Monday, 20 June 2016

Jo Cox is a reminder of why we must leave the EU

Although the source of these words is not one I would recommend, and the author one I have no time for, each and every word of this searing condemnation should be absorbed and heeded, and I make no apology for republishing them. Jo Cox was a symptom of a deep running cancer throughout the establishment and a good reason why our well intentioned foreign policy is as blood soaked and incompetent as it is.

"In the immediate aftermath of Jo Cox’s death politicians from all sides promised not to make the killing part of the referendum debate. And then proceeded to do just that. The killing got the full Charlie Hebdo treatment, with even the Prime Minister doing a passable imitation of a man beside himself with grief. Even Hilary Clinton, got into the act, and saw the opportunity to frame herself as a fighter against “extremism.”

The connection was immediately made to links to the right wing. The media in full-throated pursuit, were not going to let small details such as contempt of court rules or an ongoing investigation stop them.

Tribute after tribute bore witness to Jo Cox’s uniqueness. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, women like Jo Cox are ten a penny across the West these days — bland, compliant functionaries who have been marinated in political correctness and are happy to regurgitate the platitudes and attitudes of their political masters. And are well-rewarded for doing so.

She was that toxic combination of self-righteousness and entitlement which believed itself possessed of a special moral insight into the moral shortcomings of their own people. Never slow to parade her compassion, she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria. Bombing and babies; it was all business for Jo Cox.

Hers was the typical smooth career path of the modern political cog. From her grammar school, where she was the Head Girl, she seamlessly moved onto an extended period at two universities before emerging as professional aid worker for Oxfam and Save the Children. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was another fashionable international development outfit in which she managed to wangle a position as “advisor.”

She certainly travelled extensively, but to what extent did she get her hands dirty? Rather than mopping sweat-covered brows, her role as a policy consultant seemed to revolve swanning around seminars, conferences and committee rooms in Brussels and London. Networking, rather than counselling, seems the main skill in this field.

The safe Labour seat seems to have been a reward for acting as a bag-carrier for prominent political wives such as that of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a former Labour leader and Euro aristocrat Neil Kinnock. Her constituency seat had been represented by local White men for decades so an all-female shortlist had to be imposed on the local party to ensure an acceptable candidate could be given this plum.

It was a gilded lifestyle with a houseboat on the Thames beside Tower Bridge at which she hosted networking events for important left-wing women. There was a second house in her constituency which was a venue for a huge Solstice party each year.

The role of international aid worker is highly valued among a section of shrewd university-educated females. It offers a particularly attractive combination of a good salary in an expanding sector, frequent foreign travel and high status among the do-gooding circles."


This is the system-wide ambitious narcissism that infects every strata of UK governance. It is greedy, deeply corrupt, massively hypocritical, shallow, malign and lacking in any self-awareness. They are not good or decent people. They are climbers of an especially greasy pole where there is plenty money sloshing around for vanity projects with zero accountability or checks and balances. It is these people who exemplify everything that is wrong with the EU and why we need to leave it.

And if this pricks your sensibilities, if you feel outraged or shocked - do not chastise me. Examine the source of your outrage and shock. You have always thought such institutions and people to be wholesome and good because of their intentions. This tramples all over some careless assumptions you've been labouring under. And it's not me you're angry at. It's that this truth has rattled you.

And if it seems untimely or insensitive, forgive me, but at any time these words may seem shocking, perhaps even disrespectful, but if I say these things next week, next week is too late. This week is your chance to interrupt their grubby little circle-jerk.

These people are not kind and caring and they certainly don't care what you think just so long as you keep paying. They do not believe in free speech, they do not believe in democracy and they neither like nor trust you.

On Thursday you can send them a message. You can either take their power away or you can give them more. If your choice is the latter, don't forget that it's irreversible and you won't get another say.

Monday, 13 June 2016

The Daily Telegraph deserves to fail

As much as the Telegraph is lying to its advertisers by faking sales figures of its hard copy, it is now lying to its online advertisers. The reason Telegraph articles are peppered with pointless and intrusive pictures and vids is to increase the visit duration because advertisers are now starting to ask more sophisticated questions about page hits.

What their digital strategists haven't clocked is that it's actually pissing a lot of readers off and making them less inclined to read anything. I don't know how they manage to be this incompetent.

Though it's easy to see why it is tanking from the journalism on offer. They have lawyers and sub editors interfering with submissions, cross linking to corporate approved sources only and imposing pointless word limits on people which prohibit the necessary level of detail that may retain readership.

The fact is, they have forgotten how to add value. They are followers, not leaders. They see bloggers as competition to be frozen out rather than part of an ecosystem to be nurtured as a talent pool. But who is going to give them the time of day when they pay £275k a year to Boris Johnson for his flatulence but only £50 to a blogger who does actually know their subject?

They have just sacked most of their best writers and instead rely on junior hacks without any depth or experience. The follow the media herd in reporting the dismal and shallow slanging matches from the bubble assuming that the public are more interested in that than being informed.

As it happens, you have to nurture interest in something so you need columnists who work as bloggers do, hunting in packs and developing a knowledge base. Instead they select from a narrow pool of interchangeable egos from the conservative circle jerk whose opinions I wouldn't give tuppence ha'penny for. Self-satisfied lazy people who have no inherent curiosity.

You're never going to get genuine journalistic enquiry with such a proscribed doctrinaire approach and certainly not without editorial independence. It naturally stifles good writing - not least asking people to write about things they know nothing about.

But since you can't retain a talent pool of expertise anymore because of financial constraints, you need to know where the expertise is in order to call upon it. That's where bloggers come in Bloggers tend to be monomaniacs and sponges for information. They know where all the facts and figures are. Moreover they are not entirely motivated by money. They are genuinely curious people who tend to thrive on hits and exposure. If you link out to them so they thrive then you build up a lot of good will and backlinking from them.

But the Telegraph does not link out to bloggers so it is not reciprocated. If it references bloggers at all it steals the work without attribution. Daniel Hannan and Alistair Heath do this. Let's call it what it is. Theft. And Telegraph policy is to link only to itself or sources the editors go to lunch with. If you're not in the club, you don't exist.

That is why journalism is withering on the vine and these rags are now treated with contempt by people who do actually know what's going on. The joke of it is, the model I propose would actually see writers paid properly, produce a better product and could be done cheaper.

As much as TLA bloggers are second to none on EU issues, there are specialists and contributors to global forums who could uncover an entire universe of interesting politics which gets no exposure at all. People like Justin Stares of Maritime Watch - a fascinating and vital field in its own right, and David Cenciotti of The Aviationist. Not to mention communications officers within the NGOcracy (Sandy Starr for instance) who tend to be expert in their field.

The fact is, if you are producing the goods that people can't get anywhere else and adding value, you will have a loyal and appreciative audience. Not so if all you're producing is exactly the same tat you can get anywhere. That is why the Telegraph is regarded as a joke and that is why it has to lie to advertisers. That is why it's a second rate clickbait rag dying on its arse getting by on (rapidly diminishing) brand prestige alone.

To some extent the Guardian has the right format with a slightly better attitude to the outside world, but their problem is that they think self-satisfied leftwing smugness qualifies as expertise. That cannot be corrected as it is endemic to the creed.

In a crowded market with all the rags chasing the same shrinking pond your strategy should be to nurture a new audience. You can do that by borrowing the readers of your contributors. But you only retain them if your purpose is to add value and increase understanding - and to acknowledge your critics rather than ignoring them.

