Not a single joke or laugh or even a smile. That worries me

It might well be just me on this, but having blogged endlessly and for years about the dangers and frankly disastrous consequences of our staying in the EU, it's now the final day of the campaign and I'm not going over all that again!

It's all been said and people have either heard it, or ignored it and their minds are now pretty much made up.

So I thought I'd raise a slightly more minor concern. It's about jokes, or humour or, at a push, smiles.

You see my concern is that there hasn't been any. At all. From the Remain camp.

Even when they wheeled out the smug leftie comedians there were no jokes in evidence. Even Mr Izzard (I am a fan of his early stuff if not his politics) couldn't bring himself to see anything funny about the referendum process of the issues involved.

And to be fair, they are serious, far reaching and long-term issues, but I would have thought that 'nice people' who were confident in their beliefs, would be able to have  laugh about them at some point.

Perhaps they aren't nice people. And perhaps they aren't confident in their beliefs or in what they're telling us. That's all I can think.

If it were me, I'd have been trying to de-fuse the situation with a little bit of humour:

'Yes if you stay, you will be stronger. You'll still wear the trousers - it's just that we'll be telling you which trousers to wear..'

'Of course you'll be safer - without borders you'll be able to flee from the thronging dangerous hordes without having to stop at any border checkpoints..'

'Of course you can keep the pound. And the ounce..'

Now obviously you won't need the services of an ambulance because your sides are splitting, but something like this would at least have shown some kind of humanity, some kind of friendly humour. But no, not once have we seen any humour or even friendliness from the EU or the Remain side. That worries me.

On the other hand Boris said 'Knickers to the EU' when campaigning at a lingerie factory and 'no-one can say we're not running a clean campaign' when speaking at a cleaning products factory. Not side splitting either but you see what I mean?

The lack of jokes from Remain (see above) are probably because they are actually a bit too close to the truth for them even to joke about.

As I say this is not a clinching argument in any way, but I just don't trust people who are not comfortable in their own skin, or confident enough in their own position that they can't bring themselves to add any kind of friendly humour to what is a otherwise a very serious debate.

As I say it's probably just me.




Thanks for reading.

The Choice

Just as the EU has deliberately promoted confusion amongst the people of Europe for decades in order to hide its salami-slice political take-over of the continent, so the Remain camp has used the same tactics to cloud the issues involved in this referendum.

To the point where it has become increasingly difficult to see the choice we face with any kind of clarity or objectivity.

Arguing at great length about whether we give £350m/wk to the EU or just £271m/wk is pure obfuscation. Either way it's a hell of a lot of money for no return - but the debate has been reduced to the accuracy of the figure as opposed to the principles involved. This is deliberate - it stops people from considering the realities of our relationship with the EU.

And it is a scenario that is played out across the battlefield of referendum debate on every issue - Remain tries to get into the detail and the minutia of every aspect, rather than seeing - or allowing to be seen - the bigger picture upon which our choice should actually be made.

Let's just look at the Remain position/slogan: That we are 'Safer, Stronger and Better off in a Reformed EU'.

Well we are clearly not 'safer' having open borders, particularly given the absolute mess that Merkel and the EU has made of its immigration policies, the rise of terrorism in Europe, riots in the streets of Germany, Sweden, Italy and France. This 'safer' line is simply untenable, but is being submerged under the guise of 'we need to cooperate with security services in the EU in order to protect ourselves from terrorism'. There is simply no reason why this would not continue to happen if we were to leave the EU - but with controlled borders we would undeniably be in a better position to ensure the safety of our citizens. Undeniably.

'Stronger' - because we'd be part of a bigger state. And yet we have almost no influence on the EU whether we're inside the tent or not. They simply do not listen to us or take account of our concerns - to the point where Dave feels we need a legally binding (it isn't by the way) opt-out from future EU plans. How does not being part of the planned - and publicly stated in unambiguous terms - future direction of the EU give us any kind of additional influence? We know they are not prepared to make any changes to accommodate the views and concerns of the British public, because they have not budged an inch in the recent fudged negotiations even though the consequences could be so dire for the EU if we leave. They simply have no thoughts of changing their direction or taking any account whatsoever of our views - as the second biggest contributor to the project.

