Google analytics

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Then and now.



I remember well the last referendum on staying in the EU. It was pretty much one sided in favour of staying in. The politicos took over the main stream media and filled the average man’s brain with abject fear of what would happen if we left. The same as now.

Job losses, the stock market would go into freefall, the pound would collapse, our industry could not survive, etc, etc.

So we voted to stay in.

Then we experienced:

The decimation of our fishing grounds by foreign super trawlers, and lost most of our orchards due to the common agriculture policy, the ability to control our population in this small island nation, seventy percent of our laws are now drafted by the EU commission and just nodded through into British law

My thoughts on that last item is why then do we need 650 MP’s to sit back and let others decide the future of our country? Best bet would be to save a considerable amount of money by hanging seventy percent of the MPs and make the remainder work for a living. or better still, hang the lot and start again!

Those of us who would vote to leave are going to have to fight a very one sided battle against those that wish to remain. There is so much vested interest in the remain camp and vast sums of money to be spent in frightening the average Joe into voting to remain.

There is one difference between then and now which could address the balance to some extent.

We didn’t have the internet in the seventies. If I can just persuade a handful of people to vote leave then I’ll consider my job done.


  1. As the traitor Heath once said "If we tell the people the truth, then they'll never go for it"

  2. I agree. Except for the bit about voting to stay in the EU. We voted to stay in the EEC, otherwise known as the Common Market. The EU was foisted on us afterwards, ratcheting towards "ever closer union" and successive Prime Ministers have betrayed our trust by signing away our rights.

    All things considered, if it were still a common market without this nonsense about a European superstate, I'd vote to stay in. As it is now, I'll be voting to leave.

  3. Who gains financially if the UK leaves the EU?

    Who gains financially if the UK stays in the EU?

    Get the names and amounts. I think you'll find quick enough that it is the same group of people who gain, no matter the result.
    Top 2% - no effect on their wealth - 'in' or 'out'.
    Next 4% Group 1 - will gain if 'in',otherwise lose
    Next 4% Group 2 - will gain if 'out',otherwise lose.
    Bottom 90% Will see quality of life decrease whether 'in' or 'out'.

  4. I don't remember, at all, the last referendum on staying in the EU. I did however vote in a referendum about staying in the European Economic Community (EEC).

    That EEC was not a political union; there was not free movement of labour; there was free trade in goods (of a sort). Looking back, that EEC seems much more like the current EFTA rather than the current EU - though any such comparisons are distinctly approximate.

    Things change; so do people's opinions.

    However, the current EU looks to definitely become what most people would view as a nation state (a super-sized one). It has its own department of foreign affairs, its own supreme court, its own currency (that certainly all new members must join), its own borders (porous though they be - as a matter of EU policy).

    If the UK's national security is so dependent on EU membership, the EU clearly needs to have its own armed forces - with the enthusiastic approval of the Remain camp as led by David Cameron.

    If that is what the EU countries want, without the UK, then they should surely be allowed to have it - good and hard - as IIRC some great USA journalist once said about something not entirely unrelated.

    But all those who want such a large nation state should notice that size comes with a marked lack of flexibility - to live in an ever faster changing world. The historical record has a fair number of nation states that grew too large and split asunder through internal tensions.

    "Ever closer union" is a bad philosophy. There can be too much union just as well as their can be too little union.

    Best regards

  5. Thanks for the rational comment Nigel.


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.