UK PM Criticises Extinction Rebellion: “hemp-smelling bivouacs”

Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson. By UK Government, OGL 3, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has sharply attacked Extinction Rebellion in a speech at a London book launch.

Boris Johnson attacks climate change protesters blocking streets
Prime minister urges ‘unco-operative crusties’ to abandon ‘hemp-smelling bivouacs

Camilla Hodgson in London

The UK prime minister’s comments, made on Monday evening, came hours after thousands of demonstrators led by activist group Extinction Rebellion took to the streets of London as well as more than 60 cities worldwide, including Paris, Sydney and Toronto, in what they billed as the start of a two-week “October revolution”.

Mr Johnson made the comments on Monday while speaking at a book launch for a biography of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, whom he said had warned about climate change. He said he had been advised not to attend the event, since “unco-operative crusties” were “littering” the roads.

I hope that when we go out from this place tonight and we are waylaid by importunate nose-ringed climate change protesters, we remind them that she was also right about greenhouse gases.

Labour peer Andrew Adonis called the prime minister a “total disgrace” for spending the evening making dismissive comments at the book launch while Brexit was at “crunch point”. Politicians including shadow chancellor John McDonnell, Green party MP Caroline Lucas and Labour MP Clive Lewis voiced their support for Extinction Rebellion protesters.

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/ea02f806-e994-11e9-85f4-d00e5018f061

Its a shame Boris Johnson is such a green. His government might disagree with Extinction Rebellion’s methods, but it largely supports their objectives.

The Boris Johnson government has committed Britain to 100% clean energy by 2050, though to be fair the UK government is also making large investments in nuclear fusion research. As we all know practical nuclear fusion power has been just 20 years away since the 1970s.

Legendary British PM Margaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was a significant advocate of climate action. Her 1989 UN speech urging climate action helped raise international awareness. Thatcher set up the Hadley Centre, one of the UK’s leading climate research centers.

Advertisements

198 thoughts on “UK PM Criticises Extinction Rebellion: “hemp-smelling bivouacs”

    • I say London needs a pet rebellion. Take your pets out to the streets to do their thing and we’ll if it runs down the road onto a tent guess the tents should not have been there.

    • “crusties”????? Is that another word for The Great Unwashed masquerading as hippies from the ’60s?

      Why is it that, when I see these ecohippies gathering (except for the furries), I get some sort of retro vision of the 1960s and the draft protests? Not like deja vu all over again, more like: these are the grandkids of those flower child slackers, or something like that.

    • They were similarly caught out in London earlier this year and blamed it on the high cost of solar panels not being a viable alternative. Anyway, the following link is an excruciating interview of a spokesperson for ER going by the name of Zion Lights just yesterday. She was tackled by one of the UK’s best political pundits Andrew Neil. Neil is a Rottweiler with a bone whenever he smells bullshit. Watch end enjoy, especially when she makes reference to Mann and Hansen.

  1. This is from the Hadley centre, its from a pdf, which can be found when you search “hadley centre funding” on google…. They have been open since 1989, and have done nothing but sound like the u.n. and ipcc.

    Summary
    For Government and society, the challenge presented to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate is great. In no other area is cutting edge research so closely linked to major policy and investment decisions – decisions that must often be made now.
    The cost of getting these wrong could be enormous, and impact us over decades.
    Critical to getting decisions right will be sourcing the best possible evidence and advice, in a context where the risks but also the uncertainties are often profound. One example is the estimated £40-£50 billion annual spend on infrastructure (such
    as energy, water, homes, transport) to 2030, where much of this is still designed for the 20th century climate. Another is the tens of £bns of investment expected in wind energy, where improved
    understanding of future wind resources, including storminess and periods of low or no wind, will be critical given implications for site planning, economic viability and security of energy supply.
    Looking internationally, DFID provided £5.5bn aid to poorer countries in 08/09 – a figure set to rise to £7.8bn by 10/11. Adaptation support for developing countries is a key part of the global response on climate change. The effectiveness of measures to
    build resilience and safeguard livelihoods against projected changes could be improved, and costs substantially lowered, with more tailored climate projections and if uncertainties can be reduced.
    But all parts of government will be affected, with wide ranging implications across public policy making and spending – some obvious, some less so.
    The review has considered the Government’s needs for climate science advice over the next 5-10 years, and how these can be met. It has focused in particular on the role, resourcing and governance of the Met Office Hadley Centre, to advise on a sustainable solution where the Centre is seen to have a critical function.The work has examined the priority advice needs of individual departments, as well
    as identifying cross-cutting areas and efficiency issues, drawing evidence too from external experts and the private sector.
    Hadley Centre

    • Legendary British PM Margaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was a significant advocate of climate action. Her 1989 UN speech urging climate action helped raise international awareness. Thatcher set up the Hadley Centre, one of the UK’s leading climate research centers.

