"We don't believe you" briefing to foreign press in London
"We don't believe you" thunder the people as the EU tells them that their international rules based system is right for people's lifestyles and aspirations. Populist movements around the EU are voting into office new parties that challenge the EU orthodoxy on austerity, the Euro, climate change, international relations, migration, control of the media and much else. Today there is a row over who should lead the EU as President of the Commission, given the very fractured party base within the new European Parliament.
There is a feeling amongst many voters that the EU does not advance living standards quickly enough. Its insistence on austerity economics through the Maastricht controls coupled with the statement there is no alternative produces the reply "We don't believe you"
Its failure to control its external borders is allied to a foreign policy that supported Middle Eastern wars that displaced more people. The Dublin Agreement is breaking down, where the original member state offering asylum or a place for an economic migrant is meant to be responsible for housing and looking after them. The issue of migration reveals a growing gap between what the elite think and what the populists want.
The EU dislikes the social media which carries growing criticism of its policies as well as fake news and cyber attacks. The populists are suspicious of the extent to which the EU wants to regulate and control the media, and are scornful of any traditional media who just accept EU spin.
This gulf is not unique to the EU. Similar feelings in the USA led to the defeat of Mrs Clinton and to victory of Trumpism. The UK avoided the collapse of the major parties experienced on the continent in the 2017 General election, thanks to their joint support for Brexit which saved Conservative and Labour.When these parties delayed or deviated from Brexit they collapsed in the European election. In Brazil there has been a populist tide as well.
In the EU it is remarkable how most of the great centre left and centre right parties of the twentieth century have allowed themselves to be wiped out or blown away by new challengers owing to their rigid adherence to the EU and Euro policy mix. French politics is now a contest between En Marche and National Rally, with the Republicans and Socialists also rans. In Italy Lega and Cinque Stelle dominate. Even in Germany, the one big winner from the Euro and EU policy, the SPD and CDU command less than half the vote between them these days.
What has led to this huge destruction? The collapse of living standards at the end of the last decade and the slow growth since has not helped. The mass migrations were unpopular, brought on by backing Middle Eastern wars which displaced many people from their homes. The insistence on the Maastricht criteria and the austerity policies of tax rises and spending cuts have jarred over such a long time period. Ask Gilet Jaune protesters what they want and they will probably say tax cuts. The concentration on dear energy and restrictions on personal mobility to tackle global warming have also caused issues with the populists, visible in the Gilets Jaunes attack on speed cameras and demand for cheaper vehicle fuel.
Throughout the continent many voters disagree with the priorities of European government as well as with its policies.
John Redwood " We dont believe you" book available through Amazon
Fully supported by May, Hammond etc.
I see today a Trillion Pound bill is to be sneaked through by the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. I thought Acts of Parliament were required for major expenses? https://order-order.com/2019/06/24/trillion-pound-motion-scheduled-passed-afternoon/
And it's a lot higher than £1trillion. Estimates of the yearly cost to implement zero net carbon emissions by 2050 range from £50bn to £70bn each and every year. More like £2trillion.
A Trillion here and a Trillion there… and pretty soon, you're talking real money!
May's myopic madness makes more malevolent misspending mandatory.
I can absorb and react to changes in my economic circumstances brought on by a multitude of factors that include policy decisions taken by central and supra-national bodies like the EU but what I deeply resent are the obvious and malicious attacks on my personal freedoms, my right to freedom of expression, the deliberate use of mass immigration to impose ethnic change for political advantage and the use of identity as a pretext to target specific groups
Our membership of the EU is directly responsible for the presence of a Marxist Labour party sitting in official opposition. The political and administrative establishment have endorsed Corbyn and his dangerous cabal simply to maintain a pro-EU duopoly in Parliament.
Indeed many of the appalling crimes that are now being unearthed is as a direct result of the Tories refusing to expose Labour's past behaviour. This again is to maintain the pro-EU dominance in Parliament
All British political life revolves around and is subjugated towards keeping this country inside the EU. It is this one issue that has led to the restrictive and secretive environment we see in the UK today.
