European Union

The knives are out for Labour Leave and Socialist Brexiteers

Giles Fraser sends out a tweet: ‘Poorest will gain most under Brexit, says Labour report’. And the derision poured forth:

…report by rabid Brexit supporters.

As rabid a Brexiteer as you are, you cannot believe this.

Keep whistling Giles…I’m sure it helps.

Matthew 7:15

Hahaha… Telegraph… Haha

Aren’t you embarrassed tweeting this obvious twaddle out supporting your crumbling position?

A better quality debate was to be had on Facebook:

It’s a report from Labour Leave and is therefore prejudice to begin with. It also flies against most predictions from other sources. It also requires a huge leap of credulity – that this Tory government would actually do anything for the poorest in society. Their track record of austerity points in exactly the opposite direction. And I am not part of ‘the right.’

Certainly Brexit as interpreted and delivered by the right is likely to lead to increased corporate power and reducing consumer and citizen protections – a further ramping up of neoliberal economics – which will of course make things worse for the poor.

A Brexit delivered by the left could be different of course – with an increase in consumer and citizen protections – and a rebalancing towards giving more power to labour over capital. However, declining prices is unlikely to be a result of that – although increasing wages ought to be.

..the best for everyone is, of course, no Brexit.

Given the Telegraph really couldn’t give a flying fuck about the poorest in our society, this is a rather pathetic clutching of straws in its continued push for a hard Brexit.

Yes those charming Barclay brothers are concerned for our society’s poorest.

You do have to ask yourself, why right wing rags such as The Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Times etc. are so pro Brexit. It’s certainly not because they believe it will benefit the poorest in society. If they’re for it, the default position is to be against it.

Meanwhile, Lord Adonis invokes teleology and divine right to support his Remain passion:

And so the good news for the poor gets lost in the din of prejudice and blind faith: nothing good could possibly come out of Labour Leave, especially now the party’s position is to remain in the Customs Union and a member of the Single Market (ie to remain in the EU). And Europe is the EU and the EU is Europe: they are of one essence, one substance. Forget the fact that half of Europe’s nations aren’t in the EU, or that a centuries-old continent of organic culture and history is manifestly not the same as a man-made political construct of a few decades. And forget the poor…

BRITAIN’S poorest families will be £2,288 a year better off thanks to Brexit, a report claims.

Households on poverty line annual incomes of £15,600 will gain £44 week, according to the research.

Grocery bills will fall by £27 a week while rents also tumble as land values drop.

The low-paid will get a £12-a- week wage boost as fewer immigrants compete for jobs.

The poorest will benefit most since they spend a larger slice of earnings on food and housing, according to the estimates.

Hahaha… The Sun… Haha.

A report co-authored by Labour Leave and a group of economists estimates that a reduction in prices and immigration will save the UK’s most deprived families money.

The report also warns that a ”soft Brexit” would “leave us worse off and in danger of remaining in the EU in all but name”.

John Mills, a prominent party donor and chairman of Labour Leave, said calculations showed working class “were right to back quitting the EU” because “they will see a boost to incomes that have been heavily depressed over the last decade”.

Hahaha… The Express… Haha.

And don’t expect any bishops to seize on this report (well, possibly except one): for them, the salvation of the poor lies in the advent of a Labour government and being in the European Union, which is good for jobs, good for prosperity, good for workers’ rights and good for all. So we really ought to ditch all this Brexit nonsense, which is really a Tory ruse and so, basically, evil. We must remain in the EU of peace, enlightenment and fraternal cooperation. Why would God want it any other way?

Well, as the Bishop of Shrewsbury Mark Rylands wrote last year:

The EU’s commitment to its member states means it can be a bad neighbour to outsiders. Its actions impact adversely on poorer countries through various trade policies, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The EU’s export subsidies for EU agricultural products have disastrous consequences on food security and undercut agricultural sectors in the poorest nations. CAP is bad news for Africa. Jesus teaches us that our neighbour is not just our next door neighbour but everyone. Leaving the EU does not mean shunning Europe. We are Europeans and we will still have strong relationships with EU nations. Being able to make our own trade agreements, however, gives us opportunity to be more globally linked.

The EU does not seem to be good news for the poorest nations in the Eurozone. Countries in the single currency, struggling economically, appear stuck with low growth. Unable to devalue their currency, they are trapped in a rut of depression. Youth unemployment in Spain, Greece and Italy has soared and extremist political groups are gaining a strong foothold.