'Better off'? By handing over responsibility for negotiating the UK's international trade deals to a shrinking, economically failing, EU that cannot conclude trade deals for all of its members with Canada because Romania is blocking it, and with the US because Greece is blocking it? A great trade organisation whose biggest customer in the world is a small island off the north-west coast of France? A bloc whose share of global GDP has shrunk from 30% to 17% in the last 25 years? Why on earth would we tie ourselves - our future prosperity and trade-based wealth - to such a failing organisation?

And finally, the line: 'in a reformed EU'. The EU has not been reformed in any way and to say so is an abject and deliberate lie being told every day by the Remain camp and by Dave and George in particular.

A lie. Not a slight exaggeration. A lie. Pure and simple. Which renders everything else they claim in their slogan, utterly redundant.

Would our economy suffer if we Leave? It's possible that it might in the short term, but we just don't know. No-one knows for sure. What we do know is that the business markets and currency exchanges would very quickly accept the decision to leave and get on with what they do against the new political backdrop that our leaving the EU would create.

But the point is that this is unknowable. The Remain side cannot know that Brexit wouldn't lead to a major influx of new investment and prosperity as businesses recognised the value of dealing with a sovereign UK with a new, bright, dynamic approach to trade and with the added attraction of being a sound financial economy with a dynamic workforce, a common business language, low levels of corruption and no restrictions on its access to the European marketplace - because the EU cannot afford to go through with its 'deserters will face consequences' bullshit. They cannot afford to mess about with their biggest customer - it's as simple as that.

So it's not about trade or economic consequences - because no-one knows for sure what these consequences will be. You cannot make a sound, solid argument if you don’t know what will happen - and taking the word of 'experts' who have been essentially bribed to say what they've been saying is just stupid.

And yet this is the basis of most of what the Remain camp has been saying. Although using the word 'saying' is perhaps too generous of me. It's the basis of their threats, of their scaremongering, of Dave bringing in foreign leaders to threaten and talk down this great country in order to scare people into voting to stay in this failing political project. That is beyond the pale in my book - and not based on any sound, credible facts.

I would strongly suggest that by releasing ourselves from having the EU conducting our global trade negotiations (how the hell did this great trading nation of ours ever come to this?), we will enter a period of considerably greater opportunity and prosperity as we trade on our own behalf with the world rather than the failing trade bloc that is the EU. With countries with whom we already have much better relationships than the EU - like India, China, the US, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa. A global marketplace rather than the limited and protectionist EU. A globally growing marketplace rather than the EU with its 500m people, 350m of whom don't have 2 Euros to rub together and whom we therefore, spend more money bailing out than trading with.

We bought £106.4 billion more goods from the EU than they bought from us in 2015. It doesn't take a genius to understand where that puts the negotiating powers when it comes to a future UK-EU trade deal. The EU will need a good - and quick - trade deal with the UK or it will slide further into recession very quickly.

And apart from the frankly silly argument about the voracity of the £350m/wk claim by the Leave side, what else is Dave saying about 'Leave lies'? He described the accession of Turkey to the EU as 'the biggest red herring of the campaign'. That makes it a mahoosive red herring if you consider all the other lies that have been peddled, so it's worth taking a closer look - because these people shout loudest and kick up the biggest fuss about the stuff that they're weakest on and about which, therefore, they need to create the biggest smoke-screen and confusion.

We are paying £2bn to the EU as part of its (the EU's) programme of trying to get more countries into the bloc - this money is mainly going to Turkey to help its accession. The British Consulate in Ankara has a dedicated team set up to work with Turkey on its accession. These are facts. Yet Dave says it'll never happen. Why would he say 'we've got a veto' but then refuse to say he'd use it, and at the same time be paying towards Turkey's accession? It makes no sense at all. It is a lie. Pure and simple but it is not a lie that's coming from the Leave camp.