The BBC and the media's been infected by it as we have seen with the Mail and the Express. May's engineering the political realignment of these two Eurosceptic newspapers is without question evidence of media interference for pro-EU gain
And the BBC. What can we say? A pro-EU, left wing propaganda platform. A stain on the nation. It's a stain that must be washed away
Get this nation out of the EU. And then start on Labour's client state
steadyeddie
When will the ERG and their ilk stop ranting about Europe and focus on what matters in people's lives. The EU debate is a giant confidence trick by certain politicians – 'all that is wrong is caused by 'Europe' and everything would be wonderful if we left the EU'. If we just walked out tomorrow, it would not change people's lives in any meaningful way so why continue this fiction except for the self – aggrandisement of Farage and those that support his view. Where is the under used capacity in the UK economy that would be released if we left the EU and why is selling to Asia or America a better idea than selling to Europe. The populists you refer to are a disgruntled minority – all noise and no light.
90% of future world demand will come from outside the eu .. source .. the eu.
Don Pny
And being in the EU will make it easier to meet that demand, since the EU has an unrivalled ability to do deals with the rest of the world … as poor Luam Fox is finding out as he realises he cant even get the world to offer the UK what it already gives the EU. Brexit is frit little Englander cowardice
Bill Lane
We have 63 trade deals on the table at the moment, but nothing can be done until we are out of the customs union.
We can take heart from the people of Istanbul. Despite Mr E's party having a great deal of influence in the media, as the EU and remainiacs do here, there was a landslide the other way. The EU should take note: re running the referendum won't necessarily work.
a-tracy
I'm a bit in the middle ground on the EU I see and understand the good and bad arguments for and against. When the 'disgruntled' majority voted to leave that was the light to move on their wishes as David Cameron said he would do before he quit.
It's interesting you use the word 'ranting' John Redwood is very calm and measured in what he writes – ranting means angry and impassioned (filled with or showing great emotion).
When JR writes "rigid adherence to the EU" that isn't 'all that is wrong is caused by 'Europe' and everything would be wonderful if we left the EU' most leave politicians love Europe just not the austerity rules put in place by the EU that George Osborne slavishly followed and Hammond continued. Our out of control housing benefit and housing distribution system that favours homeless foreigners over British people waiting years on social house waiting lists whilst paying high cost private rent and rents. You can thank C4 and C5 program makers for making people more aware of that rather than Farage.
John Hatfield
Eu membership costs the UK taxpayer too much money steadyeddie. The UK GNP has been reduced since we joined the Single Market. But the main reason why the British people voted to leave was that they believed decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK.
There is an interesting article on Foreignpolicy.com (usually free to view):"The New Political Influencers.Populism is a direct response to the West's loss of prestige and authority.And it won't be the last political trend sparked from outside" by Bruno Macaes.
Macaes is an academic/think tanker/former Portuguese Europe Minister who has become a popular commentator on the theme of Eurasian integration from an Atlanticist perspective(he has also written a couple of books on the subject)-although he seems to have come to the conclusion that the battle has more or less been lost by the West.His twitter account highlights useful articles that do not get picked up by the myopic press here.
NickC
Steadyeddie, Because the EU is the top tier of our government, we cannot reform in any meaningful way. Free ourselves from the EU shackles and we restore the democratic power to correct our own problems.
Attempts to manipulate opinion are evident in the Conservative leadership election. Mr Hunt has emerged as the pro EU candidate pushing May's vassal state/colonial status WA. He and his supporters have decided to weaponise Mr Johnson's domestic difficulties, taking advantage of the stitch up by the pro EU neighbours of his girlfriend. Amazingly Johnson is described as a security risk, a charge that could equally well be made about Mr Hunt and his personal arrangements. The threats of no confidence votes by some Conservative MPs against Johnson as PM suggest to me that they have learned nothing from the recent MEP elections. They remain determined to frustrate the referendum result. A GE cannot come soon enough to put an end to this wretched Parliament.
Who do you believe then?
Give us some names and we will assess their credibility.
Our host been clear for years about what he believes, and who he believes, and many of us share his views, hence our continued participation in the discussions on this site.
Who is the 'we' you cite who will 'assess their credibility'? It won't be you, because you appear incapable of rational argument – instead we get sneers and bile.
Many of us who comment here note how our background knowledge influences our judgements – working in business, international trade, politics, education or the law. Perhaps I've missed it, but what informs your offensive tirades?
How about Mark Field, Andy ?
Fed up with the bull
Excalibur. Great choice!!
