the inevitable. They still can’t seem to move on. The more enlightened Liberals who have had the sense to accept the result have however spoken a lot of sense in moving forward even if their premise and starting point might be a polar opposite of my own. I believe there is a sensible, mutually beneficial middle ground for all political hues if your motives really are positive. Farron is the worst kind of remoaner. A whining weasel of a ‘man’ (barely, more a boy) he has achieved little politically and his moral compass is now set to subterranean climes trying to bottom feed and scoop up the most self-deluded and simple minded voters who are just looking for someone to give us another vote to ‘get it right’. Farron, with no alternative, is all over this. He makes Nick Clegg look… OK maybe not quite, but he’s cut from the same self-serving political snake oil salesman mold as he hero. Shame on him. People shouldn’t take him seriously, he doesn’t take them seriously. The things he spouts. People should just point and laugh at this village idiot when they see him. He is irrelevant and it’s only British manners that give him any airtime. If we must then let’s laugh at him. How he has the gall to throw stones at the likes of Farage and call them names? No idea. This is someone who needs a dose of reality, the result of a life of patronizing ‘yes dear’ acceptance. He needs to be told we all know what he’s doing and why. He should crawl back under the stone he crawled out from. Stop and save him from himself. Aside from anything else, as they say, not telling him is simply unkind. He is currently missing out on the biggest joke of the century.
In an era missing the likes of Benn Snr and Galloway we have people like him and Jezza. It’s really not good for British Politics as a whole and that is more important than the undoubtable comedy value.
In an era missing the likes of Benn Snr and Galloway we have people like him and Jezza. It’s really not good for British Politics as a whole and that is more important than the undoubtable comedy value.
Bye bye Dave - traitor!
01/07/16 23:00
I always quite liked David Cameron. He might not have been an intellectual heavyweight or very convincing conviction politician but he was a safe pair of hands and pretty slick. I was very much on his side. However I think he made a grave mistake the way he handled Brexit. Not only for the sake of the country but also his own career. He made a spectacular miscalculation and paid for it with his job and the outcome he never wanted thrown in.
He had to call for the referendum. UKIP forced that upon him. He had no choice. Half the people of Europe were against the EU, maybe more. Democracy had to be seen to be done and he thought he could win in any case. He had won another election against the odds and was riding on the crest of a wave. What could possibly stop him? He made all the right noises but was very Pro-EU, no doubt he could see the gravy train heading on a useful route for him in the near future having already said this would be his last term. He did accept there were challenges and the EU needed reform, but we were influential and maybe the unrest caused by UKIP and the upcoming vote could help him get a ‘better deal’ from the EU into the bargain as well. This was a win-win for Dave. What could possibly go wrong?
For me his first mistake was to go around Europe with his cap in hand asking for very, very modest concessions and getting far less. He returned like Neville Chamberlin waving his own piece of paper and no one was impressed in the slightest. Far from bolstering his argument he undermined it and proved just how little influence we had and how little the EU machine valued their second biggest financial contributor. As I had always believed we were taken very much for granted. As the rich fool who didn’t want to rock the boat whilst the Germans and French used their positions to build their industrial base and protect their farmers respectively. We were the nice retirement home, the place people could always escape to if necessary and get looked after if they were to suffer ill health. We would not vote to leave the club. Dave would do his bit and his friends would all scare us to death. We wouldn’t dare vote to leave.
Secondly I believe Dave should have acted far more as an even handed broker. This way he could have still discussed both sides of the argument without nailing his colours to the mast and tie his own future to a particular outcome one way or another. Why he didn’t do this I don’t know. If he thought he could lose I am sure he might have taken this option. He must have been so cock sure that he didn’t think it was necessary. He also would have had far more chance of gaining concessions from his Euro-Pals if he had any idea how to negotiate - more of this later - but he was already ‘all in’ and had nowhere to go. But he had his team behind him. Boris, etc. Only that swivel-eyed, racist Farage to worry about. When the worm turned, for whatever reason, the task was far tougher than it would have been with the backing of the universally popular Boris Johnson - but by then it was too late to change tack.
