Category Archives: #EUreferendum

Why I voted Leave…

Some people think I’m thick. Some people think I don’t know what I’m doing (possibly true some of the time), but what really annoys me is that people say I don’t know what I was voting for in the EU referendum…

So what was it I voted for? Was it the the end of free movement? Exiting the single market and customs union? Was it an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ or foreigners making our laws? Was it keeping more money for ourselves instead of giving it to a load of unelected bureaucrats who might then deign to grant us the crumbs from their corrupt and corpulent tables that we paid for in the first place??

Well, all of those things of course. But they’re not the main reason. The main reason is…


Yes, I really am that shallow. We were forced to take these useless continental cisterns with the push buttons on because “they use less water so they’re better for the environment”. Well, are they fuck!?!

The UK syphon cistern can’t leak. These Eurotwat things leak continually. Also how many times do you have to flush the bloody things? I’ve never managed to get rid of that final elusive piece of toilet paper or lingering floater yet without using the full flush (forget the useless short flush) at least twice. Sometimes three times.

So please don’t tell me they use less water. They’re bloody useless. Nearly as bad as those oil damped toilet seats I have to hold up with my knee every time I take a piss. Cock choppers, I call ’em. Don’t get me started.

No. To me, the ultimate symbol of EU dictatorship is the button flushing toilet cistern. And it’s symbolic too – because just like the EU, it’s full of shit that you just can’t get rid of…

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!

Brexit treachery

On this Valentine’s Day, this day of love, this day of harmony and accord, we naturally turn our thoughts towards those amongst us who would seek to deny the basic right of democracy to the people of this country.

It’s the week when we explore, according to the Prime Minister, the ‘Road to Brexit’ and set our vision for the future; a future that many of our elected representatives want to deny us because they know better than us common or garden scum.

So as we’ve had one vote already, it seems only right that we should have another.

Click this link and take part in a poll to tell us who you think is the 2018 answer to Lord Haw Haw. The poll has been open for nominations since the beginning of the month and today is open for a vote on the seven who got the most nominations.

So many traitors, so little democracy – so let’s try and restore a little…

Tories 1, UKIP 0

So, no real surprises yesterday in the by-elections? Well, yes, I suppose there were one or two.

I expected the turnout to be dire, not least of all because of storm Doris. Let’s face it, would you have turned out to vote in that crap if you didn’t have to? I wouldn’t. Not for a by-election.

UKIP didn’t contest Copeland and Labour are anti-nuclear, so with the regions biggest employer being Sellafield, you can’t really see the locals voting for the party of the working man when that party wants to put all those working men out of work. The Tories are crowing over it – especially as it’s been over 30 years since a sitting government beat the opposition in a by-election. You can’t blame them but I reckon Labour lost the seat rather than the Tories won it.

Stoke was different. Project Smear was in full swing and the Nutter didn’t help himself with his nonsense over Hillsborough. The locals might be heavily Brexit, but the Tories are making all the right noises so why vote UKIP? There are also people in Stoke who would rather pluck their eyeballs out than see the shambles that Labour has become. “We vote Labour. We always vote Labour. We never vote Tory. Ever. Ever.”

And the Lib Dems were they’re usual bloody nuisance self by splitting the anti Labour vote thus assuring a victory for Snell – an odious little man if ever there was one. If this is best Labour can do for a candidate, then they really are in terminal decline. Yes, I know they won, but I refer you to the previous paragraph.

UKIP’s problem is a bit like Scotland where they want to stay in the EU and the UK. The two are contradictory. Stoke want to leave the EU, but they don’t want a UKIP MP.

So let’s see what happens next. Corbyn’s going nowhere and more MPs are sure to leave the sinking Marxist ship. Could be a lively few years coming up…