J Bush
If we had decent national media outlets, this would be properly reported. What we do have is media outlets, which receive EU funding (paid for with our taxes) who either downplay on what is actually happening, or it is not reported at all.
When was the last time the BBC reported the Gilet Jaune protesters, impartially reported why they are protesting, or reported that Macron ordered the police/army to use live arms against them?
With regard to the USA, Trump is trying to reverse the problems you raise, and the media response here, he is a dreadful person. I don't who is worse our media or our 'politicians' who do and say nothing about Khans' disgraceful behaviour, or the ridiculous protests when Trump, the elected representative of America made a State visit.
When it comes to censorship, I think our government is very much in a league of its own, witness the Levitson Enquiry. They are of course aided and abetted by a relatively compliant media and State broadcaster, backed up with a funding (tax) method that prevents freedom of choice, a fundamental Conservative principle.
The EU is structured in such a way as to deny the people the kratos element of a functioning democracy. It also seems that way here in the UK, three years from the Glorious Referendum. I now have to wait over 4 months to finally be that which I was born into – A free English citizen and not one of an artificial and unwanted construct.
The EU is a corporate dream. Endless large grandiose, expensive, and highly profitable projects. For example, I only found out last week from a Quantity Surveyor that the French engineers at Hinckly point are being excessivly well remunerated. We once had engineers in this and other fields that were regarded as world leaders.
Meanwhile here, we have 'politicians' threatening to bring down their own government because they cannot the democratic result of the referendum and want us to stay in this monstrosity.
Despite being elected on the strength of respecting that result. Despite Parliament voting by a huge majority to put the Withdrawal Bill, which covers leaving without a deal, on the Statute. Despite them losing the Parliamentary vote to stop us leaving with no deal.
They are as undemocratic and autocratic as the EU. No wonder they love it.
Sorry that should read – they cannot Accept the democratic result of the referendum
J Bush. Bang on the nail. I agree with everything you have written here. I am sick of the BBC not being able to report anything positive about Trump. I am sick of them never having a positive statement to make about our exit from the EU. I am sick of having to pay my licence fee on top of some of our EU contributions being given to the BBC and I am particularly sick of the lack of reporting over the riots in France and the nasty attacks on Boris. The BBC is akin to a version of the OK magazine. Full of trash and inconsequential rubbish.
Fed up with the bull, Then please don't pay the BBC TV tax. It's not a lot to ask to defend our nation.
Exactly, and that even without addressing their climate alarmism agenda or their propaganda for ever larger taxes and ever larger government.
Around 800,000 stopped paying their TV licence last year and a similar figure the year before. People have had enough of terrestrial tv and are leaving it behind.
The emotive issue is concerned with identity and territory marking. We own this space and will let you visit is being threatened by we own this space and fear that you are trying to take it over.
It is also a matter of standards of living:
The high tax rates that support certain public sector workers' sick leave, flexi-time, and holidays is being paid by people on zero-hours contracts who get none of that. That builds resentment.
A1. NHS workers also get reduced prices in certain shops and my friend has been able to buy an Apple phone for a fraction of the real price. More perks.
Exactly. State sector workers living off the backs of others. Being remunerated with pensions at 50% more than private sector workers on average and often delivering nothing of any real value at all, or even of negative value.
Bob Dixon
You have spelt why I have not voted for the Conservative party for the last few years.
StephenJ
The Gilets Jaunes want more than tax cuts Sir John. Many of those "yellow jackets" have written on them in large letters… "RIC", which means "Citizens' Initiative Referendum".
Their campaign is calling for Swiss style citizen invoked binding direct democracy, on four fronts.
The right to petition for new law.
The right to propose the abrogation of a law.
The right to recall an elected official.
The right to amend the constitution.
This was the other aim of UKIP, the Brexit Party is about to do something similar, though it will probably be rather more of a possibility than it ever was with UKIP.
We don't have any tradition here of the sort of street disorder that the French like, and we don't have any desire to undermine our ancient constitution, but some of the methods employed are a little old fashioned. However the introduction of the fixed term parliament informs us that some things are not sacrosanct after all.
The referendum itself, although not called by the people, was a result of constant petitioning which began to take off, to the extent that it frightened Mr. Cameron onto what he would regard as the back foot.
