Beware False Brexit Idols...

It seems Labour are shit scared of the Leave-voting (previous) Labour supporters switching to the Brexit party, so they are now making more definite noises about Brexit policy and what Labour would do.

Let's be clear: a vote for Labour is a vote to remain. Just like a Lib-Dem vote. Maybe Labour aren't as clear on the subject, but let ME be clear:

Labour haven't taken Remain off the table, so it remains a viable option in any future referendum. Also, if they get into power, would negotiate a new, supposedly better deal and then the majority of Labour MPs would campaign during a second referendum campaign against the deal that they themselves negotiated, because they feel the UK would be better within the EU. As nonsensical as that seems.

What Labour's policy is, is a back-door attempt to remain.

The Lib-Dems, are quite clear that they would revoke article 50 without a referendum, instead relying on the mandate of the general election win to reverse the referendum result of 2016.

Labour instead would have a people's vote or second referendum, with options to remain and any number of leave options. Thereby splitting the leave vote and artificially generating a remain result.

Instead what we should be hearing from ANY party offering a second referendum is to offer a referendum on leave only. The LEAVE/REMAIN issue was settled in 2016: we voted to leave.

So now the issue should progress and move on: we voted leave, so what leave option do we prefer?  Do we like any deal that the government negotiates with the EU, or do we reject the deal and go for a clean break and sever ties with Europe immediately?

Instead of taking no-deal off the table, MPs should have taken remain off the table. The fact that all the actions of MPs over the past 3 years was exactly the opposite, tells you volumes on where the majority of Previous MPs stood. They all want to be tied to Europe and will negotiate the worst deal in order to make being in Europe appear better than being outside.

The Case Against a Second Referendum....

...is simply that if the public vote to leave again, the MPs will simply ignore it again. Or worse still conspire against it. Again. They are only hoping for a different outcome (remain). But then can we not have the excuse that it's now tied 1-1 for Leave and Remain, so now we go for a tie-breaker referendum? Of course not, as soon as they win, then everything clams shut again.

There has to be an election. Let each MP stand on a truthful pro or anti Brexit stance. No hiding behind party lines this time. Each MP must state where exactly they stand on Brexit on an individual basis.

We had the liars last time get in on a false premise and then swap parties, vote against their own party and effectively work in opposition to the stand that got them into power.

Clear house and start again, hopefully with a bucketful more integrity than the current shower.

Brexit Matters not just for Leavers, but Remainers as Well.

Ok, first off, lets state the FACT that 52% of people voted to leave the EU. It's also a FACT that 48% voted to stay. It was close, but still it's a fact the leave side won.

Now, without getting into the semantics of what happens post-Brexit, the deal, etc. There is an overall importance to what is currently happening to the Brexit process that the Remain side should be paying attention to.

The Leave side won, so it's already been decided that we should leave the EU. All the manipulation about leavers not knowing what they voted for or supporting the 48% that voted to stay or now the new people's vote (which will include the option to remain) are just semantics and a way of keeping us in the EU in some form or other.

In other words ignoring the will of the people, or refusing to accept the democratic decision of the people on a vote that has already been cast and the outcome decided.

It's also pertinant to note that had the vote gone the other way and the remainer had won, there would be no talk about they didn't know whet they were voting for, or the 48% of leavers need to be respected. No the leavers would have had to suck it up and keep quiet and the process of ever greater integration would continue, like back in 1975.

Now this becomes important to remainers because if the government can ignore the democratic decision of the people on this most important of votes with the biggest turnout for decades, if not in history, what other votes could they ignore?

I mean, why not ignore the outcome of general elections? Oh, the majority voted Labour? Tough, the elite want a Tory government so some way will be found of keeping the Tories in.

The majority voted for a Liberal controlled council? No, sorry the elite want Labour to run that council....

All I'm saying to the remainers is: be careful what you wish for. And think very carefully about the course of your actions.

Back to Brexit

I'm sure that most people that watch the Brexit debates have seen Remainers call Leave voters "Bigots", "Little Englanders", "Racists"...

But there seems to be no similar epithet coming from The Leave side about remainers other than "Remainiacs" (rolls off the tongue doesn't it?). But Remainiac doesn't really infer anything, like bigot or racist does. They really are nasty terms to "otherise" the Brexit majority.

However, I think I've come up with a suitable epithet for Remainers and especially the ones that vehemently support the UK staying in the EU and defying the democratic vote.

I mean, it's not like there's an opposition EU we can vote for instead of the current mob. It's effectively a one-party state.

In fact the urban dictionary entry for the word is right on the button:

"all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator"

"Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong"

"The country must grow and the implied goal of any ****** nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government." In this case substitute country and government for comission."

The word they're describing?  Fascist.

How else could you describe someone that seeks to ignore a democratic vote?

How else could you describe someone that seeks to tie us to an anti-democratic organisation?

How else could you describe someone that supports big corporations?

The only anti-democratic, corporatist organisations were Fascists.

So the cap does fit....

Yeah, Fascist.

The 48%

I would like to think that anyone that reads this blog on a regular basis (is there anyone out there?) kows that I voted for Brexit.

But I thought it was about time I looked at the 48% of voters who voted for remain and what is being done for them in the Brexit negotiations.

If the majority for leave was much higher, I'm sure we would have had a "hard" Brexit: article 50 would have been invoked immediately and we would have been out of everything and trading on WTO rules after the 2 year negotiation period. That period would have been used to confirm tarding relations between us and the EU block as a third country.

However, there wasn't that great a majority, so the pace of Brexit has to be slower and more cautious in order to gain some concessions for the 48%. For instance the security of our citizens in Europe, friction-free trade and all the other things that are making the negotiations as easy as travelling across the country's currently icy roads.

The 48% need to understand the negotiations on trade and everything else are for them.

Actually, it's not 48%.... polls show that most remain-voting people accepted the result of the referendum. they accept they lost and accept that Brexit in some form or another must happen. I thank those remain voters who graciously accepted the result of the referendum. It's a very adult view to take and I thank them for not rocking the boat, throwing their toys out of the pram or whatever metaphor descripes the petulant few that refuse to accept the democratic will of the people.

It's those die-hard remainers, something like 24% of those that voted that are sore losers and want us to stay in the customs union even though it is incompatible with the ending of free movement of people, as required by the 52% that voted for Brexit. 

The 24% want free and frictionless trade, even though the EU themselves have said that once out of the customs union it is impossible.

The 24% want no border between Southern and Northern Ireland, even though they are two different countries and the EU have already said it is impossible without a customs union.

The 24% seem to have a disproportionate representation in Parliament (certainly in the house of Lords) and in the media. So much for representative government.

The BBC seem to push the minority anti-Brexit 24% agenda at every turn, despite the majority of voters voting for Brexit and the majority of voters (including leave voters) accepting the result of the referendum. Not very representative of the BBC at all. In fact it's very biased of them, as has been reported many times. But thenn again, what do you expect from an organisation that receives a substantial contribution in monetary terms from the EU.

It's quite telling to look at anti-Brexit organisations (charities included) and see whether they receive direct funding from the EU. The vast majority do...

Anyway, I do feel for the 24%... I really do. What they are asking for is incompatible with the will of the majority and especially against the rules and regulations of the organisation they wish us to remain part of. One of the very reasons I voted against the EU is the inflexibility and unbending adherence to the rules, enforced by unelected officials.

Sorry 24%, you're getting a taste of your own medicine. It's not our fault. We are trying to negotiate on your behalf. I just wish you would appreciate it and understand that the very organisation you love refuses to accept your viewpoint. Ironically showing just how undemocratic the EU really is.