For as long as our media remains a inbred, self-referential circle jerk, full of worn out preening egotists like Iain Martin, Dan Hodges and Con Coughlin it will continue to wither on the vine. But since it has such a lame attitude to the world of writing and a contempt for intellectual property I actually look forward to the day when the Daily Telegraph closes its doors for the last time. Journalism cannot thrive until these bed blockers are put out of their misery.

Saturday, 11 June 2016

A slumbering dragon is still a dragon.

One political meme travelling around academia at the moment is that the vision of the EUs founding fathers has stalled and will never become a reality so it's ok to remain in the EU because there is a different destination of concentric circles bound under a loose alliance. It's actually a convincing argument when you look at the reality on the ground, but it's a piece of creative writing which ultimately ignores the nature of the beast.

The founding fathers were savvy in their design of le grande project. They always knew it could never be done all at once because the central vision would never secure a mandate. Integration by deception has always been the modus operandi. It salami slices powers little by little, so gradually that few ever notice. And you'd never see it unless you know what the game plan is. They were long term thinkers. They knew it would take a generation or so to advance their agenda and they had a roadmap to do it.

It has always used funding of local projects to manufacture consent. It's why you'll find EU logos emblazoned on any nature reserve or community hall or obscure museum out in the shires, to convince the plebs that their benevolent EU guardians cared more for them than the London government. It is why it funds universities too. Every strata of civil society has an injection of EU cash. Education, NGOs, you name it. And it works.

I recently debated Jay Risbridger at Bath Spa University when he made the assertion "our universities are completely dependent on EU funding". It's actually closer to 6% - and UK research wins the grant money because it is good - It is not good because it is funded by the EU. I stopped short of calling him a liar because you're not lying if you actually believe this tosh. This is why europhiles are useful idiots on any given subject.

Whenever you hear a europhile talking about the EU being responsible for our workers rights you are actually listening to a useful idiot. Not only is this notion demonstrably false (and the few tacked on extras are actually damaging to labour rights), you are listening to a messenger of the founding fathers of the EU - who, in their attempts to manufacture a common consent, set about abusing the institutions of civic society to implant a social narrative. What you are actually hearing is a pernicious historical revisionism. And if that smells like a form of creeping fascism to you, then give yourself a gold star and come sit at the front of the class.

The founding fathers always knew a day would come where the legitimacy of the EU would be questioned. And now you see how well their pernicious scheme worked, with the entirely of the civic establishment coming out in favour of remain. They have made idle supplicants of our institutions, robbing them of their vitality, curiosity and dynamism.

And those who speak up about this are often labelled cranks or conspiracy theorists. Except it is a conspiracy and one they published in full. They even founded an academic institution to promote it: "The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies is an inter-disciplinary research centre at the heart of the European University Institute". The hellmouth of europhile academics and functionaries.

The modus operandi is encoded into all of the treaties and articles of the EU. It is worked into the philosophy of the institutions and it is designed to resist any kind of reform - especially anything which may introduce democracy. There it lies, dormant in the system, but sufficiently restraining in order to prevent deviation from the path.

It may stall, it may go quiet, but the agenda is always there with the noose ever tightening - engineering for irreversibility. That is why the remains make such an issue of how we leave the EU. It was never meant to be easy. It was always a quicksand trap for democracies. The harder you pull away the more it sucks you in.

And so when we hear the ignorant prattle of cosseted and sinecured LSE academics telling us it's safe to stay because the dream is dead, they are speaking from a position of naivety and ignorance. The Ghost of Monnet lives on. The ghoulish servants of the ideal still roam the corridors of Brussels and an infest social media spreading their poison, sewing doubts and rewriting history.

And that's why the EU is not an alliance. It is a power cult. One which believes in the ideal that nations robbed of their resources and democracy lack the ability to go to war - and by this logic the absence of war de facto means peaceful coexistence. It's why they are the enemies of peace and consequently liberty. They are extremists zealots for home no lie is too big and any lie will do so long as you keep believing.

I am not a religious man at all but if I were I would hold the belief that the EU is the work of Satan. It is an evil empire built on a foundation of lies, sustained by ignorance and deception. And to quote that great revolutionary leader, Kyle Reece, "it can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with, It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever". Do not believe the deceivers. A slumbering dragon is still a dragon.

Monday, 6 June 2016

Let's be done with these awful people.

A few polls have put Leave in the lead. I am cautious. My view is to always fight like you're losing. What's interesting though is the reaction on the remain side. They see this as the great unwashed being taken in by the snake oil salesmen like Farage and Johnson - that we are under the hypnotic spell of the tabloid press, and that we have rejected the wisdom of the experts - that populism is on the rise.

This is how deeply they hold the average voter in contempt. It doesn't actually occur to them that we all find the lead leave campaign a total irrelevance and this is our chance to express many of our views on a subject which has largely been buried for decades. No, we're all just feeble-minded xenophobes incapable of independent thought!

And that is in part what I am voting against. A snobbish, aloof political elite who believe that they are the progressives and the enlightened, and guardians of a sacred wisdom which must never be challenged by something as tawdry as democracy.

But it's not just them. Plenty of ordinary people think the same way. Useful idiots who wish to be seen to be progressive and enlightened and that somehow the EU is the embodiment of those values - despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

It is a wholly shallow, narcissistic and lazy attitude, being taken in by an institution that uses all the vocabulary of progressivism but is in reality nothing approaching what it pretends to be.

And this is why this is as much a culture war as anything else. I don't know about you but I'm tired of identikit clean cut politicians sneering at us from upon high. Not least the likes of Emma Reynolds and Rachel Reeves who in truth know fuck all about nine tenths of anything.

They are vacuous, empty, shallow, profoundly ignorant people with neither curiosity or self-awareness. I am voting to leave because these people want to remain. I want to sabotage their political agenda and I want adults back on control. We cannot afford to be run by these people anymore.

Sunday, 29 May 2016

Leading not leaving? Puhlease!!

I can think of no more astonishingly ignorant statement that we should be leading, not leaving the EU. So much so it sends me into an eye-popping rage. It is the bovine thoughtlessness of it that sends me round the fucking corner.

The EU has a massive obligation and that is not to let the Euro collapse and drag us all back into the dark ages. To that end it needs near total influence of economic policy within the Eurozone. It has a mountain to climb to bring about the economic convergence it should have had before it set off. For starters it will have to effectively assume control of Spain and Italy the way it has Greece because they're not getting their act together in cleaning up their grubby economies.

That means Britain is not on the agenda. At all. And because we are not in the Euro we'll have precisely zero influence of economic and monetary policy. Our needs will be way down the list of concerns. Though we will be presented with the bill - you can count on that much.

Meanwhile we're being gradually stripped of our voting rights at all the global regulatory bodies with the EU tightly controlling who can speak on our behalf. It's bad now and it's only going to get worse because when global bodies like the IMO tell the EU to go fuck itself they never take no for an answer and will keep trying.

Not only will be be marginalised inside the EU we will be completely without a voice at the global level and then europhiles have the nerve to suggest we would be isolated if we left the EU. I genuinely can't think of a more asinine thing to say than that. It's cretinous. These people haven't the first fucking idea what they are talking about and when you have some insight as to what is actually going on you start to realise that these people are actually fucking dangerous and shouldn't be allowed out without adult supervision.