Exactly. The people are crying out for far less government, far less (preferably no) EU, far lower taxes, cheaper reliable energy, a bonfire of red tape, the abolition of climate alarmism, an end to identity politics and politically correct lunacy (as pushed by the daft Theresa May) and the great greenwash twadle. Freedom and choice as to how people can spend their own money, sensible levels (and quality controls) on migration. Migration that clearly undercuts wages and put extra stress and cost onto health care, housing, schools, crime figures, transport, police and social services. Creating the need for yet further taxation when Hammond has already given us the highest and most idiotic ones for 50 years.
In short the compete opposite of the misguided "BBC think", left wing establishment agenda. The agenda pushed by Labour, the Libdems, SNP, Plaid, Cameron, May, Osborne, Hammond, Jeremy Hunt, all but two of the Conservative leadership candidate and about half of the left wing, tax & regulate to death, anti-democratic Conservative party.
We have not really had any slow recovery in living standards over the last ten years they are still very slightly lower than ten years ago for the majority expecially as their pensions entitlements have been attacked too. The reasons are very clear as above. Far too much tax, red tape restrictions, expensive energy and far too much daft and wasteful goverment doing the wrong things and very badly.
hans christian ivers
Can we please talk about the issues we are facing in this country . No growth, economic stagnation, problems with the NHS(longer waiting lists), Schools with too little funding, social services for both younger and elderly under enormous pressure, Failing infrastructure and lack to our politicians. And how we are going to solve all these grave issues.
Hans, certainly we can talk about all these things once the remainers let us get on with leaving. We could have sorted all this out 3 years ago.
Bureaucratic overkill, mountains of red tape, Businesses given bribes to relocate to mainland Europe have gone a long way to aiding the 'economic stagnation' you refer to.
Uncontrolled mass immigration (the majority of whom are unskilled, unemployed/unemployable/criminals and/or operate a black economy) has had a devastating impact on the country's infrastructure.
And the root cause of it all is slavishly endorsing or allowing EU diktats.
Tell me, how many German and French factories have been allowed by their national government, to receive bribes to relocate to another country?
How many brown coal industries has Germany opened?
How many of any standard coal industry have the UK opened?
Funny, how some countries are allowed to get away with not following EU diktats, but the UK and southern European are not?
Sovereignty, the right to hold politicians accountable and removed when their policies fail the right to self determination and to control our own destiny are some of the reasons the UK electorate voted to leave the EU.
I appreciate you do not agree and would prefer the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU. On that, we will agree to disagree.
Hans, The starting point must be to leave the EU treaties and not return in any way. Then we will have the democratic and sovereign power to run our own nation as we see fit. Many of the problems you cite have been caused, or exacerbated, by excessive immigration, for which the EU is the prime cause. Until we take back control, we are stuck.
NickC,
The problems raised are issues we could and should have solved and they have nothing or very little to do with immigration, which has added to the UK wealth
Hans, No, excessive immigration has not added to UK wealth. It has added a small amount of GDP (turnover is not wealth), whilst depressing wages. So it has impoverished ordinary British people. Moreover new infrastructure requires immediate space (in short supply in England) and immediate capital. Neither of which migrants bring.
Fred H
Hans, …elect Boris, leave EU, kick out 5th column Tory MPs for a start.
An organisation out of touch with it's people and as such ripe for change. Question is, are the mechanisms available to effect such change. I doubt it, democracy runs very thin in the EU. The only none revolutionary way is to change national governments, and we have all seen that the EU kicks against governments that do not agree with them. I suspect that the EU is set for violent change if it fails to respond to the aspirations of the people of Europe. We are well to be out of it.
Denmark support for EU in the population
Let the figures speak for themselves
Hans, Most Remain voters I talked to in 2016 said that they "didn't want to rock the boat" or similar sentiments, not that they admired the EU. I suspect that is what Danes may be feeling given the mess that Remains in the UK have made of Brexit. Danes recognise that the EU is a bully, and Denmark is a small country, so they are trapped. If you are right, however, and Danes are now really succumbing to the totalitarian EU ideology, I am sorry for them.
There was an interesting article on facts4eu.org (a suggested website here) a couple of days ago entitled:
" Why you are subsidising people in most other EU countries –
EU publishes "material welfare of households" "
Quite an eye-opener, and as it's the EU's own figures, even Andy wouldn't want to argue with it (well – he/she MIGHT but that's Andy for you).