The other 'great lie' he spouted last night on the BBCqt appearance was about an EU army. Yet the Five Presidents Report (FPR), which is the bible of the EU's plans for the future, talks about completing monetary and political union, the creation of a single united states of Europe, with its own currency, government, flag, anthem, borders. No such federal state exists in the world without its own army - and Juncker has said that the EU will need its own army in due course.

It's not a lie Dave, it is a reality - not necessarily something that will happen in the next couple of years, but it will happen and probably by 2025 as per the FPR - a time-table which will also, probably, see all EU members being required to adopt the Euro as their currency. So while we may have an opt-out on this for now, if we Remain inside the EU we will almost certainly have to ditch the pound and adopt the Euro at some time in the not very distant future. Our opt-outs in the past have been meaningless and the EU has been able to work its way around them on every occasion when it has suited them. And our Prime Ministers have simply rolled over.

And so to the bottom line: The Choice we face on Thursday has nothing to do with trade or economic prospects, because they are unknown and unknowable. It would be utterly stupid to base your decision on this area of speculation.

The choice is therefore a very simple one:

If you want to see Europe becoming a single, federal, United States of Europe - with central governance, currency etc - a single place which, if we Remain, will include the UK as a small regional member state with very little influence in the corridors of power (because even Dave doesn't agree with its future direction and will therefore be ignored), then you should vote to Remain. And that's cool if that is your belief, and good luck to you. But don't tell me you voted for any reason other than this, because, ultimately, you didn't. Or at least your vote wasn't about anything else in reality.

Alternatively if you want to live in a sovereign nation state called the UK, where your laws are made by people you elect and can dismiss; people who are relatively local, have heard of where you live and therefore understand your issues and work in your relatively local interests rather than having to factor-in the interests of people in far-flung parts of Europe, you should vote to Leave. 

If you want to live in a place which controls its own borders and can control levels of immigration (and reduce levels if that's what we democratically decide we want to do) so that we can plan the provision of infrastructure - health, education, housing, transport etc for the benefit of everyone who lives here (and pays for it) - then you should vote to Leave.

If you want to live in a country that has its own identity on the world stage - a global power, the world's 5th largest economy - a nation that has arguably had more beneficial influence on the world than any other in recent history - then you should vote to Leave.

Finally, if you reject the lies and scaremongering of people who are supposed to represent this great country; if you reject their talking down our capabilities, their sneering at the resilience, optimism, generosity and determination of the British people, you should vote to Leave.

It really is that simple, once one strips away all the deliberate confusion, lies and obfuscation that has been deployed by the Remain campaign because they have nothing positive to offer: No vision for the EU, no vision for the UK's future within the EU, except 'more of the same' - the same shit, the same decline, the same lurch from crisis to crisis - it all becomes blindingly obvious.

No wonder they want to confuse everyone.

It's time to wake up, see through the confusion, understand what the choice comes down to and, if you believe in this great country and its great people, it's time for you to Vote Leave.

Thanks for reading.

Do you believe democracy & capitalism are always mutually beneficial?

Response to a twitter question - not a real blog, but the subject needed a bit more space!


It could easily be a dissertation question, so complex and involved could be the response! I don't have quite that amount of time to spend so here's the potted version of how I see the answer:

It's not a particularly satisfying answer (for you or me) but I do feel that democracy and capitalism are the 'least worst' options that we have, as a species, found as a system of functioning successfully, to date.

They're clearly not perfect which suggests that they are probably not always mutually beneficial, but that they are beneficial more often, more reliably, than other systems, most notably, socialism or communism.

And by 'mutually' I am reading - 'good for everyone/most people'??

The two are almost inextricably linked but I'll take them separately to start with:

I think the tone of the question - responding as it did to a tweet of mine about how the French Economy Minister regarded Democracy (not very highly at all) - suggests that the questioner doubts the universal value of democracy and that, in some cases there is an argument for 'clever leaders' to take decisions in the best interests of their nations instead of allowing 'stupid common people' to make the decision in a democratic way.