The UK has a proud history of welcoming migrants and has benefitted from the presence and contribution migrants make to society. Unrestricted EU immigration, however, means that we end up discriminating against non-EU nationals. This seems especially perverse when the UK has strong relationships with many other countries of the world through the Commonwealth, not just with the EU. The barriers to employing people from overseas, beyond the EU, have become more numerous. For a Church in the UK that is weak in mission, it would be particularly welcome to have greater freedom to invite missionaries from the global south to help us evangelise our country and rediscover our Christian roots.

Unrestricted EU immigration has been adversely affecting the poorest people in the UK. It may seem great if you want to employ a plumber, a nanny or a builder but to those competing with immigrants for jobs, houses or places at schools, it looks very different.

Hahaha… the Bishop of Shrewsbury… Haha.

Funny, isn’t it, how scoffing, sneering and jeering have supplanted argument; how mockery, scorn, derision and sarcasm have become reason and sanity. This is now the preferred strategy of Remainers: Brexiteers are simply buffoons; Brexit arguments are just ‘nonsense’. Tory Leavers have always been a dim-witted disgrace. Labour Leavers are traitors to the cause of fairness, justice and equality.

Hahaha… Giles Fraser… Haha.

Giles Fraser… how could you?

Matthew 7:15?

Mark 6:4.

Man plans, God laughs.

  • Gregory Morris

    Why are there so few MPs of the calibre of Peter Shore these days? Frank Field is one of the few Labour MPs I would vote for.

    • bluedog

      Neither would you see a left-winger like Barbara Castle, sitting on Shore’s right as he sits down, applauding a pro-British speaker.

  • Manfarang

    “reduction in prices ”
    Since when?

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      That sentence is in the future tense, so ‘Since when?’ is clearly a meaningless question.

      The EU is not, and never has been, a free-trade area but a customs union, i.e. all members have to charge the same level of tariffs on goods from outside.

      The tariffs on foodstuffs from outside the EU raise food bills. That is why one of the quotes says that grocery prices will fall.

      • Manfarang

        Pressures on the UK’s food security are here to stay. Increasing global population and changing consumption patterns are increasing demand for foodstuffs and contributing to upwards price trends. However, the threat to UK food security could be more serious should increasing global demand combine with other potential problems.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          All of which is not really relevant to the topic under discussion nor to you original point. Any worldwide, systematic pressures on food supply relative to the world population will affect the UK whether it is in the EU or outside the EU.

          • Manfarang

            Food security was an issue in 1975. To obtain stable supplies was considered important.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            And you are still talking about something that is not relevant to this topic, nor your original comment.

            Food security will potentially be an issue whether the UK is in the EU or outside it.

          • Manfarang

            And there are many other issues, such as the creation of a new economy. Leaving the EU is not a panacea for all the UK’s woes.

        • Merchantman

          Where does the EU say it will protect the UK food security? It doesnt. We will regain access to Commonwealth and USA et al products. Along with Argentinian wine looks like its goodbye French wine M. Barnier.

          • Manfarang

            “As a follow-up to the food security policy framework adopted in 2010, the EU has prepared an implementation plan jointly with Member States. The objective of this plan is to deliver on commitments and enhance coherence, complementarity and coordination within and between the external assistance programmes of the EU and those of its member states.”

          • DespiteBrexit

            And you think that twaddle has any real value? Anyway, why did it take so long for the EU to come up with it if – as you seem to allege – food security is a reason we joined?

          • Manfarang

            I don’t allege.
            As Tony Benn said in 1975 referendum campaign
            “It’s about jobs”.
            “It’s about votes”
            “It’s about FOOD”

          • DespiteBrexit

            Hmm. It seems to have escaped your notice that Benn wanted the UK out of the EEC.
            Not that one politician’s beliefs and claims should be taken to define an entire campaign, anyway.

          • Manfarang

            Benn wanted the UK out so all the economy could be nationalized.
            Food was an issue because membership of the EEC meant higher food prices.

          • DespiteBrexit

            I am afraid I no longer have any idea what you are trying to prove. Let’s leave it there.

          • Manfarang

            Higher food prices in the EEC was a price worth paying because the source of that food was secure..

          • betteroffoutofit

            “. . . food security is a reason we joined?” Nicely rhetorical! We’d already lost many good farmers because their farming rights (esp. re choice of methods and products) had been denied by first the post-war labour government – and then – guess what – the euSSR.
            In short – the EU destroyed our farming industry and, therefore, our food security. As with everything elsel they’ve taken from us, we need to restore our independence, sovereignty, and control.