It is ironic that the the title of your book is also a charge many would level at your (current) preferred choice for next PM.
It would be unfair to expect you to comment on the Johnson-Symonds affair when Johnson himself is silent, aside from claiming that people are not interested in his private life, but rather in matters of policy (though one might suggest that on these matters he's not very much more illuminating!). Johnson might have a point in as far as many people, including Conservative MPs, evidently have no interest in his personal life, and many others, though concerned, would say the state of the nation is far more pressing. But the longer this 'lovers tiff' is unexplained, the more interest people will have, for they will, not unreasonably, wonder what Johnson is hiding. Rifkind made the obvious point that Johnson could have very simply, swiftly and briefly dealt with this drama and so avoided this suggestion. In the grand scheme of things, this tiff is of no importance whatsoever. But Johnson's handling of the aftermath is very important. Thus far he is exhibiting precious little political savvy – a quality one might think is essential to perform the role he aspires to.
It's worth making the point that the neighbours that went to the press with this story are very obviously politically motivated, and their conduct subsequent to the police establishing that 'there was nothing to see', was poor. (I don't think what happened between Johnson and Symonds was in the public interest. However, as this tiff came to the public's attention, Johnson's response very much is in the public interest.) But the suggestion that what's going on is a conspiracy or stitch-up is a poor attempt at deflection. There is no conspiracy here, unless it transpires that Symonds herself is involved, which seems far-fetched.
To conclude, if Johnson fails to address this matter satisfactorily, it will overshadow the leadership contest, and make a serious debate about policy difficult, and certainly distract from any debate that actually happens. Interestingly, there is the distinct possibility that Johnson would win the membership vote without providing some sort of explanation. In that context, a distraction from serious debate might actually have been advantageous from Johnson's point of view,given his difficulties in this area. Not that I'm suggesting a conspiracy…!
Martin R
Johnson and his partner had a domestic. People do. It has been used to try to do him down and you fell for it. Get over it. There is clearly a remainer coalition movement of deep state, media, and MP's that is working to assassinate Johnson politically in order to implement a May style surrender to the EU, vassalage, which this country will never be able to extricate itself from. This traitorous coalition will continue with its dirty tricks and that cannot be prevented. So I suggest it is better to ignore it and not be diverted by its machinations, as you have been.
It is not the row that is the issue, as I say. It is Johnson's response to it. That there is a strong desire within our country's establishment to undermine a clean and proper Brexit is obvious, and I certainly haven't been distracted from this. Leaving aside the distinct possibility that Johnson would be more than happy to collaborate with the establishment to secure his position as PM, the point I am making is that Boris Johnson has got a lot of work to do to even begin to present as a credible, competent proposition for high office. He also has yet to convince many that he is either willing or able to deliver a clean and proper Brexit.
Johnson is apparently a 'victim' of his own character flaws before he is a victim of a conspiracy to thwart his ambitions. My own view is that he is, regardless of his ambiguous position on Brexit, as evidenced by both his own inconsistent rhetoric and the broad church of his support, unfit for the highest offices on the basis of his character alone, and this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than himself.
If you don't want to vote for Boris then and you don't want to abstain then you'll be voting for this country to cease to exist. That is what voting for Hunt boils down to. He is the vassal state candidate. It is very simple. Vote for Boris and we might just possibly end up leaving. Otherwise we will never leave.
"Might just possibly" about sums it up. It is true that you won't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket. But given the odds, you might do well to conclude that it would be better to buy stock in Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party instead. This said, in practice there's nothing stopping you doing this when your numbers aren't called. All I'm saying is don't assume your lucky numbers will come up eventually because, a) you'll be disappointed, and b) you'll miss out on the investment opportunity that can give you what you want.
Well said, MR. Why is so easy to bamboozle people and get them to take their eye off the ball with a bit of meaningless and prurient "scandal"? Can't they see they are being manipulated?
With respect, if you have that much faith in Boris Johnson it is you that has been bamboozled. Nigel Farage doesn't trust him, though he's pragmatic and determined to achieve a clean and proper Brexit, and so open to the possibility of doing a deal with him – but only if Johnson can be trusted. The danger is that enough people are bamboozled by Boris and end up voting for a bodged Brexit in a GE rather than the clean and proper Brexit of Farage.