Please don't take offence at these short-hand terms - they are used to explain quickly rather than offend - otherwise you'll just be reading caveats all day long!

And there is some truth in this - that 'the great unwashed' cannot be allowed to take all decisions in a democracy - they need some guidance and there needs to be some influence from higher up the intellectual ladder and on the basis of getting people involved who understand how the system works and have more experience to bring to bear on the decision/situation.

If we had a pure democracy in the UK for example, Daily Mail readers would probably ensure that we would bring back the death penalty. This hasn't happened because there are filters (people) in place to stop some of the more extreme - but often highly popular - issues being decided in a purely democratic way.

It's a balance - and one which doesn't always work perfectly but as I say 'least worst' is probably the best we can say about it.

For example, creating a society in which a majority of people are dependent upon the state (ring any bells?) so that future democratic elections will always return one party over the other, would arguably be democratic, but it would be so in a rigged way which wouldn't work in terms of fairness or in reality.

The other side of this 'intelligence argument' also potentially throws up all sorts of nasty possibilities and eugenics - not allowing stupid people to procreate etc - best not to go there, but it does, if taken to the ultimate end - which again, is why the Democracy we have is probably the best we have come up with to date.

Most successful businesses are 'benign dictatorships' with a single person or small group making all the decisions and imposing this on their workforce/ It is very successful - much more so than a democratic committee-based system. But it is not inclusive enough in my view to operate effectively on a national government basis.

On the other hand - and finally, on democracy - the system I describe above does sometimes lead to the situation where the people who supposedly work for us, stop doing so and start working for themselves or that there is a bigger agenda that can come into operation which reduces the democratic involvement of people too much - and goes too far the other way.

I attach a couple of past blogs here and here - to illustrate this point.

Regarding capitalism I think it has proved itself to be the most effective system we have - others have tried, been given a pretty good go for long periods of time and have ultimately failed in my view.

I think it stinks in many ways, but as I say it stinks less than other systems. I think it treats people as farm animals in many ways, but looking at it from an objective 'does it work' viewpoint, it gets people out of bed, to a productive lifestyle, gets things done from law enforcement to street cleaning and food production, and does so fairly efficiently and in a way which also tries and usually succeeds in looking after people who are unable to work or ill or too old to be productive so that they have dignity too.

It sometimes fails in this regard, but it is not designed to - this is not an intrinsic failing of the system.

I would argue that we are not actually operating in a true capitalist system at the moment and haven't been since at least 2008. If we were doing so we should have let the banks fail (I think that is what we should have done) and whilst it would have been a massive shock to the system, we would have come out the other end by now (like Iceland has) and we would all be much better off - and the system would not, once again (in my opinion) be creaking and on the brink of another crisis (which I think is coming).

I also think printing money (quantitative easing) is a massive mistake and will ultimately come back to haunt us at some stage in the future.

And there you have my initial thoughts in response to your question. Hope it's of interest.

With friends like these..

I don't know about you, but I've not seen or heard a single friendly approach to the UK's remaining IN the EU from our so-called 'friends' and 'partners' in the EU during this referendum campaign.

As the EU's second biggest contributor and Europe's biggest customer for goods and services in the world, one would have thought that someone, somewhere in the massive EU machine would have had something nice and friendly to say about wanting us to stay in their club.

Instead of treating us as valued partners - a nation that has bailed out and rescued the freedoms of the people of Europe several times in the recent past - we are treated with contempt. Instead of recognising what we have to offer the EU not just financially and in terms of custom, but as a major global powerhouse that would be an asset to any international body, we are threatened: 'There will be consequences'; 'you will be at the back of the queue', 'your economy will go into meltdown'.

There has been no humour, no camaraderie, no friendliness, just threats.

Do we really want to stay in a club that we pay more towards than anyone other than Germany but whose policies we disagree with and whose future plans we are so terrified about that we have tried to secure a legally binding opt-out from?