        • The entire world produces more food per individual than ever before in human history. The reasons for this include comparatively lower energy costs, transportation, access to far away markets, application of advanced technologies and efficient methods. This increase in global food security “coincides” with the first ever mostly free system of food production and distribution. It’s when planners start mucking around with the system by trying to out-think it and skimming and pocketing from it that problems emerge. A Britain not bound by bureaucratic and technocratic EU directives, treaties and taxes …all of which resemble the disastrous, over-planned socialist models… will be in a much better position to address possible food insecurity.

          • Inspector General

            Greetings, Avi. The best statistics are the barely believable ones. It is said there are 7 chickens for every human on this earth. So, if you think you are alone, and you catch some movement at the corner of your eye, it will be a chicken. Probably.

          • That probably explains all those ghost and poltergeist stories, Inspector. An eerily timely comment from you, as just minutes ago I finished the last of the spicy Buffalo style chicken wings from a obscenely huge pile I cooked up on Friday. Now I guiltily wonder how many people in the world are stuck with wingless chickens. O, well, beer can wash guilt away, can’t it?

            If you guessed that this rare feast of dripping, delicious cholesterol can only occur when wife and daughter are far away, you get a one of Mrs P’s famous hobnobs.

          • Inspector General

            Good point, Avi. Many chickens don’t make it passed the spicy wing stage.

            An Inspector is reminded that the Sustainable Earth mad hatters want us all to give up on meat and eat veggie instead. That way we’ll have the ability to feed a few more billion Africans who are all set to appear in that tragic continent should a cure for malaria be found. Of course, it will be us consuming the chicken feed then, as one doubts said Africans would be happy to abandon meat. especially chicken…Don’t think they are very up on social conscience…

          • I’ve definitely used up my share of the 7 chicken this very weekend, Inspector, and thanks to your revelation of this vital statistical data, will try an argument on the wife, one proposing that I be sternly restricted only to juicy, preferably sizzled over a charcoal grill red meat on the grounds of Social Justice. I’ll let you know how that flies, but honestly, I’m not overly optimistic.

            Yes, the Sustainable Earth crowd has found another way to decimate the Africans in addition to preventing them from exploiting the coal, gas and oil under their feet because of “global warming,” and using GMO to increase their crop yields because of “Franken-veggies.” The cures for, or at least relief from malaria were found, Inspector, in the form of mosquito-killing DDT and with the draining of swamps near cities and villages. Parts of Africa and all of southern Europe were cleared of this massive killer until the chemical was banned for no good reason and swamps, now “beautiful wetlands,” were allowed to re-form right next to human habitation on the grounds of environmental ideas over human lives.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Spot on, Avi! I was a child in the West Indies back when we could use DDT to keep the mozzies off [and I wish it were that simple in the UK now 🙂 ]. And yes – we minimised swamplands in inhabited areas.
            They knew, of course, that ‘prevention is better than cure’. However, they also used quinine to help those who didn’t escape the bites – though I do understand that some Plasmodia have since developed resistance to the chemical, and that its use must be carefully monitored for side-effects.

          • bluedog

            Yes, even The Economist seems to have been challenging us carnivores, using profoundly unsound arguments. One sometimes fears The Economist Intelligence Unit maybe an oxymoron.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I was not aware you had the hobnob franchise, dear Avi?

          • Perish the very idea, Mrs P! I don’t believe I have ever even seen a hobnob; they are a legend to me, a wispy myth, hovering in my imagination as one of Plato’s forms. And even if I were an expert at making them, I wouldn’t even joke about infringing on your custom. I was, rather cravenly in retrospect, shuffling off the responsibility of rewarding the Inspector to your capable self, seeing how you at least inhabit the same isle. I could, of course, try my hand at making one according to a recipe of my imagination, but the Inspector would understandably decline to touch, much less eat my creation.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            One mustn’t feed the Inspector: it only encourages him.

          • Terry Mushroom

            Inspector, I recently promised myself that I would no longer comment on blogs. But you made me laugh so much, that I have to applaud you in print. Well done, that man!

          • Inspector General

            “Surf City” is a song written by Brian Wilson and Jan Berry about a fictitious surf spot where there are “two chickens for every boy.”[1] It was first recorded and made popular by the American duo Jan and Dean in 1963, and their single became the first surf song to become a national number-one hit.[2]

          • Terry Mushroom

            There’s a web site with over 50 songs with chickens in the title. So many songs. So little time.

          • Inspector General

            Years ago, the Muppets did a song about there “being no one here but us chickens”

          • Manfarang

            Chicken are produced on an industrial scale inside sheds. Not so many free range because of fears of bird flu..