The other crass assertion is that we should stay in because all the other world leaders thinks we should. Excuse me? Really? Leaders of competing economies don't want Britain to have a full presence of the global trade and regulatory bodies? Well fuck me sideways!! I'd never have guessed that. Exactly why should we vacate the room for India, China and America? Fuck off.

And then look at who is actually making the rules. Global trade alliances are made up of minnow states, large corporate unions and philanthropic institutes. That's a mixed blessing but as the global rules based trading system evolves we see far less participation from anybody we actually elected. Some of them are way more powerful than even the EU. In any dispute between the US and the EU they hold the deciding vote. That's real leverage yet we have to do as we are instructed if we're even allowed to sit at the table.

And while you might think this doesn't actually matter, where do you think all these regulatory instructions come from? Not Brussels. More likely Geneva. Go and have a look at the new proposed cigarette packets courtesy of the WHO. Charming stuff.

I'm not one to rail about any and all regulation and I think the kipperish complaining about it is ridiculous. lt's a hangover from the 1990's but to say that because we allow MEPs a lookie-loo after everything has been decided that the process is democratic is one of the biggest lies ever told. We have Microsoft and Maersk Line making policy for over a hundred countries. Of course they don't want the process democratised.

Worse still is the UN's injection of sustainable development goals and climate objectives into every area of regulatory activities. Now I don't give a shit whether you think global warming is happening or not. I personally think the whole edifice of climate Science is a fucking joke that fails to satisfy even the most basic scientific principles and it is 100% politically driven by people with some very disturbing ideas. But let's suppose they are absolutely right. Don't you think it's a good idea that we have a say?

It's all very laudable to want Lesser Developed Countries to enjoy the benefits of modernity, but they are imposing a the eco agenda on LDCs to ensure they develop in the "right" way - ie renewable energy etc. All the stuff that europhiles adore. But these people are a fucking menace. As much as they are holding back development by impressing the most expensive energy and technology upon them, they have zero self awareness and can't see the connection between their policies and the unwanted unintended consequences. They just carry on without ever pausing for thought or ever taking responsibility for what they do.

Meanwhile the EU finances it with out money, often just handing it over wholesale to NGOs who are accountable to nobody. There is no democracy in this system and that's why europhiles adore it. The eco-left orthodoxy has near complete control of the agenda and they know full well the biggest existential threat to that order is democracy. That is why all the dignitaries right up to the very top do not want Britain to leave the EU. They do not want the people having a say on any level.

And that's why I will fight these people to the death. I will not accept a defeat at the referendum because they are rigging it. I will not submit to their rule and if we have to have a war to sort this out then so be it. Europhiles tell us that the EU keeps the peace but all it's doing is storing up ill will across the continent and necessarily it has seen a revival of popular movements springing up which they libellous brand "far right". If you label something you negate it.

And I don't deny that the leaders of these grubby little populist parties are pretty shabby human beings but they are saints next to the shitstains like Blair, Cameron, Legarde and Juncker. I wouldn't be surprised if these people were satanists. When it comes down to it I will side with the grubby little upstart parties every single time - and when the great and the good have to start checking under their cars before setting off to work I won't shed a tear. They are the enemies of democracy and when democracy is stifled for long enough people will resort to extraordinary measures. This is what you are inviting if you vote to remain because you are voting to give the global elites all of the power forever. Let that sink in.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

We will learn the hard way what democracy is

I've always said that Britain will stay in the EU for as long as it has a puerile understanding of what constitutes democracy, and will not fully comprehend that they have lost it and they need it. They will then discover that returning power to the people is not nearly as easy as it is to give away.

As present, we are only superficially aware that we don't have democracy because we are missing an essential component of a healthy democracy - a free and inquisitive press. It is not that the state censors our media, rather it censors itself largely to appease advertisers and corporate cronies. In that regard the government does not need to censor the British press.

But as much as anything it has lost its essential inquisitiveness. It is concerned only with the entertainment aspect of politics rather than the dreary business of policy. It is for that reason I look forward to the day when our newspapers go the way of the dinosaur. A fate well deserved.

But in having such a dismally inept media, decisions that affect our lives go unnoticed. We are often taken by the idea that government takes sweeping decisions behind closed doors but the ultimate joke is that they are held in the open, transcribed and published on the web. These days the best way to ensure nobody will read something is to put it on the EU website.

The diminishing few of us who actually watch regulatory affairs see sweeping changes to industries all the time, with the public being only barely aware of the more egregious examples such as the recent rules regarding vaping. As much as anything the public have similarly lost their inquisitiveness for what is done in their name. Probably through habit, having established there is little that can be done to stop them.

With surprising regularity we see rules made at the very top of global governance approved and rubber stamped with little or no scrutiny and then waved through by a toy parliament with no authority to make amendments. The authority exists in theory only. That which is agreed at the global level cannot be undone.

In this we see laws made which at the stroke of a pen can wipe out entire sectors or prevent innovations and not a peep is heard. And so while we have voting rituals to appoint ineffectual apologists, we have no real control over what is done in our name.

Moreover, what makes the EU different from any other body is that the unelected commission has right of proposal and right to refuse proposals from member states. It is therefore a body with extraordinary powers yet it has no mandate of any kind.

Between the commission and the European Court of Justice, officials and judges can rule on what is and is not a an exclusive competence of the EU - and routinely abuses legal definitions in order to afford itself more powers over member states and more power to revoke our rights at the global top tables where regulations are now made.

Such has been the case for so long that we now passively accept impositions and intrusions and few ever ask where they came from or why. We just assume that the presence of MEPs means that at some point there is some loosely defined democratic activity going on. There isn't. The rules are made at the global level, very often made by corporates and NGOs and global trade coalitions with no mandate from anybody. The only unions present are those there on licence from the EU.

And this is why the EU is all the more worrying. The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade says "Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations"

Not the use of the word "shall". As much as we have handed power to our MPs, they have handed it to Brussels and they in turn have handed over the power to global regulators, completely removing any public scrutiny from the law making process. Member states have their right of reservation removed, they have no independent vote and must vote the way they are told.

The excuse we are given is that the Council of Ministers is made up of people who are elected and they have a vote therefor this is a democracy. Britain can be entirely overruled by politicians they did not elect who are not acting in the interests of Britain (or even the EU) and though you can point to the empty voting rituals and say there was a vote, in a system where the sixty five million inhabitants of this island can be ignored, without right of refusal then by definition we do not live in a democracy.

And this is why I call the EU a silent assassin of democracy. A Potemkin Village designed to deceive. And by depriving us of the choice to refuse our government we are deprived of the ability and opportunity to innovate and so by the same measure it is also an assassin of prosperity.

In so doing it is eroding the unity and stability of Europe - and as people become increasingly aware that they are passengers in their own lives, without power, they become increasingly resigned but quietly resentful. This is why each wave of populist protest parties gets stronger each time.

For sure the elites can use the might of the institutions and the media to win their referendum and keep hold of the power, but in so doing are adding further fuel to the fire. They may well have discredited the utterly useless Ukips of this world but they have done nothing to quell the sentiment behind them. And that is why the future of British and European politics is set only to become more toxic.

You have heard me in the past define democracy as people power, from its literal Greek translation. The key part is the "demos" aspect - the people. You cannot, as we discovered in Iraq, define a demos by the lines you draw on a map or by the institutions you impose on them. A demos is self defining.

