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.

Boris and the Burkha.

Much is being made of Boris Johnson's interview in the Telepgraph about Burkhas. Actually more accurately the Niqab, the face veil.

Aparrently his references to letterboxes and bank robbers has offended some people, such that there are no calls to remove the whip from him.

But there you go, the professionally offended are at it again. Who gives a toss if you are "offended"? I don't. At work we call each other wanker, prick and occasionally use the "C" word too. I could well be offended by this if I took the remark out of context.

In the context of the Boris interview he is right, although I suggest the short-hand form of the interview in the paper didn't put the words well.

But to avoid being robbed, banks require that we remove headgear such as crash helmets, balaclavas and the like. That's not anti-muslim, that's anti-someone-wanting-to-rob-the-bank. It's common sense that everyone entering the bank can be identified.

The same goes for petrol stations: people should remove headgear so they can be identified on CCTV so they can be found if they run off without paying, or if they try and rob the place. There's no malice or "Islamophobia" in the request.

The same goes when confirming the identity of someone using photo ID.  Whether it's a driving licence, bus pass or whatever, the person providing the ID should be prepared to (as part of the process of using that ID) to show their face to confirm they are the person on that photo ID.

I see it this way: if you want the freedom to wear the face veil, to identify with your religious beliefs, part of the contract you have with the state to allow you that freedom is that occasionally someone in authority will request that you show your face to prove your identity, especially when using photographic ID. You take the common sense line and each party meets half way.

If you refuse to show your face to validate the photo ID, then you are in breach of contract and the ID is invalid. In the case of a bus pass you'd be required to pay full fare, in the case of a driving licence you would not be allowed to drive the car. In the case of the bank or the petrol station they have the right not to serve you.

It's not Islamophobic, it is common sense. And as the rules apply to everyone, they are not discriminatory.

Now if people want to breach that contract with the state and ID providers by not proving their identity by removing the veil, then they do so under the full knowledge of those conditions.

The problem is that veil wearers do so to make a political point. It is not religious. They are saying essentially that they reject the rules of our country and prefer to live under Sharia. They are sticking two fingers up to the rules that govern our country and saying they do not wish to live under our laws.

If we did the same in a Muslim country then quite rightly we would feel the full force of their laws. But normally we show due respect for the rules that apply and cover up, and when it is required, women wear the veil.

Now under those circumstances, if it does become a major issue which it does seem to be these days, I'm in favour of a law coming into force that forces people to show their faces when required to validate the requirements of their ID.

For instance when asked to validate a bus pass or when driving a car.

Driving a car without a face covering should be a requirement in law to be able to identify the driver at all times. Otherwise anyone could be driving and it would be easy to pervert the course of justice.
Just how you identify a speeding driver in a photograph if they are wearing the veil escapes me. But then how safe is it driving when veiled? I'd suggest that the risk of the head covering obscuring the driver's view is pretty high. Ban the veil when driving then.


As for the letterbox comment, well it's a bit crass but it's what everyone thinks. Whether a public figure should say such a thing is up for debate, but certainly shouldn't be a reson for deselection, removal of the whip, or an apology.

I defy a Muslim not to have called a scantily-clad Western girl a slut or a whore or in any other way impune her morals. Even though Bikinis and other revealling clothes are acceptable wear in the west.

UPDATED TO ADD:

Be very wary of anyone wanting to ban teh Niqab outright, for that way lies the banning of ALL face coverings in public. That would be a very hard law to write in order to get round masks used at Halloween, full face crash helmets, V for ventetta masks, that sort of thing.

Better to compel the wearer to reveal themselves upon a reasonable and valid request.

Problems with a "Pure" WTO Brexit.

Okay, I voted Leave. As I have stated infinite times. But what sort of Brexit did I vote for?

Well, I didn't vote for a "pure" WTO Brexit. I had assumed that the government would be able to extricate the majority of us from EU regulation and agree with the EU that businesses that wish to trade directly with the EU would pay a fee to be opart of an independent standards compliance verification system that would ensure that any goods sent to the EU would comply with EU standards.

Essentially they pay a tariff to trade with the EU, but at the border the trade is frictionless as the goods have essentially been guaranteed as EU compliant.

Whatever form that regulatory body takes and the hoops the companies would have to jump through would be down to the negotiations with the EU after article 50 was enacted. But the negotiations would just detail the complaince structure and implementation only.

The negotiations have been complicated by a desire to keep the whole country aligned with the EU when there was no need for it.

In fact it shows the level to which EU legislation has pervaded all levels of society, industry and business: The government thought it from the perspective of staying in the EU and getting away with as little de-regulation as possible that could be described as Brexit.

Instead of working from the fully-out perspective and working out how little regulation was required to allow frictionless trade.

Just as an example of how the negotiations might go:

UK: I want to deliver goods to the EU.

EU: Those goods need to comply with EU standards.

UK: Ok, any goods supplied by businesses will comply to EU standards, but we reserve the right to produce goods to our own specs within the UK.

EU: but how would you guarantee compliance for goods you export to the EU? We would require ALL goods imported and sold into the UK top be EU compliant.

UK: There is no need for the whole country to be EU compliant: we set up a regulatory body whose job it is to investigate companies who wish to trade with the EU from top to bottom and certify compliance with EU standards.

EU: but who will pay for this regulatory body?

UK: the UK government will set it up in partnership with the EU. We envision that the EU would share some of the cost of setting up.

EU: we won't pay.

UK: Okay, we concede the UK government will pay to set up the regulatory body but the EU has to agree to provide the body with any and all tools to deliver compliance.

EU: Who will make judgements in disputes?

UK: the ECJ will rule on disputes but their judgements will be limited to the regulatory body only, it will not affect UK law.

EU & UK: OK, job done. On to the next issue.

Now EU law makers are very good at drilling into the detail and making a mountain out of a mole hill. For instance they could argue that the lorries hauling the goods would need to adhere to EU standards or come up with some other micro-management rule.

But that's where the UK team have to be savvy and resist that push from the EU team to micro-manage every single atom crossing the border. And if there is an impasse, leverage other areas of the negotiations to our advantage.