Silly old sod!

BELGIUM-EU-BRITAIN-POLITICS-BREXITJust when you thought the shower of bullshit spewing from the mouths of the Fourth Reich couldn’t possibly get any more ludicrous, along comes Jean Claude Drunker to prove you wrong…

The man responsible for single handedly draining the EU wine lake reckons that after next March UK planes will not be allowed to land at EU airports. Well, that should prove interesting on a number of fronts.

For a start, under current aviation rules, the European Union Open Skies Agreement allows EU member airlines, including those registered in the UK, to operate in each other’s countries. So in theory it’s possible to prevent non EU registered airlines accessing the EU. EasyJet is hedging its bets by setting up a subsidiary in Austria which would circumvent any blocking tactics. British Airways is already part of British Iberian so won’t have a problem. Expect more companies to follow EasyJet’s example. So problem solved.

Secondly threats like this cut both ways. The UK is a major transatlantic hub for Europe so that would give the EU a few problems.

Thirdly it’s difficult to work out how anyone in the EU is going to fly to the USA without crossing UK airspace. Or for that matter how anyone in Ireland is going to fly to Europe without crossing UK airspace.

No, I think that we can safely assume that this isn’t going to happen. It’s just another example of bullying scare tactics by a man who hasn’t got over the fact that Cameron opposed his appointment or that the UK actually has the audacity to dare leave his shitty, undemocratic, sordid little dictatorship.

Stick to the Chateaux Neuf non sewer Druncker and go fuck yourself you stupid little man…



Personally I’m getting sick and tired of the word “islamaphobia” being bandied around. It’s a nonsense word, just like “hate crime” and “racist” when applied to muslims.

Let’s examine the facts, rather than the rhetoric. Islam is a religion, it’s not a race. To apply the word ‘racism’ to criticism of Islam is a nonsense. It’s used by people who just don’t understand proper English. Ditto ‘hate crime’. What a load of rubbish. If I call someone who is white a cunt it’s OK, but if a call a Muslim a cunt then that’s a hate crime. No it isn’t. I don’t hate him, I just think he’s a cunt and his race, religion or skin colour is irrelevant. This is another PC phrase used against the indigenous people of this island. It’s one sided, discriminatory against straight, white, heterosexual, able bodied people.

But back to Islamphobia. A phobia is defined as “an irrational or illogical fear“. Last night a car was driven into people outside Westminster. Is it logical to fear someone deliberately driving a car at us? Of course it is.

A few months back I visited the 9/11 memorial in New York. It is illogical to fear islamic fundamentalists who hijack planes and fly them into tall buildings to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians? No, it isn’t. How about the July 7 attacks in London, the rampage in Borough Market, the hacking to death of Lee Rigby, tourists machine gunned on a beach, trucks driven into Christmas Markets, beheadings of aid workers? Do these events make you think that fear of the people who perpetrate these acts is “irrational or illogical”? Of course not. Yet when we talk about them and we’re white, we’re accused of islamaphobia.

Boris Johnson is being pilloried at the moment for making Islamaphobic remarks. Absolute bullshit! The guy was actually supporting the right to wear the burkha and saying it should not be banned, I actually think he’s wrong but that’s not the point. It is being pointed out that since this white anglo saxon male made these ‘islamaphobic remarks’ there has been a rise in ‘hate crime’. It wouldn’t surprise me if they blame him for encouraging last night’s attack in London.

So Boris said people in burkhas look like letter boxes. Well, be honest – they do, don’t they? Bit like walking bin bags too. That’s a fact, not ‘islamaphobia’.

He also said they looked like bank robbers. Well, explain to me why as a white man I am not allowed to walk into a bank wearing a crash helmet and yet a muslim is allowed in wearing a full face covering? And while we’re at it, remember that fugitive that tried to get out of the country by checking in at the airport wearing a burkha?

Of course, I will be described for writing this as a islamaphobic white supremacist. Well, I actually believe in treating all people equally regardless of their race and colour and reacting to them each individually depending on how they behave.

And I can’t be islamaphobic because there’s no such thing or racist because Islam is a religion not a race…


– – – – – Burka – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Johnson – – – – –

Has anyone noticed the remarkable resemblance between former Foreign Secretary and aspiring P.M. Boris Johnson and a Burka?

No? We thought not. Only one of them is a letterbox…

More rubbish from Doc North

I’m not allowed access to Richard North’s EUReferendum blog in order to refute his arguments and am therefore forced to do so on this blog. North is not a person to tolerate alternate views and would do well to remember this stance when advocating free speech and honesty…

It’s the final paragraphs of his latest post about the EU blame game that really highlight the arrant one sided nonsense that this so called intellectual proclaims as the one true word. Let’s disect it one piece at a time :

“When it comes to the blame game, therefore, one must look at this in the round, where it is reasonable to assume that a properly informed public, aware of the consequences of a “no deal”, would not tolerate a government which allowed it to happen” says North. This clearly is absolutely refutable. The majority of the 52% knew damn well when they voted on the referendum that they weren’t likely to get a deal from the EU, an organisation that is more interested in punishment beatings than reasoned negotiation; that cares more about keeping it’s populations under the control of an anti-democratic elite than in looking after their economic and cultural wellbeing.