In that regard, it comes to one estimation. What would you, if push came to shove, be willing to die in muddy ditch for. And that is why the EU can never be a democracy. Nobody when exposed to the truth about the EU would lay down their lives to protect this artificial construct which represents nobody but itself. It is that which is the true test of whether the EU has a soul to speak of. It doesn't. There is no demos - and the peoples of Europe have no control over the EU entity. They have only protest - and protest without power is impotent.

And that is why Europe will tear itself apart under EU rule. Sooner or later we will discover that we are wholly impotent, and will discover that we do not have the means to institute new Government. We are already there in fact. It is only a matter of time for this temporary peace and stability comes under threat, not from external forces, but from those forces internally for whom the ends justify the means.

And it can only end in fire. Because it always does. We have been given one chance and one chance only to pull the lever to send the process of power transfer into reverse. We will not pull it because we live in fear, denial and self-deception. We would rather tell ourselves the lie that things can go on as they are without rocking the boat. And that is why we will have to learn the hard way what democracy really is and endure the misery of being without it.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

There are consequences for squandering democracy

As the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union approaches I find myself feeling ever more resigned. The polls suggest Britain will stay in the EU. It’s depressing on two counts. Firstly I see enormous economic opportunities in being free of the EU and secondly because democracy is not on the cards unless we leave.

There is, however, something a little more depressing than that. Virtually nobody believes the EU is a democracy yet bizarrely they will vote to remain in it. Consequently I have arrived at the conclusion that people have only a thin grasp of what democracy is and those who do don’t actually want it.

As far as most are concerned, democracy is the empty voting ritual every five years whereby we appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. The power that flows from the people is loaned to individuals who only ever have to account for the decisions they make come election time. The rest of the time they do as they please and seem to enjoy the fact there is nothing we can do about it.

In that regard the model of representative democracy we have is more an extrapolation. A sample of the public, who in theory will make decisions roughly representing those the broader public would make. This is a wholly flawed idea.

For starters British political life consists of constant shouting and complaining about our politicians, often for their vanity, corruption and incompetence. Most Brits do not want to participate in politics. They want to be entertained and outraged by it but take none of the responsibilities for it. They are interested in the people and their personal affairs but not the real business of policy.

Because of this, it takes a particularly sterile sort of person with a knack for avoiding controversy to become a Member of Parliament. We have our freaks like George Galloway but these are wholly licenced dissidents who don’t achieve much and never last long. This instantly distorts the representative sample.

Further to these anyone who even seeks this kind of power is of a certain ilk. By the time you put them all in one room, subject to its own groupthink and you have nothing even close to a representative sample. That is why something like EU membership must be put to a broader public vote. There is no way that MPs could produce a result representative of public sentiment.

But the rest of the time the public are happy with the arrangement; to have no actual power themselves and take none of the responsibility. That way, whatever goes wrong in government is someone else’s fault. Just like children. The children are free to play while the parents make the hard calls. Unpopular decisions will result in tantrums but the child is powerless to reverse the decision.

But governing is unlike parenting. A child does not get to select new parents every five years. If they did, we would find parents caving into tantrums. Politics however results in exactly that. Politicians afraid of losing their pampered positions will not take hard or unpopular choices. Consequently we are a nation of infants ruled by infants and the results are there for all to see.

And therein lies the inherent hypocrisy of representative democracy. We complain that we want better choices made on our behalf but are prepared to do none of the necessary things to ensure that happens. We say we want honest politicians but their dishonesty is a reflection of our own. We duck our responsibilities as voters and our obligation to participate. When every decision results in a childish tantrum it's little wonder politicians stop caring what we think.

The natural consequence of this is a system incapable of making adult decisions - where politicians are only too happy to surrender their powers to bureaucrats. It means our politicians can outsource the business of governing and regulating, absolving themselves of blame, while being free to pretend they are the ones in control.

They can enjoy the trappings of office for as long as they can keep making excuses. Consequently at elections we do not vote for a government. We are simply electing a management team whose purpose is to oversee the implementation of foreign rule. In that regard we are an occupied country with a collaborative administration.

The problem for those of us who do want real democracy is that the bureaucrats are not actually doing a bad job as far as the average voter is concerned. They might complain but the roads are maintained, the bins get emptied, and all the layers of invisible government go on without interfering in our lives in any way that we might notice. Why rock the boat?

As a political settlement, everybody gets what they want. The politicians get to pretend they are in control, the public have somebody to scapegoat and the corporates like the fact that nobody is paying attention to what the bureaucrats do. The public are content to be managed like cattle so long as nothing disturbs their self-indulgent lives where their only responsibilities are to themselves. They do not want to take on the responsibility for managing their own political affairs nor do they want the blame for the consequences.

This is why I will be less interested in politics after the referendum. The result will call the bluff of the hypocrite voters. They say they want change, they say they want democracy but when it comes to the crunch, they prefer not to behave like adults. They cannot then complain that their politicians are suboptimal.

If democracy means anything at all it means the power resides with the people at all times. If people relinquish that power to politicians they cannot be surprised if they in turn surrender it to a foreign power. 

This is why a vote to remain in the EU is such a landmark. It marks not only the death of adult politics. It kills any hope of democracy stone dead.

This is because the public do not understand democracy, why it’s worth having or the consequences for giving up on it. But there are consequences. The system will eventually run everything for the convenience of the system rather than those who live within it. Government will become the master and not the servant. Little by little we become economic units to be coerced into behaviours that fit a grand design - where the ideas of accountants take precedence over the needs of people. The EU is a manifestation of that exact dynamic.

Meanwhile we have the theatricals of Westminster politics to keep us distracted and outraged. The illusion of democracy. From this we get our daily dose of gratification – to pretend that what happens to us is the fault of the politicians and not a consequence of our own slovenliness. We can pretend that we are the good, decent and honest lead by the corrupt and the self-interested.

But the fault is our own. We could choose to take control and take responsibility. We could demand that the power be returned to the people and we could take an interest in the policy rather than the politics. But we don’t want to. We don’t want to be disturbed. We are happy to walk away from our obligations so that we can disown the choices made in our name. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy and the hypocrisy is all ours.

We are told that soon after the EU referendum we will see the Chilcott report on the Iraq war. Watch it closely. Watch the reaction. Outrage at what our politicians conspired to do. We will wail and complain and make scapegoats of our politicians and then we will go back to our insulated little lives secure in the knowledge that we take no blame.

But let’s be honest just for a moment. We are only interested in politics as far as seeking out somebody to take the rap. We are only interested in participation so far as seeking someone else to blame. We don’t like to be troubled with detail. We don’t want to seek out the facts for ourselves. We want the decisions made for us and we want to be spoon-fed with sanitised information. That is why we maintain a state broadcaster.

That is why I have no hope that we will choose democracy. We have become infantilised and we like it that way. Only when we encounter the very real consequences for surrendering democracy in exchange for certainty will we realise what we have lost. And by then we will have to fight to reclaim what we have so carelessly squandered. Those who hold the power will not surrender it willingly. They never do. And then we will ask why. Who is to blame? The answer is whoever still stands among the ashes and the rubble.

Saturday, 7 May 2016

The Matrix is here

Just about everyone I talk to recently remarks on how intellectually, socially and spiritually bereft the UK is becoming. It seems I am not the only one gripped by a certain cultural ennui. You have to be a singularly two dimensional creature to derive any kind of satisfaction from a life that gives you everything without having to really try.

My wonderful Polish friend remarks that she knows a number of high flying Poles in the UK and the reason for that is not because there is anything special about Poles coming here. It's just that they are the only ones inclined to do anything at all. It doesn't take all that much to get somewhere but Brits are just disinclined to lift a finger if someone else is willing to do it for them.