I might be wrong, and Johnson is both committed to a clean and proper Brexit, and knows how to deliver it, ie by purging his party of remainers. But I've yet to see any credible evidence of this. We shall see.
Martin R, The truth well said. Thank you.
It seems now that you get suspending from school for three weeks simply for expressing the opinion that there are only two genders (male and female). All recorded on a public video. Apparently such views are to be kept at home and are not acceptable to that school or to "national school authority practice".
How long before schools are evicting student who politely point out the renewables do not really do anything significant about world c02 emmissions and cost a fortune. Or that the climate alarmist agenda has been, to say the least, somewhat exaggerated. Or that magic money tree economics is a con trick. Or that some of the science sylabus is, to say the least, rather more about political indoctrination than real science. Or that the EU does far more harm than good and is profoundly anti-democratic?
Or indeed that the renewables are not actually renewable in any real scientific sense!
Great post L/L. Is everyone going mad? The world is becoming more and more bizarre. Whatever happened to normality?
I think there are several reasons, which I'm going to try to compress for the sake of brevity:
The pace of scientific/technological development in the last 150 years has outrun the ability of both individuals and societies to speedily acknowledge, respond and adjust to change, and that can be very frightening.
What do many people do in times of great pressure and fear? They turn to religion, but – and writing as an atheist myself – most of the more 'developed' religions don't provide the huge emotional responses required. So individuals and groups turn initially worthwhile 'causes' such as feminism, enviromentalism, diversity, the NHS…insert your own proposals here … into mini-religions, accompanied by ecstatic fervour, extreme tribalism, splitting into factions, beatification and, gradually, demonstrations that shade into intimidation and violence.
Hope this gives food for thought – and no, I don't have answers!
Very mad indeed. Oxford and Cambridge now criticised for the fact that certain minorities (who where given places due to "positive" discrimination and accepted on lower grades (i.e. active discrimination against white males from middle class families) are getting worse degrees who would have thought it? This is now blamed on more "discrimination" within the universities it seems.
They really cannot win these poor dons can they. Not that I am against all such adjustment to judge potential fairly if used sensibly.
Is it possible they are called renewables because they wear out relatively quickly and have to be replaced at least twice over compared with the life of a proper power station?
LL – or that you can be put in prison or fined for sneering and stamping on the EU "flag".
(Pity that – I was hoping to start a campaign to cover up this meaningless emblem on car number plates.
Can people put black crosses over them now – or is that risking a visit from the European Arrest Warrant Officers at 4 am?)
Lifelogic, Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Bryan Harris
There are additional reasons why the EU is so unpopular with those of us that can think for ourselves.
The EU tries to promote itself as a living democracy, after all, it allows representatives from all EU countries to speak about and pass the laws the Commission wants, but then ignores democratic requests on all levels.
Even the EU elite struggle to justify the existence of the EU, as in 'what has the EU done for us'. It has done pathetically little to help make our lives better – on the contrary, it has taken away rights and choices, and dictates to us how we should run our lives – It has made us poorer and destroys the very essence of what made European countries great.
Mr Harris –
Oxymoron: EU elite.
Agreed – still looking for a suitable substitute term – Suggestions welcome
Everhopeful
I suppose the EU ( and all its previous names) thought itself very clever by unrolling the project slowly.
No wham bam invasions. Just fluffy bunnies and candy floss with unseen steel innards.
However the result has been the same as conquest.
And naturally enough people do not like it!
( Especially when all the promised goodies never materialised…except those showered on the enablers that is).
Too true,
There has not been enough emphasis in the Brexit campaign to "educate" people as to the real direction of travel of the EU.
A quick look at the "five Presidents Report" is always useful.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/five-presidents-report_en
Barbara Castle
The sad thing is Remainers believe that we could stay in the EU on exactly the same terms we have now, when in truth, opting to remain would be tacit acceptance of full throttle European integration, including the Euro, army, centralised taxation, etc.
How could we reject these things when the legally binding Lisbon Treaty clearly sets out the EU's vision for Europe? After all, it's what Remainers want, isn't it?
Michel Barnier in 2016 as quoted in the French magazine Le Point.
"I shall have succeeded in my task if the final deal is so hard on the British that they'll end up preferring to stay."
"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation"- Jean Monnet
Incidentally – why no views on Mr Johnson's suitability to be PM?