          • dannybhoy

            Some of us can’t afford to be choosy about our friends Inspector.
            We take them where we can find ’em.
            And if we fall out we can always eat them…

          • Manfarang

            You had better tell that to Yingluck wherever she is (rice pledging scheme)
            Thailand is a course a major food producer and exporter.This has been achieved through a strong state role in ensuring investment in infrastructure, education, and access to credit and successful private initiatives in the agribusiness sector.
            That being said Thailand sees the need to be part of the Asean Economic Community.

          • Manfarang
          • alternative_perspective

            The iMechE released a report, early 2016 I believe, which identifies pretty much the circumstances you described. There is more than enough food on this planet for everyone but unfortunately much of it is left to rot in the fields or on the way to market; simply because the basic technologies we take for granted: mechanised farming, roads and refrigerated transport are not available globally.
            If we invested our foreign aid budget in: building roads and teaching people to repair them; building up pools of mechanised equipment for local farmers to rent out; refrigerated lorries to convey these goods to market and mechanics to maintain this plant – then we could actually bring a revolution to living standards in this world. Unfortunately these bread and butter investments just don’t seem to be sufficiently “sexy” and as such food continues to rot in the fields and children continue to starve.

      • Dominic Stockford

        The tariffs also ensure that African farmers (for instance) lose out heavily. Quite how that is good for the world’s economy is beyond me.

  • magnolia

    I agree – lots of people confuse the words debate with defamation it seems. Analysing the issues rather than bandying back and forth pejorative or praiseworthy epithets about the debaters seems too much a thing of the past for comfort.

    I have seen highly anti- collectivist people described as hard right, giving the impression they might be fascist when they are strongly anti-fascist, and Ron Paul, benign, gentle, courteous, virtually pacifist, anti-abortion, described as a dangerous subversive. The whole thing is getting beyond stupid.

    Giles Fraser deserves better, (even at times I don’t agree with him!!)

  • Dominic Stockford

    Fabulous video.

    • magnolia

      Brilliant; they knew how to make speeches in those days. He looks – briefly-flaked by the end. Oxford Union?

      • Dominic Stockford

        As a preacher I know the feeling well. Speak on something about which you have passion and belief and it can be utterly exhausting (as well as enervating).

  • David

    One of the problems with modernity is the way that feelings and repeatedly failed political dogma are given greater weight than reasoned facts. This weakness is general throughout society, as a result of post-Modernism, but it comes to full fruition with the Liberal-left.
    This is why rather than examining the facts, in the light of basic economic practice, the ardent, head in the sand Remainers refuse to see, or are incapable of seeing, that freed from the shackles of the EU influencing our trading positions and the wretched Single Market, we will be able to source and procure food more cheaply on the open, global market, hence benefiting everyone but especially the poor. This will also be a boon to those poorer, agriculture dependent, nations at present encountering difficulties exporting their food products into the EU

    The EU is hard on our nation’s poor, hard on neighbouring third world agriculture dependent exporting countries who suffer from trade barriers, and hard on the poorer nations of the south of Europe, especially its swollen ranks of unemployed youth. From its design stage and inception the EU was always intended to benefit German industries, the inefficient farmers of France and the professional politicians of the EU who adore the lack of direct political accountability that its labyrinthine corridors and dispersed, opaque governing mechanisms offer in spades. Many other groups, especially the small people and the weaker nations, are sacrificed on the altar dedicated to those specific interest groups.

    • Manfarang

      I am sure you are looking forward to eating more hom mali rice.

      • David

        I am looking forward to many things. As a free sovereign nation again we will do well.

        • Manfarang

          You have reminded me of a remark made before the 1997 Hands Up in Hong Kong at the American consulate, “This is where the real power is.:”

  • Inspector General

    Having just arrived back, one hasn’t had time to fully read Cranmer’s offering today. A certain amount of drying out is required first. However, one can make an immediate comment…

    This has been known for years. The burden of EU membership on the average household is what economists call regressive. That is, the burden has always been greater as a percentage of disposable income on smaller than greater incomes.

    Also, a trick may have been missed by the current compilers. The EU has been griping for years for member states to standardise taxation. It would be all the easier to abolish their governments in time and rule from Brussels (Berlin?) when the time was ripe.

    For the UK, that meant putting VAT on food, children’s clothing and fuel. Fuel fell some years ago, and one believes it is 6%. That just leaves food and the clothes. Had we not been getting out, it WOULD have happened. Remember, the EU is (or was) strong enough not to need concessions as they were granted in the past.

    VAT is now almost universally 20% in the UK.

    • Bernard from Bucks

      “That just leaves food and the clothes.”
      Aren’t books and newspapers somewhere in there also?
      Although, have they now also fallen to the ‘Very Aggressive Taxation’ (VAT)
      that currently emanates from the party of ‘low taxation’?