But even as immigrants settle in they become uniquely British they start to notice how hollow the British definition of success is. It doesn't matter if you earn £20k or £200k. You are still just a passenger. Perhaps if you have a few extra quid you can afford a few more baubles and trinkets to distract yourself with but you will still be acutely aware that Britain is turning into a giant retail park punctuated by filing cabinets that we now classify as homes.

And while the dream of owning a yuppie shoebox with a view over the river is now available to all, it is spoiled by way of looking across the river to see an identical building with an equally depressed version of yourself staring back at you.

We've dismantled all those dirty and dangerous jobs and outsourced them to China. We've even outsourced the boring IT stuff to India. Each of us who has a job are now in some way just an administrator of varying sophistication and responsibility. Even starting a business is just looking for a demographic who will set up a direct debit with you in perpetuity for a service they don't really need and could do without.

And even good jobs have become deskilled. We're seeing a digital Taylorism whereby no one person is ever permitted to work beyond the boundaries of their job and the recruitment process rules out the possibility that an individual could be good at two or more things.

On every level, the sum total of what we do now can be reduced to putting things in the appropriate boxes. That is what software system analysis is all about, creating the spaces, identifying the inputs, classifying them and boxing them up. Now we do the exact same thing with people.

It's why I wouldn't actually mind a boring warehouse job moving boxes. It amounts to the same thing and employs roughly same skills only you might actually break a sweat and get to drive a forklift. At least then any energy I have for cerebral activity can be devoted to something worthwhile rather than advancing the margins of an insurance or asset management company.

But it's not just our jobs that suck either. We spend eye watering sums on technology. Web enabled smart devices. Not for the creation of media but for the receiving of it. We end up watching twenty year old movies on high resolution televisions because none of the media designed for the modern technology is nearly edifying enough.

And while smartphones were supposed to create an apps revolution, who actually buys apps? Children and people who think like children.

Meanwhile our technology addled brains give us all the attention span of hamsters. It seems like nobody is capable of forging and maintaining relationships anymore. Everybody is searching for that missing piece of the puzzle that will make them feel whole, grasping for either a quick fix or a momentary distraction. Course the game is rigged because the human condition is that we are never sated. The void is forever there which makes us all such whining, greedy mindless consumers of shit. Our houses are full of it. DVD box sets of shit we never watch. Flat pack furniture that we hate. Clothes that we never wear. Food that we never eat. Things from Ikea.

We've abolished most of the "social constructs" that brought any kind structure to our lives and social media now means that nearly all the people we value might as well live in Narnia - or we haven't even met them at all. And because we are now so utterly without a moral compass we are now attacking even basic concepts like gender. It's the self-absorbed "cult of me". You are that which you define yourself and nobody is entitled to challenge that, however divorced from reality it may be. I have a fin, therefore I am a shark.

And for us conservative types it's hilarious. Some people are actually worried about it all. I'm not. I'm a misanthrope. I am bored and depressed but at least I know why. You people lack the first clue and I enjoy your lack of comprehension and your misery makes me smile.

For years the left rammed it down our throats that all these social constructs were oppressive and elitist and exclusive. And maybe they were. But they were there for a reason and now we're learning that if you are going to chuck it all out the window then it might be a good idea if you have something to replace it with - lest everybody be cast adrift to eke out a living in a spiritual and cultural wasteland. Depressed? Good. This is what you wanted.

But then who am I to complain? It's only intelligent people who suffer. And they are in the minority. Intelligence is an evolutionary dead end. We have designed the perfect machine for the perpetually asleep. And it works. The Matrix is here and now only we didn't need virtual reality. It IS reality - and it's only we few who see anything inherently wrong with it. The people who want a participatory democracy are in the minority.

Between technology and globalisation we have made ourselves wholly redundant. We've all read those editorials about how automation will ultimately improve our jobs and that we are not threatened by robots. But we all know that's bullshit. We're not all going to be robot engineers or software designers. We are in very serious danger of creating a post scarcity world where capitalism just doesn't work because there is no real purpose in accumulating wealth. We are free to roam the earth like cattle and be managed as such. Hence why the anti democratic, managerialist EU is the perfect form of government for it. It doesn't require particpation. All it requires is the power to remain in the hands of the few and for people to vote for the status quo. Life will be good so long as we do not question our existence.

And why should we? Why would we want dirty back breaking work and the possibility of having something more than what is allocated? Why would we want the uncertainty and unpredictability of democracy? Why would we want the diversity of an unplanned economy? Why would we want the hassle of things being different if you go somewhere else? Why would we want dirty ships polluting our "urban marinas"? Why would we want to drive our own cars or grow our own food? Why would we want anything other than our smartphones and our remote working desk jobs? Why wouldn't we want auto-enrollment and direct debits? Why would we want to be masters of our own lives? Why wouldn't we want the state to raise our offspring? Why would we want to be anything other than bovine? Why would we want to build lasting and beautiful things?

Why would we want family and community when we can all be individuals, accountable to nobody and responsible for nothing? Life can be great. Just conform, obey, consume and keep your credit rating clean. All this can be yours. All you have to do is vote to stay in the European Union. Take the blue pill.

Friday, 29 April 2016

Sorry Nige. Just not that bothered about immigration.

Nigel Farage says to win the referendum we should say more about immigration. I'm finding this difficult because I don't hate foreigners that much. It's true I'm not overly fond of the French but leaving the EU doesn't fix that and I'm only suspicious of Jews and Muslims out of a more generic aversion to people with beards - which is why I am not overly fond of hipsters.

In fact, my general dislike of the species precludes any special treatment because of their geographic origins. As it happens I do have eastern European neighbours I can hear through the walls, but it's more the fact I can hear them at all that bothers me. To be honest, it's an improvement on the English bunch because I could hear every last word of their arguments and they were quite tedious things about the guy not having done any of the housework. At least with the new lot I can pretend they're having a fierce row over the origin of the universe.

More than that though, it's a dumb idea because this is not a referendum on immigration. No realistic scenario sees us ending freedom of movement. In many respects it existed before the EU and it isn't the cause of our immigration woes. The real problems are from people overstaying their visas and human rights rules that are in effect an open invite to extended family. This is nowt to do with the EU.

As it happens, those things will never be fixed while we are in the EU but the act of leaving does not address these matters of international law. The EU is in far too much of a stalemate to even correctly identify the constituent parts of the problem. But then I care far less about immigration than I once did. I live in the whitest suburb in all of England and it will still be that way in another hundred years.

I genuinely don't see how more people coming to the UK to work hard and set up businesses is a bad thing on balance. I'm told we should be reducing the number of people who intermarry and don't care about British society and refuse to respect our laws but I'm not sure if they mean foreigners or Tories.

In my view, if we want to reduce the number of people coming to Europe, we should probably pay greater attention to the reason they come. In that regard we should look at the EU's own disastrous trade policy, and its record of vandalising West Africa by allowing EU fishing boats to destroy marine habitats.

We might also want an independent trade and aid policy so that we can open up new markets in Africa. A targeted trade and aid policy is going to do more to reduce immigration and more to the point will turn out cheaper than heavily bureaucratising our economy just to control our borders. There is a lot to be said for foreign aid if we spend it directly instead of delegating it to the EU and global NGOs.