Obviously he should be disqualified based on his last two attempts in government. He was a highly incompetent foreign secretary. And was fired by David Cameron too.
But being demonstrably awful in government is clearly not a disqualifying factor for Brexiteers.
In which case should not his appalling private life and questionable morals be a disqualifying factor instead?
Andy. No.
Nigl
Actually he won a lot of plaudits for his skilful handling of the Russian poisoning affair pulling together an international response and was a very successful London mayor winning twice.
Plaudits from whom?The "International Response" was restricted to the usual suspects ie NATO/Five Eyes;I don't think any Asian country,not even Japan,followed suit and neither did all EU members support it.
Have you noticed how "no 10" is now briefing against this, trying to give the credit to Sedwill and the PM?
Nigl,
And then we forget about all the other errors he did as a rather useless foreign secretary. (like Ratcliffe and the visit to Myamar)
Richard1
He was an excellent mayor of London. It is frequently asserted he was a bad foreign secretary but no evidence is produced. He is blamed for the case of the poor innocent woman in gaol in Iran when the blame should lie with Iran. He was not fired by Cameron he resigned to become mayor of London.
The media campaign to discredit him is his best hope. I may yet vote for him due to this out of sympathy, despite his lacklustre campaign (so far).
Andy, So you are a believer in "sock-gate"? But you're sure Boris shouldn't be disqualified for whistling in class aged 7? At least he doesn't believe in aliens like your Jean-Clause Juncker. And at least Boris wasn't at the Gotthard tunnel "celebrations" where all your EU leader heroes were. So he's actually quite clean in comparison.
Newmania
As we see from European elections the UK only"avoided" the end of the stale old system because our corrupt system protects the existing regime .
Your theory hardly accounts for the loss of Labour and Conservative votes to the Liberal Party, and if this country has experienced austerity it was enthusiastically supported by you. This was prior to to you conversion to fiscal fairy tales, impressed , presumably , by the Greek and Italian economies their delightful politics and right to limitless hand outs no matter how much they spend.
J Bush you are so right.
Hunt on Sky News this morning has shown himself to be little more than "Theresa May in trousers". I cannot remember who gave him that label recently but it is very accurate. I hope the local party members will de-select those MPs who are prepared and openly threaten to bring down the government.
Hund is not quite as dim, dishonest or robotic as Theresa May but essentially he is another damage limitation chap who would be a huge liability at the ballot box. He did nothing substantial to sort out the dire NHS state monopoly for five years and one assume approves of the absurdly high and complex tax levels we have and of HS2 and all the green lunacy. If he had any understanding of economics or logic he would realise the NHS can never be efficient (or even competent) as currently structured and funded.
But then he did read PPE at Oxford so one would not expect him to have much understanding of economics, logic or numeracy.
Hunt Sorry!
"Hund". Is that not German for dog? A Freudian slip perhaps.
I knew Hunt was the continuity May candidate, which was bad enough. Now I find out he has a PPE. It cannot get any worse than that!
It get worse still he got a first in PPE was at Head Boy at (Charterhouse) Head boy is usually a bad sign in my book. He named his political heroes as Margaret Thatcher and William Wilberforce. But it seems he clearly did not understand Thatcher.
He stayed in a government that gave us the highest taxes for 50+ years, delivers endless waste and red tape and even wanted us to pay for £39 billion to put the EU handcuff W/A three times. What part of the conservatives 9% vote and forth place (that May delivered) did he not understand? Did he think the voters were saying let's have ever more of the T May agenda please and we will come back to you.
This is what he seems to think.
Martin R, Yes it can – ask some doctors and nurses what Hunt was like, even if they have voted Tory.
The term "populist" should be eschewed. I did not vote Leave as part
of a "populist" movement. I took part in a democratic decision that included all
members of the electorate. The outright refusal to implement that decision is
more properly labelled "anti-democratic". The rise of the Brexit Party after three
years recognises that, until that vote is implemented, democracy is broken.