      Thatcher was a very clever Machiavellian politician. Her sole interest in promoting CO2 driven global warming was to demonise coal to help break the union movement in Britain and promote nuclear power operated by a small body of non manual non unionised technicians. She set up the Hadley Centre shortly after defeating the Nation Union of Mineworker 1984/1985 strike. This was part of her longer term strategy to eradicate the coal industry in Britain.

      The current situation is the blowback from that devious maneouvre. Now the Marxists she was trying to over power have adopted her fake and underhand moves against CO2 and sprung back with vengeance.

      • Machiavellian indeed…..

        Margaret Thatcher had a political agenda – she had just come through the coal miner strike and did not trust them or the Middle East for Britain’s energy security and hoped to engender wider support for more nuclear power stations (it didn’t work).

        To illustrate the cynicism, in her book “Statecraft” in the chapter entitled “Hot Air & Global Warming” she rubbishes the notion and refers to it as the “doomsters favorite subject”.

        The complete quote is interesting :-

        “The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

        The laws of unintended consequence always bite you in the ass.

      • She also had to deal with the UK being called the “Dirty Man of Europe”, causing “acid rain” over Europe destroying forests, because of coal in power generation.

        • Would you kindly like to name which forests supposedly were “destroyed by acid rain”?

          I don’t see any.
          Most of the British ones were devasted to build ships, particularly during Napoleon’s ravages.

          Strange it is that coal was far more widely used with much higher production figs in the 19th and early 20th century, partly because of the widespread use of it for driving ships and steam railway engines..

          I don’t see any sign the forests died in that period neither from the many active volcanoes over that period which kicked up vast amounts of sulphur dioxide.
          Could it possibly be you are rabitting with utter bollox?

          • UK upland forests were and are to a lesser extent effected by acid rain,trees were “browning” and dying off due to acid rain.although no forests were destroyed, this was a compound effect with run off polluting upland water courses fish die off, the then FC and environment agency treated this by installing liming works along rivers to neutralise the acid effect, these lining works in some places have sinse been removed.

          • and some time after theyd had their hissy fits over acid rain…the trees were still dying or looking crook
            but then they found?
            the trees had been benefitting from the sulphur?, from memory

            whatever it was it showed the entire saga up for the non event it was

      • I was about to post the same comment. Although she was a chemist by training she had no particular expertise in climate matters but recognised an opportunity to finish off the NUM by closing down the mines.

        • The mines were being closed well before Mrs Thatcher became PM, because they were seriously uneconomic, and she was just continuing an existing economic policy. However the leader of the miners union, Arthur Scargill, decided to try to use it to foment a revolution so it became a very politically charged battle, which she needed to win, and did.

        • I’m a chemist and you take course work in thermodynamics and radiation absorption. We have better grounding in physical processes of the atmosphere than a climate scientist. Let’s remember the 1988 presentation to the US congress was by Hansen who was a physicist. Climate science is nothing special amongst physical sciences

      • Exactly, Thatcher largely adopted AGW, not climate change, as a cause as a cudgel again the coal unions. She told them to behave or she would shut them down for a “good” reason. Then, of course, she had to continue that line of thinking.

      • Mrs Thatcher was quite sincere when she argued that greenhouse gases were a problem, and her efforts to close coal mines were a genuine attempt to do something about it. However, she subsequently changed her mind on the subject, and became something of a Climate change sceptic. Btw, Mrs. T remains the only British PM with a degree in science.

      • She must be rolling in her grave to see what has become of the Hadley Center.

        “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    • More pressure from another organisation, yet again trying to drive policy,a short circuit if you like,bypassing democratic consensus, while the eco terror mongers try to brainwash the gullible,.

  2. Oh dear! Typical “born to rule with silver spoon in his mouth” comments. He may be right, and I believe he is however, he is the PM and he is trying to do something very unpopular with most of the ruling elite. He has not done himself, or Brexit, any favours.

    • Patrick MJD

      Just what is Boris trying to do with the ruling elite? Precisely.

      By criticising XR Boris has just echoed the views of most of the UK.