The worst thing however was the betrayal of the British people and his immediate resignation within days of the result. He had promised to stay. Many on both sides hoped he would and I felt myself he should carry through the wishes of the people as he had promised. He went and soon resigned as an MP too. That was his end. One he could hardly have predicted but largely deserved for failing so spectacularly with Brexit. He let the country down not once, not twice but thrice. Ironically his failure was one of the few things that people on both sides agreed upon. If he were a bigger man maybe he could have carried through his responsibilities as he promised. Stories about his motives appeared in the press. Surely it can’t be true that he was simply passing the buck and giving someone else the headache on triggering Article 50 which we are now just starting to hear about for the first time? Months later it looks very, very like this was precisely the plan and he sacrificed himself as a final card to maybe dodge democracy and allow the UK to remain in the EU Dream State. Let’s hope it’s the final error he will have made…
He had to call for the referendum. UKIP forced that upon him. He had no choice. Half the people of Europe were against the EU, maybe more. Democracy had to be seen to be done and he thought he could win in any case. He had won another election against the odds and was riding on the crest of a wave. What could possibly stop him? He made all the right noises but was very Pro-EU, no doubt he could see the gravy train heading on a useful route for him in the near future having already said this would be his last term. He did accept there were challenges and the EU needed reform, but we were influential and maybe the unrest caused by UKIP and the upcoming vote could help him get a ‘better deal’ from the EU into the bargain as well. This was a win-win for Dave. What could possibly go wrong?
For me his first mistake was to go around Europe with his cap in hand asking for very, very modest concessions and getting far less. He returned like Neville Chamberlin waving his own piece of paper and no one was impressed in the slightest. Far from bolstering his argument he undermined it and proved just how little influence we had and how little the EU machine valued their second biggest financial contributor. As I had always believed we were taken very much for granted. As the rich fool who didn’t want to rock the boat whilst the Germans and French used their positions to build their industrial base and protect their farmers respectively. We were the nice retirement home, the place people could always escape to if necessary and get looked after if they were to suffer ill health. We would not vote to leave the club. Dave would do his bit and his friends would all scare us to death. We wouldn’t dare vote to leave.
Secondly I believe Dave should have acted far more as an even handed broker. This way he could have still discussed both sides of the argument without nailing his colours to the mast and tie his own future to a particular outcome one way or another. Why he didn’t do this I don’t know. If he thought he could lose I am sure he might have taken this option. He must have been so cock sure that he didn’t think it was necessary. He also would have had far more chance of gaining concessions from his Euro-Pals if he had any idea how to negotiate - more of this later - but he was already ‘all in’ and had nowhere to go. But he had his team behind him. Boris, etc. Only that swivel-eyed, racist Farage to worry about. When the worm turned, for whatever reason, the task was far tougher than it would have been with the backing of the universally popular Boris Johnson - but by then it was too late to change tack.
The worst thing however was the betrayal of the British people and his immediate resignation within days of the result. He had promised to stay. Many on both sides hoped he would and I felt myself he should carry through the wishes of the people as he had promised. He went and soon resigned as an MP too. That was his end. One he could hardly have predicted but largely deserved for failing so spectacularly with Brexit. He let the country down not once, not twice but thrice. Ironically his failure was one of the few things that people on both sides agreed upon. If he were a bigger man maybe he could have carried through his responsibilities as he promised. Stories about his motives appeared in the press. Surely it can’t be true that he was simply passing the buck and giving someone else the headache on triggering Article 50 which we are now just starting to hear about for the first time? Months later it looks very, very like this was precisely the plan and he sacrificed himself as a final card to maybe dodge democracy and allow the UK to remain in the EU Dream State. Let’s hope it’s the final error he will have made…
23rd June 2016 - Independence Day
27/06/16 18:13
2016 was a bad year. Not many things i want to remember the year for, Byron did well in his GCSEs but not much else apart from Brexit. I hadn’t really expected it, no one did, it wasn’t really in the script. Everything was against it happening. The Establishment had been out in force, bullying anyone who was stupid enough to not listen to the ‘experts’. Throwing around terms like racists and ‘Little Englanders’ even though there was no basis for even considering these as there was no race issue and the UK rather than England was voting. The accepted wisdom was that it would never happen and that it was ‘stupid’ to vote Leave even though I had never heard any decent argument for it.
I never had any doubt. The Common Market made sense and was broadly a good idea to give Europe some easy ‘unity’. Although it was falsely sold to us in the seventies and became something that no one would vote for, everyone admits desperately needs reform and is going in the wrong direction relentlessly. However everything I ever heard about the EU reinforced the view that it was an ever-more failing institution, only existing for its own benefit. The opportunity to have a vote on what we got rather than what we had been promised was finally going to be given to us. I had no doubt how I felt but was amazed but how many seemed to ‘Love EU’ without knowing why. I would ask, but I never got any answer really, just vague ideas about being ‘better off’ that always struck me as somewhat incompatible with the generally left-wing narrative that seemed to accompany this justification. Ultimately I think it was years of brainwashing, a total lack of imagination, wit or bravery and a simple laziness to consider any change versus the status quo. I think whilst this blind devotion is definitely the disease of the majority of remainers I later started to feel that there was actually something far more sinister under the surface.