Me too Kevin. Like many others, I would have preferred the non-radical solution of reforming in the EU to be more "Europe des Patries" but it became clear from Maastricht onwards, and especially in the planned EU Constitution, the autocratically imposed Lisbon Treaty that the treatment of the Mediterranean members of the eurozone that the EU was inevitably headed for a Federal State that would not serve the economic interest of future UK generations. More Enlightenment that Populism.
oldwulf
An article appeared in the Mail Online –
"We must not ride the tiger of populism: Penny Mordaunt writes that she backs Jeremy Hunt as that Britain needs a democrat, listener and negotiator"
One person's populist is another person's democrat.
I have ceased to be surprised at a politicians ability to turn everyday words into weasel words.
Yes Oldwolf, Populism seems to mean anything not conforming to what the self-identifying elite wants "the public" to think. Not perhaps a terribly clever choice of words to imply that ideas are intrinsically bad if a lot of people agree with them – but revealing.
"We don't believe you" - briefing to the foreign press in London - Independence Daily
[…] this article was first published by Sir John Redwood in his Diary. We re-publish it with his kind […]
James Bertram
Particularly sinister is the vicious sentences handed out in Europe, and Germany particularly (up to 5 years imprisonment), for desecrating a national or EU flag.
(https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjwxpGL24HjAhWTTcAKHeIXDGYQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFlag_desecration&usg=AOvVaw1NmSxu8tKsn2vXl-anOu58)
This clearly reveals the authoritarian nature of the EU and many EU states.
Add this to the attempted immunity of EU officials to prosecution against fraud, attempted control of criticism of the EU in the media, the overturning of democratic decisions taken by referenda in member states, the failure of politicians in the UK to respect the democratic result, the imposition of austerity and usurping of government in Greece, the wish to subject the UK to colony-status, an expansionist foreign policy, the desire to create an EU army, the unelected nature of the EU political rulers – and what you have is the beginnings of a full-blooded dictatorship in the making.
History has a habit of repeating itself.
We need to break-up the EU before it ever gets to this.
We need to keep the UK free and independent.
We need to respect and protect democracy and free speech in this country.
Re Mrs Clinton – didn't she get 2.87 million votes more than Mr Trump?
She was so popular that in many Democrat districts the votes cast even exceeded the number of registered voters. Illegals thought she was great and voted for her enthusiastically as well. And the dead supported her in droves. Wonderful stuff Democracy in action.
For 200 + years the USA has had an electoral college . It was deliberately put there by the founding fathers to ensure that "populism" didn't rule. Its a pain when youre hoist by your own petard isn't it
I trust you will be actively voting against the proposal to drive the country into penury by pursuing zero carbon.
Geoffrey Berg
Inevitably there is a lot of oversimplification in the blog – something is probably happening but it is rather less distinctive and less unique than is being claimed.
Perhaps the most successful populist to date was Juan Peron about seventy years ago in Argentina and his 'Peronist' party is still a major political and ideological force in Argentina ( I wish we had such a Party which recognises the need to unite the various elements in society rather than divide them between the so-called 'many' and the so called 'few' instead of the Labour Party here). If he had taken power in Italy today instead of decades ago Silvio Berlusconi would certainly have been seen as an insurgent populist.
Even Charles de Gaulle in France could be seen as a populist in many ways. Ronald Reagan was to a large extent similar to Donald Trump. As for the Brexit vote in which I canvassed door to door for Leave, I am sure as with all referendums, people were personally answering the actual question before them on the ballot paper rather than seeing themselves as part of a global movement or as an expression of alienation from London or whatever.
I don't want to say categorically nothing is happening but it would be wrong to claim this sort of thing isn't liable to happen within a democracy at any time.
I see that a con party association MP has had a partition against their MP from local people about him fiddled his expenses which has lead to the association and members then voting to throw him out. causing a by-election, The elite in the con party has now overruled them in the association and people of all parties who signed the partition and reinstated him for the by-election.
How does that work then john, 19 per cent the people in the area signed the partition for him not to be their MP and local party throw him out, is that democracy or is it, you do what we want or else, we are in charge, not what you vote.
It nice party you lot have got, they think they can get away with anything as if you are not there and votes and partition don't count.
One of the significant movements is the new realisation that perhaps the CO2 global warming theory has been massively overstated. the Europeans now know, as do we, that the computer forecasts have wildly exaggerated the temperatures by using false assumptions on the effect of CO2. They are also realising that CO2 is a necessary gas and increasing quantities are helping to feed the world. Recognising that fact that we with others got this wrong will have an enormous effect in reducing energy costs.