  • not a machine

    That is a good video your grace , Peter Shore , note the venerable Barbara Castle clapping also as Edward Heath looks on , the remainers no doubt have taken continued sustenance from what may or may not happen when we leave ,this is conjecture also even if having the more powerful augmentation around “who” we are .The EU made a foolish mistake , whilst Gordon Brown may have signed Lisbon ,it was clear That David Cameron thought we could not leave the EU , but unlike Edward Heath he didn’t dismiss what Peter Shore was saying , and I hope David Cameron sees the video even if one may assume that the economic prediction was long developing , before the epiphany moment of “hold on a mo this isn’t really working”, he is student of economics. The EU had the best chance in its attempt , to get a deal with David Cameron , but they just didn’t see it was a chance ,the EU seemed to think it was a matter of time and well David Cameron was just representing a small bunch of blow hards ,who could easily be dealt with in time .Quite if Mrs May is something also part of the time that the EU thought it had , is a bit of mystery “brexit means brexit” seems about as much as we understand of her intentions .
    If the poor are to be better off , I perhaps might remind lord Adonis that his agreement with the former chancellors Mr Osbournes (also a remainer) back end loaded vanity infrastructure program , is just as more likely to make the poor poorer as continuing with the EU is , ahhh but its growth , so all will be good …. well the EU member states have EU bonds or government borrowings ,in the financial crisis one indebted nation could lend to another , and the legacy of this is , that there is a lot of debt to keep servicing , rolling over or increasing , true it is a big economic group , but you will note only one country has a surplus ,which is funny place to be after 40 odd years , I mean if its dysfunctional when we went in and is still dysfunctional when we come out , clearly we didn’t understand how economically it would play out .Peter Shore seemed early at one point into the video of envisioning the slush fund economics , investment sloshing or perhaps Schlossing around who evers turn it was to be graced , rather than the more even organic thinking.
    The collapse of the Soviet Empire , yes I see how the EU was important there ,but it seems a reasonable question to me , to enquire if the EU has done well with the peace , I mean EU economics has sent one country back to near barter , and the financial crisis nearly took the Euros third economy , we find bank fraud , fixing of emission test and other glossing overs of reality , including feelings around immigration .
    Peter Shores speech is powerful stuff , it appeals to me as I am old enough to know when we thought about our country as single unit , and not an erasable one , we knew who we were .
    I note John Lewis has decided not to sell gender specific childrens clothes , I don’t know if children consider clothes political , or socio political , my upbringing was one of having things for best and stuff that had repairs , we didn’t shop at John Lewis but we did go to M&S and the coop and my mum did want to know if they were well made and would last , at least a little while .
    the EU has had powerful tools and influences on our dear little country for some time , they probably buy opinion and conjecture , the trouble is its worn out , the poor have become poorer , when we into the EU a catering (now fast food) worker or indeed other lower grades of pay , could buy there own house , now they cannot and cannot even afford the rents .Its a club of self indulgent nobs , who have and never have offered any economic satisfaction in what they were about , spending money on womb rooms ,destroying olive groves and servicing rural lives up to the designs of the bankers .
    Peter Shore echos with me ,I know in his speech he was thinking about , the ladder for low paid decent person , given a path to live right .The EU has allowed corruption to grow by destroying these basic honest people and there way of life , so drink it down remainers or clean the Agean stables of all the wonks making this EU the federal destroyer of lives , rather than the coop we thought it was going to be when we said yes .
    Lady Thatcher may not be an appropriate figure for today , She came after Peter Shores speech , but when she said no no no to the federal project , she was right , what she didn’t articulate was how the economic terror would look in the workings of the socialist EU .
    I might start wanting to ask the remainers to make economic arguments that don’t rely on more borrowed money , even remain one I have heard so far misses that one .Fiscal responsibility is coming to the EU but when one euro country is the grinning winner of the poker game , how will the others with the bitter debts feel ???
    Brexit means Brexit and means a better financial future for those people who have had to be taxed (the broad tax base) to pay for the games played and expense and the losses , at least I can take some comfort , that we can work our national happiness out and not claim we are doing better by borrowing from other countries .

    • dannybhoy

      I believe it was Edward Heath who deliberately hid the true goals of the Common Market from his own people.