Do we really want to hand over our sovereignty to a bunch of unelected Eurocrats who we pay for, but who have probably never heard of the town or village in which we live; who don't have our interests at heart and who we cannot kick out if they don't do what we want?

Particularly when they don't even value our contribution or recognise our concerns and just ignore us whenever we try to suggest reforms to what is clearly a failing political project from whatever angle one looks at it - economically, socially, democratically or in terms of the security, safety or prosperity of its people?

Not once have I heard an EU representative say: 'We really need you guys inside the project. We understand your concerns and we will listen to them and consider their merits - given your status as our biggest customer and second biggest contributor, it's the least we can do. We want you to play a leading part in our project to make Europe a better place for all of its citizens.'

It has not happened yet and now looks extremely unlikely ever to happen. And it's not just the EU whose contempt we have perhaps come to assume: It is now coming from our own elected representatives - our own Prime Minister for goodness' sake, talking down this great nation, its economic resilience, its global reach and influence, its position at the forefront of international laws and fairness and principle.

Indeed these ridiculous threats - none of which are based on any kind of credible facts - are being levelled at us by leaders of all political parties alongside their vested interest-lugging advisors in the corporate and financial sectors for whom the EU has become an unimaginably profligate gravy train funded on the backs - and the taxes -of the working people of this country and others in Europe. Supported by the biased mainstream media (MSM) at every turn.

What these fucking idiots don't seem to realise is that we Brits are generous by nature. We care for the plight of others who are not as well off as we are (we give more in aid both officially and via charity per capita than any other major nation on earth) and if asked to do so, we invariably do as much as we can to help others, locally, nationally, internationally and globally. Because we see ourselves not as 'little Englanders' but as an important part of the global community - a factor, no doubt of former Empire, but also because as an island nation we have a global outlook and friends around the whole world, not just on our geographical doorstep.

And this is in marked contrast to the EU which has a protectionist 'little European' outlook and is much more - almost exclusively - concerned with its own members than the wider world - which is why its tariffs against African agriculture is perpetuating the rape of that hugely resourceful continent and disallowing it from trading its way into the first world.

But if we (the British) are not asked but instead 'told' what we can and cannot do; if we're threatened that we must do something 'or else', we tend not to be so receptive or generous or sanguine about the situation. If we're told 'you can't do this because we say so', we tend to say, 'fuck you, just watch us'. And this is where we are right now.

The choice we have right now is about staying inside a club that treats us with contempt and which, if the vote was about whether we should join or not, would be laughed out of court because of the cost, financially as well as in terms of lost control, democratic influence and global power, compared to the almost zero benefits we derive from being a member. Simply, if we weren't already a member at this time, there's no way we would join.

So why on earth should we vote to stay? We don't agree with what the EU wants to become - a single federal state with its own flag, anthem, army, government, currency. Even the remain leader David Cameron has sought to get a legally binding opt-out from this direction of travel - without securing any reform of the EU's plans whatsoever.

The fact is that we don't want to be a member of this club; we don't share its values or agree with its purpose and nor should we be trying to stay inside a club whose members do not value our contribution but instead threaten us with 'consequences' if we leave.

They have had their chance to engage with us and to reform themselves in a way which might have saved the EU project, but they have rejected this in favour of 'ever closer union' and, in effect, even more of the same stuff that has caused such hardship and economic calamity throughout Europe.

Enough is enough. It's time we left them to get on with it and instead pursued our own destiny under our own control, with our own democratic checks and balances in place and with our own qualities as a nation and as a people at the forefront rather than taking any kind of leadership from some unelected and failed politicians from Luxembourg.

Of course we'll still trade with Europe - if a strong and equitable trade deal is not struck quite quickly after Brexit then Europe will be in far greater economic peril than we will - and will still share security information and liaise on common international matters. But we can do this without being governed by them. Without having to bail them out of their self-inflicted economic and social disasters.

It's time to leave - on friendly terms, at least on our part anyway - but to leave nonetheless.

Thanks for reading.