In the months of debate leading up to the vote the well-argued and details points put forward to leave were only countered by derision, economic warnings from experts and ‘Project Fear’. There’s no doubt that the few who were doing well, big business and institutions not touched by the effects of mass, unchecked immigration and the total transformation of British Life could quite happily find reason not to rock the boat. The arguments were laid out at great length on both sides with the Remain side having everything very much in it’s favour. Not least the 9 million UKP booklet printed in Germany and promising the vote would be respected and acted upon which we later learned was another of the lies we were to be told. Whilst Nigel Farage was no doubt the architect of Brexit he was marginalized and seen as being ‘toxic’ by Vote Leave. However they were the ones to put the £350m could be spent on the NHS message on the bus that was later widely cited as the ‘lie’ that everyone stupidly believed. This was never said of course. The number was explained and only required the grasping of net and gross to understand it clearly. Why no one ever thought why any payment was necessary rather than quibble over understanding the amount I could never fully grasp. Project Fear however promised no less than an emergency budget, the biggest ever recession and World War III. None of which were delivered on time and although just about anything ‘iffy’ that has happened has been blamed on Brexit since, should any of these ever come to pass it will be something other than Brexit that was their cause. The exchange rate did adjust, far less than predicted, although this was used both as a justification of Brexit-fear and also an excuse for the subsequent economic boom that widely rated the UK as the World’s best performing economy in the 9 months and counting after Brexit. Big business had tried to stifle the ordinary people, the most disgusting embodiment of which was the merchant-bank-sponsored, foul mouthed rants of Geldof against the ordinary British fishermen on the Thames and the ill-conceived and demeaning ‘queue’ interjection by President Obama. The Establishment was rattled and it showed.
The night was amongst the most exciting of my life. Farage seemed to concede a harrow defeat straight after the polls had closed but the early results offered me immediate hope - most significantly the comfortable victory in Sunderland. More followed and before midnight I dared to believe the fairytale would come true. My plans to sleep went straight out of the window and I didn’t have a wink of sleep. The excitement grew and was capped off with Farage announcing victory for the ‘good, decent people’ and a new Independence Day in the early hours. Dimbleby admitted defeat and the day dawned on a new United Kingdom I thought I would never see again. I was physically elated the same way you are when your team wins a trophy, you become a dad or something of that magnitude. It was simply amazing and a massive, historical moment. A huge victory and justification of democracy against the odds. The quiet, informed majority had won. It felt great. I honestly thought the UK had ‘gone’. I had left the country a dozen years earlier because I thought it was doomed. I was so happy to have underestimated the Brits. I hope it ultimately saves not only us, but the whole of Europe from the EU machine.
I could just about have voted, but I didn’t. It wasn’t very easy to organize and what difference would my vote make anyway? I was very vocal in my support for Brexit but I didn’t vote for it, or Trump later in the year although in that case he was not my preference in any case in that Hobson’s Choice.
The morning didn’t only bring a new, free UK but also the slipping of the mask and a nastier side of people I really couldn’t imagine existed. To me entirely incompatible with the ‘nice’ facia presented. Now, uniformly the script was one of bitter defeat, denial and a barrage of insults from the vast majority of the ‘remoaners’. Anyone who supported Brexit was now openly called out as stupid, selfish and racist without there being any intellectually sustainable argument for this view beyond the vague idea that the few nasty people might have voted out simply to annoy the status quo. I am sure there were nasty, evil people that would be found on both sides - after the result though it was hard to see the wood for the trees. The bile was very much in one direction and with very little thought to back it up. A truly knee jerk reaction in every sense of the word.
In many ways the referendum was great. It was discussed exhaustively for as long as anyone could ever have wished. Although we were all bored with it we never heard about Article 50 or that it was only ‘advisory’. These were to follow… We also didn’t realize just how lose many people’s idea of respect for democracy would be or how low the bar was set to face being called something as heinous as a racist in such a modern, progressive society. Much of what was to follow only goes on to amaze and disappoint me further but more of that later. The thing we all agreed on is that Brexit was an issue that divided the country pretty much straight down the middle.