Come to think of it, since we will have to work hard to restore our global standing, I don't see us being anything other than outward looking if we leave the EU. We won't have a choice. We won't have the luxury of abdicating our trade missions to EU officials. I see us building alliances and working with any number of global partners in order to bring lesser developed countries up to the standards required by the global marketplace. Where they get the idea we will be isolated beats the hell out of me.

In this I don't identify with any of what Ukip has to say. I don't think foreign aid is bad, I'm not that bothered about immigration, and call me crazy but I'm not going to rail against having safety devices in cars for children. I don't hate the idea of international helicopter safety regulations either. In fact the only thing I have in common with Ukip is our common appreciation of the fact that the EU is not and never will be a democracy.

There is a big debate to be had about what shape our trade and aid policy will look like after Brexit. But the point is, by leaving the EU, we will actually have a trade and aid policy - and it will be us deciding what it looks like. Imagine that. British taxpayers being the ones deciding how their own money is spent. That would be something of a novelty wouldn't it?

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The death of "polite" society is no bad thing.

Note that Skinner was thrown out of parliament not for what he said, but how he said it. That is Westminister culture through and through. One must at all times be polite. There is an unwritten code of conduct that the hacks and the politicians must never be directly unpleasant to each other in public. That is how politics remains sanitised and we see this politically correct minefield that all political communicators must be wary of. The product of this is the anodyne, visually inoffensive (until you get to know them) identikit politicos, from Umunna, Miliband, Hague, Kendall, Burnham, Cameron, Clegg and Blair.

The product of this is an ideas free politics, the consequences we are all familiar with. But this veneer of politeness engenders a culture of backstabbing behaviour and bullying behind the scenes - and it is visceral. It creates its own tribalism and from such tribalism comes political orthodoxies - where there are some ideas that are uncouth and impolite - one of them being the suggestion that we should leave the EU.

Amongst our political classes if you want to get ahead you must conform and ascribe to all of the fixed ideas and never challenge the orthodoxy - and if you do, you may only do it if you are polite about it and never criticise the vile and the repellent for being what they are. And since the only way to climb the greasy pole is to strip yourself of any political courage or principle we end up with a ruling class that will do or say anything to maintain their grip on power. And look at the double standard. It's fine to lie to the House of Commons about EU reform, just so long as you're polite.

Many of you will have seen in. Young little Toryboys attending all the right meetings, wearing the right tie, brushing their hair in a side parting, shaking hands with grubby old men, doing the right internships and then unsurprisingly they pop up as junior MPs a few years later. It's not about principle or even achieving anything. It is about achieving office for its own sake. To occupy the powerful offices for the sake of power. That's how we end up with lying sociopaths like Boris Johnson, and its why the party activist base is a nest of bullying that sees the young ones bullied and pushed out to the point of suicide. Plenty enter broke, but few do not leave the Commons without having accumulated a million or so.

What you absolutely mustn't do is say what you think. Their motto is "To be something, say nothing". And that's ultimately what this referendum is about. All of the snot nosed Toryboy brats (al both parties) all insist we are stronger, safer and better off inside the EU. The established order must be protected at all costs. After all, there must be places to go after one is thrown out of office.

And so a victory for the Remain side is a victory for the authoritarians, the corrupt, the patronising, the bullying, the snobbish and the cowardly. They who we call polite society. For them, including the people running the establishment Vote Leave campaign, it's not what you say, but how you say it. But even then, if you are saying something they don't want to know, assuming themselves to be God's gift to politics, they are deaf to all outsiders.

Miliband today has said he is concerned that Brexit could upset the international order. What he means by that is that it will break the cosy consensus of the EU, the IMF and the G20. He's right. It will, it should, and it's about time. But it will also break the cosy little Westminster consensus. It will break up the the little club for those who feel entitled to office and prestige. This very much is an us vs them vote. It's why this of all votes in our lifetime is the only vote likely to change anything.

But there's also a warning here. These parasites are living on borrowed time. They know their cosy little bubble is under threat. They know they are living on borrowed time. Sooner or later there is bound to be a democratic correction. And it will see the lot of them thrown out and it won't be pretty and it will be very damaging and it probably will see us pull out of the EU acrimoniously and at short notice.

So you have one chance to have a painless revolution. This is it. If you vote to remain, you are voting in support of an intellectually and morally bankrupt system that is eviscerating democracy and destroying growth. More to the point, they are cancer eating away at the spirit of the nation. If you think things are toxic now, just wait until after June when nothing has been resolved and the pathetic, toadying opposition fail to offer any ideas or meaningful change.

In fact, it's a win win for me. If Leave wins the referendum, we get that revolution in governance and we get meaningful change. If remain wins, I'll get to see British voters getting the shit government they will rightly deserve, and all the misery that goes with it. I won't be shy in saying I told you so.

I think it's about time we stopped being polite and started calling these bastards out for what they are. To vote leave is to do what Skinner has done. To call them crooks to their faces and rightly walk out in disgust. For us though, there is something better on the other side of the door.

Sunday, 10 April 2016

The Brexit dream team

It is my view that this referendum is winnable. The EU is not a loved institution. About 40 per cent will always vote to leave. The battleground is over the middle ground who only marginally dislike the EU but don't hate it with a passion.

The job of the Leave campaign is to present a credible front. It must show that is has an idea of what it wants, how to get it and must have credible ambassadors. It must show the public that Brexit has tangible benefits, believable rhetoric that doesn't take them for fools and it must reassure them that their jobs and financial interests are not in danger. It will have to put forth a set of messages that can win the confidence of opinion formers and columnists.

With that in mind, you wouldn't put a doddering old has-been on the TV to say that the single market wasn't important and that Brexit would mean border checks in Northern Ireland. Nor would you have a blonde haired buffoon fronting your campaign saying we could replace road haulage regulation with "good old fashioned British common sense". Nor would you have said individual promoting a Brexit plan entirely at odds with the official campaign.

Nor would you suggest unilateral withdrawal. Most of all, you wouldn't respond to legions of impressive sounding diplomats and economists by saying "I'm sure we would have some sort of free trade deal". It's not compelling.

Nor would you make savings of chump change your central campaign message. You certainly wouldn't send out MPs who largely don't like the NHS with leaflets claiming we will save billions - and that we will spend that money on the NHS.

You wouldn't patronise voters like that.

Being it a people's campaign you would seek to present other voices and front real experts rather than largely disliked fringe politicians. You would want to make use of the thriving Brexit blogosphere and find ways to include them.

Obviously you would find some intelligent campaign managers and strategists to ensure those mistakes were not made. We are very lucky indeed. Not only do we have the genius of Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott, we also have another campaign. One that cosies up to people who quite obviously despise muslims and would like nothing more than to end freedom of movement - and care more about that than anything else. How can that possibly hurt?

And to have the support of Breitbart is just the icing on the cake. After all, Pegida are exactly the sort of people we would want associated with us. With this kind of dream team we can't possibly lose. But we might actually lose because of those howwid people over at who say mean things about them. They are undermining the cause.

Saturday, 9 April 2016

No, we cannot uniilaterally wthdraw from the EU

There are those who believe we can leave the EU unilaterally, saying that we can repeal the European Communities Act. I could cry when people say this. Firstly, what do they think would happen to our credit rating by pulling out unilaterally? Secondly, Eurosceptics are right. The EU is not just a trade bloc. It is so much more. It is integrated at nearly every level of government.