      • not a machine

        Interesting view ,alas the suceptability to the EU project enchants even the clever people .I think Mr Heath saw a market and thought the politics would be secondary ,if he did hide federalism intentions and the Gramsci version to come , well not a lot I or he can say .At the moment I am trying to work out ,if the socialist economic theory always was wrong

  • David

    I’ve just watched that tremendous speech by Peter Shore.
    Entering the dark hole of the Common Market which morphed by degrees into the EU, was never a left versus right argument. It was always about whether you believed in nation states, and our people’s right to govern themselves, or whether you were a globalist willing to trash the superb balanced, effective and organic democracy that we, the peoples of these islands, achieved. At bottom it was whether you wanted to live as a free man or woman, in a democratic country, or whether you were so lacking in confidence in your culture, country and democracy that you were prepared to be bossed about and to become a euro-serf !
    I cannot wait for us to finally be declared, once again a free and independent, sovereign state.

    • Mike Stallard

      Neither can I.
      The question which you are not answering is how? What time scale?
      If we just walk away, then all trade will simply stop as the computers are switched off at 00.00 on 30/3/2019 when we become a third country.
      We badly need to stay in the EEA (aka Common Market) but not the EU.
      We can, actually, do this, and discuss immigration, by joining EFTA as the Icelandic PM (emeritus) suggested at Mr Davis’ press conference recently in USA.
      Once there, we can struggle for our common aim.

      • David

        “the all trade will simply stop”
        Really ?
        Trade does not depend upon politicians but upon a willing seller and a willing buyer. Your belief that trade will stop is really rather ridiculous.

        • Mike Stallard

          Let me summarize. (I voted LEAVE).
          The ultimate aim – without any question – is to adopt the complete freedom, under international rules, of, say New Zealand or Singapore. Everyone wants this.
          But how to get there?
          1. WTO option. Not possible. Once we leave the EEA, the computers are switched off and Non Tariff Barrierss cut in. It might be nice to ask the Norwegian Friend how he plans to get out of that one.
          2. Associate Membership where the Eurozone rules us and we have absolutely no representatives at all. They tell us what to pay, they veto our budgets with their own Finance Minister and the four freedoms etc are all in place indefinitely.
          3. EFTA – no, it is by no means perfect. But it has enormous advantages. First of all, it allows us a platform to negotiate with the rest of the world and with the EU. Second, it allows us to be governed by the EFTA court, to be free of the CAP and CFP and ECJ.
          One of these three is the choice. I know which one I would prefer for the time being!

          • David

            “One of these three is the choice. I know which one I would prefer …”.
            Good, so do I.
            For freedom, the re-establishment of the supremacy of the Common Law, and legal sanity, I’ll choose the WTO option. Freedom is so precious it cannot be given a price.

      • Norway is campaigning to leave the European Free Trade Association, that tells us something, that it’s not a good idea for us to join.
        All trade will not stop, from midnight we will be trading on WTO rules and free.

        • David

          Marie, well said.
          Please see my comments above to Mike Stallard.

      • David

        Marie below is spot on. One of my closest friends is a Norwegian. He is a left of centre patriotic Norwegian whose father fought in the Norwegian resistance after they were invaded by the Germans. We met through a shared interest in classic cars and we have the same profession. He worked very hard as a young man to keep Norway out of the EU. Like us they have a treacherous elite that identifies with the globalists. He has explained at length to me many times – and he is incredibly well researched – that the UK must not follow the Norway model, but go for total freedom and sovereignty.

        • dannybhoy

          Amen. We must regain our national sovereignty and self confidence. We are a great country, we did lead the industrial and agricultural revolutions and for many years led the world in science and technology. I have no doubt that things will be tough for a few years, but in the longer run we will build new trading partnerships and possibly a rejuvenated Commonwealth.
          We can’t let fear of the unknown rob us of this opportunity.

          • David

            Exactly !
            We must risk a temporary, short term tricky patch to reap the bountiful harvest that freedom and genuine democracy will always bring.

  • Mike Stallard

    If you would like some sensible arguments which deal in the details and which search out the truth, even though it involves an amount of persecution try this:
    Conservative Home.
    Labour List
    The Canary
    Left Foot Forward.
    If you play in the sewer, you just get filthy.

  • Inspector General

    We need to replace Labour with a party more in tune with the aspirations of the British today. A party that can appeal to either soft left, centre or right tastes, but remains pragmatically hard right in approach to policy as it is.

    That party would be the United Kingdom Party. The successor to UKIP. Leave Labour to the socialists and their muslim pals…

  • Don Benson

    It’s when you know exactly what you want to do that you are truly motivated to work out how to achieve it. If you don’t know what you want to do you fall in with what other people tell you. So it is with Brexit: most of us who want it do so, first and foremost, because we understand that to live in an independent sovereign nation beats other arrangements hands down; it’s not only a cerebral calculation, it’s a visceral certainty. And while we know this is not a cost-free choice, we have every confidence that the British people are well able to make it work.