I never had any doubt. The Common Market made sense and was broadly a good idea to give Europe some easy ‘unity’. Although it was falsely sold to us in the seventies and became something that no one would vote for, everyone admits desperately needs reform and is going in the wrong direction relentlessly. However everything I ever heard about the EU reinforced the view that it was an ever-more failing institution, only existing for its own benefit. The opportunity to have a vote on what we got rather than what we had been promised was finally going to be given to us. I had no doubt how I felt but was amazed but how many seemed to ‘Love EU’ without knowing why. I would ask, but I never got any answer really, just vague ideas about being ‘better off’ that always struck me as somewhat incompatible with the generally left-wing narrative that seemed to accompany this justification. Ultimately I think it was years of brainwashing, a total lack of imagination, wit or bravery and a simple laziness to consider any change versus the status quo. I think whilst this blind devotion is definitely the disease of the majority of remainers I later started to feel that there was actually something far more sinister under the surface.
In the months of debate leading up to the vote the well-argued and details points put forward to leave were only countered by derision, economic warnings from experts and ‘Project Fear’. There’s no doubt that the few who were doing well, big business and institutions not touched by the effects of mass, unchecked immigration and the total transformation of British Life could quite happily find reason not to rock the boat. The arguments were laid out at great length on both sides with the Remain side having everything very much in it’s favour. Not least the 9 million UKP booklet printed in Germany and promising the vote would be respected and acted upon which we later learned was another of the lies we were to be told. Whilst Nigel Farage was no doubt the architect of Brexit he was marginalized and seen as being ‘toxic’ by Vote Leave. However they were the ones to put the £350m could be spent on the NHS message on the bus that was later widely cited as the ‘lie’ that everyone stupidly believed. This was never said of course. The number was explained and only required the grasping of net and gross to understand it clearly. Why no one ever thought why any payment was necessary rather than quibble over understanding the amount I could never fully grasp. Project Fear however promised no less than an emergency budget, the biggest ever recession and World War III. None of which were delivered on time and although just about anything ‘iffy’ that has happened has been blamed on Brexit since, should any of these ever come to pass it will be something other than Brexit that was their cause. The exchange rate did adjust, far less than predicted, although this was used both as a justification of Brexit-fear and also an excuse for the subsequent economic boom that widely rated the UK as the World’s best performing economy in the 9 months and counting after Brexit. Big business had tried to stifle the ordinary people, the most disgusting embodiment of which was the merchant-bank-sponsored, foul mouthed rants of Geldof against the ordinary British fishermen on the Thames and the ill-conceived and demeaning ‘queue’ interjection by President Obama. The Establishment was rattled and it showed.
The night was amongst the most exciting of my life. Farage seemed to concede a harrow defeat straight after the polls had closed but the early results offered me immediate hope - most significantly the comfortable victory in Sunderland. More followed and before midnight I dared to believe the fairytale would come true. My plans to sleep went straight out of the window and I didn’t have a wink of sleep. The excitement grew and was capped off with Farage announcing victory for the ‘good, decent people’ and a new Independence Day in the early hours. Dimbleby admitted defeat and the day dawned on a new United Kingdom I thought I would never see again. I was physically elated the same way you are when your team wins a trophy, you become a dad or something of that magnitude. It was simply amazing and a massive, historical moment. A huge victory and justification of democracy against the odds. The quiet, informed majority had won. It felt great. I honestly thought the UK had ‘gone’. I had left the country a dozen years earlier because I thought it was doomed. I was so happy to have underestimated the Brits. I hope it ultimately saves not only us, but the whole of Europe from the EU machine.
I could just about have voted, but I didn’t. It wasn’t very easy to organize and what difference would my vote make anyway? I was very vocal in my support for Brexit but I didn’t vote for it, or Trump later in the year although in that case he was not my preference in any case in that Hobson’s Choice.
The morning didn’t only bring a new, free UK but also the slipping of the mask and a nastier side of people I really couldn’t imagine existed. To me entirely incompatible with the ‘nice’ facia presented. Now, uniformly the script was one of bitter defeat, denial and a barrage of insults from the vast majority of the ‘remoaners’. Anyone who supported Brexit was now openly called out as stupid, selfish and racist without there being any intellectually sustainable argument for this view beyond the vague idea that the few nasty people might have voted out simply to annoy the status quo. I am sure there were nasty, evil people that would be found on both sides - after the result though it was hard to see the wood for the trees. The bile was very much in one direction and with very little thought to back it up. A truly knee jerk reaction in every sense of the word.
In many ways the referendum was great. It was discussed exhaustively for as long as anyone could ever have wished. Although we were all bored with it we never heard about Article 50 or that it was only ‘advisory’. These were to follow… We also didn’t realize just how lose many people’s idea of respect for democracy would be or how low the bar was set to face being called something as heinous as a racist in such a modern, progressive society. Much of what was to follow only goes on to amaze and disappoint me further but more of that later. The thing we all agreed on is that Brexit was an issue that divided the country pretty much straight down the middle.