We have cooperation agreements ranging from food safety, counterfeit goods, Europol, air traffic control, fisheries protection, coastguard cooperation, you name it. Some of these agreements are pegged to EU membership. By unilaterally ending our membership without negotiating a settlement, all of these agreements cease to apply the moment the repeal bill passes into law.

That means trucks have to go through different customs procedures, must submit to spot checks and in some cases be directed to entirely different ports. All of this upsets long established procedures and causes absolute chaos. If you wanted to make sure all of the Brexit scares came true, this is what you would do.

This notion that the EU would come to the table at our command is a little optimistic. If we elect to leave the single market as well as the EU, the EU erects tariff barriers, not out of spite, but because it has a common external tariff. That's just the legal default.

The EU has a common external tariff that it must apply to all non-EEA members. If we match it in reciprocation, under non-discrimination rules, we have to impose tariffs on all our other trading partners. That creates havoc, so we end up not imposing tariffs on the EU while they impose tariffs on us.

We could negotiate a "free trade deal" but a simple agreement on tariffs doesn't even begin to settle issues surrounding non-tariff barriers and if we wanted a comprehensive deal then the EU would have conditions tilted in its own favour. Moreover, the likelihood of such being concluded inside two years are nil. We may leave the EU but if we want the same favourable access to the single market then we will have to stay in the EEA.

This is why we will leave the EU via Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and this is why we will keep the single market and this is why for the time being we will continue with freedom of movement. It is suboptimal but it's better than being in the EU. That's going to piss a lot of hard-liners off who want to leave the EU in a single bound and pay nothing into the budget. That's just fucking tough.

They may not like the fact that it does not get us all the way out of the EU and the single market but at the very least it ensures trade is not affected in any way. That kills nearly all of the scares stone dead - not least because our academic cooperation and security agreements remain in place. Unless we can guarantee continuity of trade there is no way we can persuade people to vote to leave anyway since their jobs might be on the line so I have absolutely no idea why anybody proposes unilateral withdrawal.

The fact is, if we want to join the global trading community we will have to do it in stages. It took forty years to go in and it will take almost as long to get out. You go out the way you came in rather than heading for the emergency exit when the house is not on fire.

But as much as that means we won't be losing any jobs or seeing the sacrifice of the firstborn, it also means we won't be saving billions to spend on the NHS. These are the childish fantasies of Tory free marketeers in the Leave campaign who ironically would abolish the NHS given half the chance.

There is only one way to do this. Slowly and carefully. If you are not prepared to preach that message get used to staying in the EU because this "slam the door shut" nonsense is absolutely repellent to swing voters and there is not a cat in hell's chance business will support it. Without reassuring business and the public, there is simply no way to get out from under the dead hand of supranationalism - and bugger all chance of ever seeing democracy in our lifetimes.

Tuesday, 22 March 2016

Shurely shome mishtake?

This hereabove is a typical comment on Breitbart. Breitbart doesn't allow comments that attack Ukip. Moderate comments are pruned. The kind of comment we see above is encouraged. It is the business model of Breitbart to pander to these very people. Now substitute "muslim" for "jew" and "mosque" for "synagogue".

The comment was spotted underneath this article, by James Delingpole, entitled "Only ‘Brexit’ Can Save Britain From This Scourge Of Political Islam Waging War In Europe".

Demonstrably, and self-evidently untrue. A new low for Delingpole. Here vanishes the last shred of respect I had for him. 

You would think that would be sufficiently unpleasant for the head of communications of a Leave organisation seeking the lead designation to leave well alone. Not so Andy Wigmore of Leave.EU, penning an embarrassing screed on the subject of the Commonwealth (despite having had plenty briefing as to why it is not close to a plausible proposition for Britain).

It's not like he hasn't been told that Breitbart is a nasty rag that our efforts should not be associated with either. 

And as repellent as it is, such a line failed to produce a single MP for Ukip in the general election - and will not bring us anywhere close to securing the 51% we need to leave the EU - nor will it do anything to expand the appeal of our cause. In every sense it is ill-advised. More curious is that he is writing in his capacity a diplomat attached to the Belizean High Commission in London. Is this the message Belize is trying to project?

I can't say. But you can imagine my irritation and confusion when readers persistently complain to me about the things I say, when my message is that we must have a progressive, orderly and risk free Brexit plan and should argue the democracy and global engagement case over and above immigration and traditional little Englander euroscepticism. 

One must never point out that it's not a good idea to ally ourselves with nazi shitrags like Breitbart who deliver nothing but repeated failures for Ukip. And I mustn't ever say that Boris Johnson is a malevolent self-serving shit. And god forbid I call anyone a moron. No, I must show unity. I mustn't criticise. I could lose the referendum for us if I happen to notice that half the leave brigade are bunch of mouthbreathers, racists and fantasists. So long as I keep quiet, nobody else will notice, right?

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Campaign conduct

From the outset I have had a torrent of mithering from supposed allies in all corners. Mithering about tone and language - in the assumption that if only we we nicer to people they would be more inclined to listen to us. This overlooks that the pig ignorant, self-absorbed, self-referential London clan have sought to exclude outsiders from the start - not least with the IEA who turned their backs on the very idea of a graduated exit from the EU - an idea now considered by our own civil service.

There has been plotting and scheming by illiterate, broadly racist Ukip scum to prevent Flexcit being adopted by the campaign, and a determination by the Remain campaign to deny such a plan exists. It stinks.

Time and again Richard North and I are told to moderate our tone and behaviour while it is perfectly acceptable for wankers like Boris Johnson to hijack the campaign and take a giant shit on everything we have worked for - while the eurosceptic aristocracy carve out their own fanbases on the back of risible Brexit propositions based on anti-immigration or libertarian fantasies.

Somehow we are supposed to moderate our tone and give these dickheads a free pass - meanwhile Tory wastrels have given the PM a free pass on the biggest lie of the century so far - that he has secured EU reforms. What the actual fuck?

In this we have all and sundry queuing up telling us what our tone should be, what we should do, how we should say it, and who we should speak to - regardless of them all being entirely unwilling to spend less time whingeing and actually doing as we asked - and set up a blog to attack the lying prime minister.

Richard North and I are utterly fed up, utterly demoralised and tried. We are sick of this pretentious twattery that says we must abide by certain standards but everybody else is entitled to fuck us over in any way they see fit. All the while the public are peeling away from the debate out of boredom and apathy.

At the launch of The Leave Alliance, the first question from the floor was not about the three years of intensive collaborative research we have compiled but a query as to whether it was the done thing to call Tory MP's bovine and Boris Johnson a moron. Despite both factors being entirely self-evident to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of a gerbil.

Frankly, I am sick of it. With four months to go, we've got the main Leave campaigns playing school yard politics - saying that the Remain camp can't say what staying in looks like - as their main defence. Anything rather than meet the challenge and present voters with comprehensive answers. It's pathetic.

Even supposed allies cannot make up their own minds, and the support we have is fickle - dependent not on the strength of our arguments, but on our willingness to watch our p's and q's in the presence of our betters - despite them pissing away our last best hope for democracy.

All we've had is a torrent of mithering rather than people joining our protest against the bastards who have hijacked this campaign from the outset and destroyed it - along with our chances of winning. Then have the gall to say that it is our protest that could cost us the referendum.

Sorry people, but given how little you have contributed to what we have tried to do, and how much grief you have given us, when all we have asked you to do is recognise and promote the fact that we need an orderly, planned withdrawal that protects trade, you have no right to be telling anybody how they should conduct themselves.