Given this reasoning, it is extremely likely that a no-deal would result in many applauding the government for not handing over £49billion in return for BRINO and the continued dominance of the EU Court, a free movement agreement and a custome ‘arrangement’ – indeed, Brexit in name only. There are many – as has been seen recently – who would rise up in anger over a deal such as the Chequers proposals.

Where newspapers … downplay the consequences, they too must share some of the blame if the outcome goes in the direction of “no deal”. The media must be more accountable for its actions and less tolerant of false witnesses in its ranks.” Pretty rich considering that North uses said media to spout his own twisted view of the truth whilst denying a voice to people who dare to disagree. Presumably he regards anyone he disagrees with as a ‘false witness’?

There are no circumstances where the WTO option could be anything other than disastrous. We have got to the stage where, in a mature debate, any claim to the contrary, and in particular assertions that there is “nothing to fear”, is demonstrably false. Those who have not explored the issues have no business pronouncing on them.” Well, I have explored the issues in depth – and I have a degree in economics so I think I understand the issues pretty well. We deal with many other countries under WTO rules and thee is no reason why we could not lump the EU into that system at the drop of a hat. The systems are already there; we simply apply them to one more country or, in this case, block of countries. Indeed those who understand the trade balance between us and the EU will know that we stand to make substantial gains from the duties levied. Yet another Brexit bonus, in fact.

But now we get to the crux of Doc North’s nonsense. Quoting his equally intolerant son, he says “Pete would have it that those who say we can rely on WTO rules as a basis for our post-Brexit trade relations are professional liars. I find it hard to disagree.

Well I disagree although, of course, I’m not allowed to say so to either North as they’ve both banned me from their sites. Pete went as far as to call me a prat and tell me to fuck off. Hardly reasoned debate is it?

As far as I am concerned, if we are going to start calling people professional liars then we really need to look at the Remain camp. I’ve lost count of which phase of Project Fear we are currently in, but just off the top of my head there was no emergency budget after Referendum Day, no collapse of the housing market, no World War Three or any other plague of locusts that the Remainers told us would be the disastrous consequences of voting to Leave.

And, just for the record, I’ve not banned either of the Norths from commenting on this post. I welcome the opportunity to refute their assertions. However, as they regard anyone who questions them as some sort of intellectual pigmy, I doubt I’ll get the chance…

Referendum anyone?

So this morning we were greeted with the news that former Education Secretary, Justine Greening, thinks we need another referendum on Brexit presumably because we’re all thick as pig shit and weren’t intelligent enough to understand the issues.

So what question does she think we should be asked to decide upon? Something to do with the final deal perhaps? Well, that would be reasonable if not agreeable, but she wants a three way referendum. Would you like to :

(a) Accept the deal agreed by Theresa May at Chequers?
(b) Leave the EU on WTO terms?
(c) Forget the whole thing and remain in the EU?

Well, that’s a crock of horse shit isn’t it, Justine? You can’t have a three way question in a referendum, but if you’re going to , then you need to be really, really sneaky and give us two leave options and one remain. It splits the vote. Let’s assume that 30% answer (a) 30% answer (b) and 40% answer (c) – so (c) is the winner!!! Well, bollocks to that…

The above delivers a 60% majority for leaving but it wouldn’t count on a first past the post basis which is precisely why she is suggesting it.

Now I might accept an argument for do you want (a) or (b) because there is at least a flimsy case for that. I say flimsy because you can’t vote on a deal which hasn’t been struck and, frankly, all the noises coming out of the EU suggest it won’t be struck. What I’m not prepared to accept is that we need to vote again on whether to remain or leave. We had that vote in 2016 and decided to leave.

Furthermore, we will be leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 under article 50. There is no provision in the treaties to reverse the invocation of that article. This means we can’t cancel the process. We’d have to apply to rejoin. As a result we would most likely lose our veto over the Shengen Zone and would be obliged to dump the pound and adopt the Euro.

Now we’ve had lots of Project Fear about the economic consequences of leaving the EU – all of which have proven inaccurate – but can you imagine the economic consequences for the UK if we were forced to join the Euro???

Nigel Farage put it quite well this morning on GMTV when he was given the opportunity to say anything at all by the interviewers and Chukka Ummana. It’s time for May to go and for a PM to be elected who has the conviction to the Leave cause to follow through. The justification for this is exactly the justification that David Davies gave when he resigned. He was unable to accept responsibility for implementing a policy which he felt unable to wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support.

May is a remainer. She shouldn’t be the PM driving Brexit for precisely that reason. And as for Justine Greening, perhaps she should be reminded that although she holds a marginal seat in Putney where the vote was heavily remain, her home town of Rotherham voted 68% to leave. Opportunistic politician ignoring her roots, or an MP defying the manifesto on which she was elected to reflect a remain vote? Remember, the manifesto came after the referendum and that is what she was elected on.

My advise is simple: “Shut the fuck up Justine because you clearly don’t understand what we voted for!”

And the final word to Nigel Farage : “The silent majority in this country is starting to get very angry!