    But we also know that a miffed establishment intends to thwart that success. And, now that the providential Brexit decision has been taken, ‘Project Fear’ is irrelevant. So it has been treacherously morphed into ‘Project Disrupt At Any Cost’; and a part of that is the torrent of abuse against anyone who dares to point out the many benefits of regained sovereignty.
    This is not a fragrant time in our nation’s life, not least because the parliamentary arithmetic means that our political and institutional spivs, speculators and sycophants are perfectly positioned to make the next 18 months (and possibly many years thereafter) thoroughly unpleasant and dangerous for all of us.
    And the least of their concerns is for those among us who are poorest.

  • Albert

    Those were the days, when the left was patriotic and cared about reality, instead of today being a bunch of liberal fundamentalists, who care about nothing more than limiting the freedoms of those with whom they disagree.

    • David

      Yes I agree. Whilst I was never of the left, at that time I respected the patriotic Labour politicians who really cared for their own British working class. The right cared too, but identified different ways in which the poor cab be assisted upwards.
      But now none of the globalist politicians, either those of the left who pretend they are for the people whilst living lives totally insulated from them, or the right who offer no vision for an upwardly mobile path for the strivers
      and who are just as remote from the men and women of the farms, factories and places of productive work.

      • alternative_perspective

        David, I strongly identify with your succinct description of the status quo.
        Unfortunately the political parties are too amorphous and dominated by one group of the other that real political diversity does not exist.
        We need new parties to supplement the existing, to create a more intelligible discourse and to provide real political choice.
        I had hoped UKIP may have gradually found its way in to this mould but it could not hold together the diverse, competing beliefs of those who felt alienated by the existing three parties and who had hoped to make UKIP home – it simply didn’t have the mass of support to provide sufficient gravity to keep it together during its early formation.
        What I believe we need are parties to occupy the centre grounds of the four quadrants of political belief formed by the intersection of the axes of society and economics. Personally, I would class my self as more right-wing, socially, and weakly left-wing in terms of economics, though even this breakdown seems somewhat simplified to me.

    • dannybhoy

      No sign of the yah boo sucks! ‘politics lite’ we’re served up today. I think the standard of debate and political planning in this country has plummeted on account of the fact that everything was being decided in Brussels and our ‘elected representatives’ are just talking heads..

      • Albert

        Yes, quite. That speech was really quite something. I think the only person who speaks as well these days is Daniel Hannan – who is of course, Leave.

        • dannybhoy

          He’s a good speaker, but that’s it as far as I’m concerned.

      • alternative_perspective

        Yes disempowerment of the people is serious but my instinct is this problem arises out of the zeitgeist: Post-modernism – what is true for you, isn’t true for me…. We have seriously undermined the foundations of knowing and discussing facts and truth with a degree of objectivity is nearly impossible.
        We all reference our beliefs against our worldviews. It provides us with justification and warrant for our beliefs. Today most people’s worldviews are not only highly contrived, believing multiple mutually, contradictory beliefs simultaneously but ad hoc. Very few people share common threads of belief which could be used as an external point of measurement in debate, let alone broadly similar value systems and concepts of reality, with which we could construct frameworks for friendly debate.
        It is rather like the fracturing ices sheets. For so many years we all stood on the same block of ice – which floated on the seas, but we could all pitch our tents and navigate by the same geography coherently. But as the intellectual climate has changed the ice sheet has begun to seriously fragment. Although we float on the same ocean currents we no longer reference the same physiological structures we once could, moreover we cannot even talk without shouting for the fragments are floating apart and it is impossible to hear the other over the howling gales and the crashing seas. If we want to discuss anything we need to swim the frozen seas, enter others’ territories and talk to them with minimal reference to the lands we left behind. They will understand, hills, ice, sky and sea but the particularities of our experiences will be entirely different to theirs, furthermore the superficial similarities we do have in our shared experience of reality and history can be false friends. Leading us in to misunderstandings and argument: for what we thought we shared in understanding has actually accrued and lost meanings we didn’t even realise we were invoking.

        • dannybhoy

          “Today most people’s worldviews are not only highly contrived, believing multiple mutually, contradictory beliefs simultaneously but ad hoc. Very few people share common threads of belief which could be used as an external point of measurement in debate, let alone broadly similar value systems and concepts of reality, with which we could construct frameworks for friendly debate.”