In fact, Richard North and I have come to the conclusion that being polite and constructive got us nowhere. It is not our conduct that prevented Flexcit being evaluated for use. It was the idiocy of Dominic Cummings and the cowardice of Arron Banks in the face of Ukipper idiocy.

In light of this, we feel no obligation to to pamper you or you sensibilities - and we will viscerally attack anybody on any side who has it coming because we have nothing to lose by doing so, except for the flimsy support we have - to whom we owe absolutely nothing. Doing so might be the one thing that actually sparks some energy into this otherwise lame duck of a campaign.

Some caution us that we risk being perceived as similar to cybernats from the Scottish referendum - but this is typical of the sloppy two dimensional thinking we see all round. The critical difference is that we are not blood and soil nationalists. We are pragmatists with a solid case for leaving and an even more solid plan to achieve it.

Anyone who wants to criticise our methods from here on in must demonstrate that others have put in even a tenth of the effort we have - with the marginal resources we have. Who among you has a better idea? We can play the wreckers if we choose because we have built up over a decades worth of political capital and now is our time to spend it. Who else can say that?

Frankly I am a gnats hair away from telling all of you to fuck off and I wouldn't be surprised if RN gets there first. Nothing is worth the bullshit even our own readers have put us through. We've had plenty of former kippers come to us an apologise for how they treated us for attacking us during the election, having realised just how toxic and inept Ukip were. The same will happen after we lose this vote. But what use is that?

The reply then will not be gracious when some of you have the decency to admit that we have been right from the outset - that Ukip are a bunch of amateurs - and that the largely Tory eurosceptic aristocracy are bunch of self-serving, self-satisfied morons without even half a clue.

I can say with pride that our team of bloggers have not in any way let us down - and it is ultimately they who have kept us going, but even then, because of the ineptitude and selfishness of the main campaign in ignoring us entirely we have not been able to expand that team. That's not our fault. This is a referendum killed by selfishness, egotism, pride and incompetence. Also jealousy, self-interest and political cowardice.

And if this sounds like those "sour grapes", you're fucking right it is. We have every right to be angry at our own side, not least those allies whose support has been only fleeting and conditional - even when virtually every day we have our noses rubbed in the meme that Leave does not know what out looks like.

Our side has not been able to specify how we would reach a destination, what that destination is and why the ordinary voter should even bother. That is why we are going to lose and that is why we deserve to.

In this, knowing what I know, it has been difficult to invest any energy at all in The Leave Alliance website in that eurosceptics are only interested in promoting the things that conform to their own narrow and dismal worldview, ignoring any of the arguments that might actually win.

In this I am absolutely at the end of my tether. I have no more patience and I am not in the least bit inclined to listen to a solitary word of advice from any of the wastrels on our side who have barely lifted a finger to help us - especially those fair weather friends whose own work is an actual embarrassment to be associated with. I actually couldn't be any more disgusted.

As to where this leaves me, well I don't know. I do not feel inclined to put a nanosecond more effort into this knowing that our own side has already fucked the dog - and believes that marginal spikes in the polls are evidence that the campaign isn't a shower of brain-dead dullards with no clue.

We should be able to defend our own side from the attacks by the Remain camp but we can't because there is no possible way we could without contradicting everything we have said up to press. There is no way we can lie our way through the rest of the campaign to help these losers save face.

We always knew it would be an uphill battle but if I had known it was going to be such a catastrophic wipe-out I would have saved myself the bother. So here is what we are going to do. We are going to say whatever the fuck we feel like saying on any platform we so choose, in the manner in which we so chose - and if you don't like it, you can shove it up your arse for nothing and fuck off while you're doing it. How d'ya like them apples?

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Vote Leave to get rid of these idiots

If I had to give out an award for issue illiteracy it would be to Chris Giles of the Financial Times. As bad as the FT is, he has taken Brexit bullshit to an artform. The constant thing about these dirges are that they are so predictable and so tedious ... all of them recycling the same limited set our sources, telling the same story in much the same way. Long before this is over, these people will have bored even themselves into a standstill.

What's clear to me is that if people are relying on the media with no prior knowledge of the issues they are not getting anything like a realistic or accurate picture. And it will be difficult for people to vote on the basis of which side is the least repellent because the Remain side is still a contender on that score even with Ukip on our side. Ukip may be thick as shit, but they genuinely believe the crap they spout whereas the Remain campaign are lying, know they are lying and everybody else knows it too.

Personally I find some of them so repellent I would not hesitate in using many of them for bayonet practice if I thought it would do any good. The big problem with political violence is if you take out an idiot, you martyr said idiot - and there is an inexhaustible supply of idiots to replace them. And if I was going to go that far I think I would start with the morons on my own side first. While there is no shortage of motivation, I would be apprehended long before the know was even close to complete.

But as much as Brexit bullshit is boring us all into oblivion, the media has succeeded in making it all about Tory infighting, where we have Mark Wallace of Conservative Home taking up comedy in the Guardian (see above). We know the Tufton Street losers are delusional but this has to be a laugh.

That it's actually too risible even for this blog to bother fisking it all tells you everything. It's a damp squib of a referendum if your only source of information is London. You get a better standard of debate down the pub than from our media.

But I think this ultimately why we need to leave the EU. Turnout is going to collapse after the referendum. We have all seen what a bunch of incompetent wastrels Ukip are who offer no real answers and present no real threat. Labour will only discover a surface level of unity to exploit Tory splits. There will be no coherent force in Westminster with any ideas and certainly nobody is offering any solutions. We may see a right wing equivalent of Corbynisation in the Tory party but after the referendum, what possible use is that?

The only vote that can possibly break this deadlock is to shake the whole system to the core. Only Brexit can do that. That will see the wasters and idiots cast aside as expertise once again comes back in demand and subsequently back in fashion. If we stay in the EU it can only get more toxic and more incoherent with the London hack-o-sphere disappearing further up its own arse (assuming that's even possible).

As much as the EU's economic stagnation is dangerous, the political decay is even more dangerous. If the entire electorate becomes convinced the Wesminster system is futile and incapable of changing, they will seek means of removing it. I will be among them.

Thursday, 17 March 2016

Tory MPs are not serious about leaving the EU

Boris Johnson is more than likely Cameron's placeman. Johnson has no real track record of being a eurosceptic - and he comes from a europhile family and has written articles on why we should stay in. He's about as eurosceptic as Jean Claude Juncker. 

His announcement to join the Leave campaign was timed as a means of distracting the media from Cameron's bogus reforms. A clever, calculated piece of politicking that really understands just how debased our media is.

Also, Johnson knows full well Cameron will be replaced by a eurosceptic leader and so this is his ideal leadership bid. Boris Johnson's only concern is Boris Johnson. And of course, the Tories will only ever appoint a eurosceptic as leader when there is no real danger of leaving the EU. That is how they keep up the pretense that they are a eurosceptic party. This is the Tory elites way of retaining ownership of the party when their man is thrown out.

In reality, there are no Tory MPs actually serious about leaving the EU. If they were they would be tearing chunks out of Cameron for his utterly fraudulent reforms and his lies to parliament. Because they are yellow-bellies who put their tribe first over the future of the country, all we can expect is mealy mouth attacks and tribal sycophancy. Demolishing Cameron is key to winning - but Tories won't do that. Especially not Boris Johnson.

Tories have never been trustworthy on this and not in a billion years will I now vote for that party. As much as they are basically a snobby version of Ukip, with no greater policy insight, they are political cowards. That is inexcusable.