          ” Although we float on the same ocean currents we no longer reference the same physiological structures we once could, moreover we cannot even talk without shouting for the fragments are floating apart and it is impossible to hear the other over the howling gales and the crashing seas.”
          Francis Schaeffer of L’abri covered this in his book “The God who is There”(1968)
          You are so right, in that we are witnessing a gradual breakdown in our unity of intellectual understanding.
          Civilisations are built, line upon line, precept upon precept. Once that concord becomes shattered we stop dialoguing and start down the slippery slope of incoherence, leading I think to increasing violence, even madness.
          It’s like the intellectual version of Genesis 11, or even CS Lewis’s banquet scene in “That Hideous Strength”

  • not a machine

    depending on if I heard Ms Barnier correctly in tone : In tribute to Sir Vince Cable memorable moments “I note the strange transformation of Ms Barnier from EU negioiator to The Grand Moff Tarkin” . The EU had the chance to explain it very well in the run up to the referendum , we have made our minds up and are hoping you will be future thinking as the UK is the 3rd or 4th biggest trading partner of the EU and I would think it wont be long before we start considering if that will hurt the EU more than the UK ,if we cannot get a deal.yes we understand you differentiate between club members and non conformist suckers .At the start we have always wanted good relations with the EU member states , I have never detected any wish for you not to run EU as best you can ,but I personally have good reason to think you have got some economic matters very wrong and we want to live differently , but as trading peoples and friends .if club membership is little more that a sort of protection racket with lawyers rather than tommy guns then if you understand the British people well , we will reject the more screwing of money from us and what ever comes next from EU countries who don’t have confidence in the EU socialist project.As for your army of acdemics , all they can do is wail , rather like a dieter who is on the road to fitness .When we are out we will give the EU a far more powerful “education” on economics and wealth sustaining in the time of people and not vanity progressive drivers . I rest my case brexit Chinchilla out

  • Chefofsinners

    The strength of reaction from Adonis and the political elite betrays their alarm as they realise the potential which Brexit has to unmask their duplicity and destroy their arguments. In global terms the Labour Party is a very narrow special interest group, working on behalf of some of the wealthiest people in the world, namely the lower 50% of earners in the UK, and seeking to increase their wealth still further, so long as this does not entail them working any harder or longer. Their leaders have, of course, ensured that they are handsomely rewarded. Joining with the likeminded across Europe they have formed the EU, in order to exclude and exploit the truly poor of the world. So much is human nature, I suppose, but it is sickening that they seek to claim the moral highground as the defenders of the poor. The best way to reduce poverty is of course to create wealth, and wealth creation is optimised by free trade.

    • Manfarang

      “some of the wealthiest people in the world, namely the lower 50% of earners in the UK,”
      Maybe Labour should take a leaf out of the SPD book and their supporters would be better off instead of barely keeping up with a very high cost of living.

    • Sir John Oldcastle

      Don’t you mean ‘work’, rather than ‘work harder and longer’?

  • Anton

    It isn’t primarily about economics anyway.

  • Martin

    As you say at the end, “Man plans, God laughs”. This whole business is but a side show to what is about to happen. Christians in the USA have seen it and produced the Nashville Statement What we are about to see is the fulfilment of Romans 1:18-32 wherein we will see the destruction of our nations from within, unless God in His grace provides repentance and revival.

    • alternative_perspective

      “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains”
      Apparently that term “nation will rise against nation” is easily understood as “ethnicity against ethnicity”.
      So the phrase refers to ethnic and political turmoil. Only an external authority will be able to stamp peace on these bickering children. I imagine this will be the cry of many and the justification for the creation of powerful supranational bodies as well as the warrant for suppression of all that divides us.

  • Murti Bing

    Labour activists don’t care about ‘the poor’ any more, and they haven’t for a long time. It’s all gender politics and wretched ‘diversity’- middle class luxury preoccupations.

    A vast proportion of the people of this country need a new and sincere form of political representation. But where this is to come from, I have no idea.

  • The video clip is pure gold.

    • Andy

      And it pains me to say it, as a Tory, he was dead right. The tragedy is it has taken 41 years to correct the error made in 1975, but ‘Nothing is ever settled, till it is settled right’.

      • Manfarang

        In 1975 many in Labour didn’t want the UK in to be part of the EEC because it would prevent all the British economy coming under state control.

  • len

    The EU is a huge bureaucratic monster stripping Countries of their rights and their identities and churning out reams of restrictive legislation in return .The EU is all about power and control.We in the UK have fought in two world wars to keep our freedom to be individuals and to control our destiny but some want to give that up for the illusion of being ‘in the club’.

  • Little Black Censored

    Magnificent speech by Peter Shore. (I wonder why somebody thought it a good idea to add irritating background music.)

  • Stephen Heard

    Peter Shore was prophetic. How we all laughed! (Some of us anyway.) And what happened to oratory like that?