      Nor do I understand why he hasn’t done himself or Brexit any favours. His popularity in the polls is obvious, the popularity of the Conservative party is well ahead of any other party and support for a Clean Break Brexit is beyond 50%.

      I don’t trust the man, but what politician can we trust? However, he knows that if he doesn’t deliver Brexit on the 31st, he’s toast and so is the Conservative party. Nigel Farage is very likely to walk into Downing Street.

      • You say that as if were a bad thing? Farage would be a much better PM than the lot we’ve had since Thatcher’s days

        • Kenji

          If Farage ever did succeed with The Brexit Party to get into number 10, I think he would step down as PM after a very short time. He’s never had ambitions for the job. Stepping down from UKIP after the referendum result I think says it all. Whilst he remains one of the most influential politicians in the world at the moment, if Boris delivers on the 31st, his job will be done.

          • Your reading of the situation is wrong. If the lying oaf Johnson fails to get us out of the EU by month end he would still be in a very strong position in the forthcoming election to win comfortably with a sufficient majority to push through a ‘no deal’ Brexit. If it happens at month end, or in the near future, once out of the EU without a deal then the hard work will really begin and at that point Johnson will resign as it will be too much for him, or he will be ousted in the struggle to shore up our slowing deflating economy. People need to understand that Brexit is NOT an event, it is a process lasting well beyond any exit date.

          • Gerry, Gerry! Britannia ruled the waves for a very good reason. The world that matters in so far as (your) economic fears are concerned speaks English, basically has your culture, your sense of freedom, your innovativeness… You will find that your association with the EU has held you back. Indeed that was the purpose of inveigling UK into their web. The continent with the exception of Netherlands and Germany, doesn’t like, understand or have an instinct for things economic. I believe all your skills, energy , nerve, innovativeness, instinct for freedom – quintessentially British traits, we’re being bled out of you by this unholy union.

          • Gerry, England

            Who ever suggested Brexit was an ‘event’?

            Of course it’s a process, nor will be plain sailing, but rather that and some short term hardship than being dragged deeper into the EU than we already are.

            If Boris fails to deliver Brexit on the 31st there is no doubt whatsoever that NF will pose a very real threat. Even political commentators are supporting that view because the polls show TBP around 13% even as Boris’ popularity grows. But it’s only growing on the back of his promise and his apparent determination to have us leave on the 31st. Fail to do it and his resignation will neither do much good nor provide any sort of solution, so he won’t resign.

            Then it’s stalemate with both him and Corbyn terrified to call an election because of TBP. And for that reason Corbyn won’t invoke a Vote of No Confidence either. There are far too many labour voters who voted to Leave the EU, and whilst voting for the Tories would be unthinkable for them, voting for TBP won’t. Similarly traditional Tory voters, would never vote labour but TBP is neutral ground and Nigel will get the job done.

            If Boris doesn’t get us out on the 31st the Tories and labour are toast and the successors are likely to be TBP and the Lib Dems at the next GE.

            Will a Clean Break Brexit cause a financial catastrophe? Hardly, the City is still one of the biggest financial centre in the world, utterly dwarfing anything Europe has. Will European countries want to stop exporting here? Of course not, we are the German car markets biggest single customer, a huge customer for agricultural goods, one of Italy’s largest markets for white goods etc. so would they risk that by slapping huge tariffs on the goods we sell in Europe? Not really.

        • Why are remainers always so abusive. One scenario that no one talks about is the collapse of the EU. It is very much on the cards in the next 10 years, which case getting out will be wise

          • Sparko

            The EU is anticipating a huge recession in the very near future. Best we’re not part of it.

          • With the note exception of Portugal, the Euro is bleeding the southern European economies dry, and there is no escape. Its an absurd situation.

      • Cameron and May, albeit incompetent, didn’t resort to such blatant name calling. There is no need for it, esp at the level of PM if you are trying to “steer” a country down a particular path.

        Thatcher never did that in her years.

        He has given the ER movement and Remoaners ammunition against Brexit etc. He should have focused on the job and ignored the protesters. That’s what the Police are for, and you of all people should recognise that.

        • Patrick MJD

          He’s not calling political opponents names. He’s echoing the nations mood about a bunch of crinkly hippies disrupting everyone’s life.

    • Patrick: He’s UKs Trump. Rejoice. He’s a cat among pidgeons. The only kind of leader that can straighten this mess all out is precisely the bull in the china shop type. With them, nothing is too big to fail, it’s contrary notion is what has dragged the right leftward. This has to be dug out by the roots and Trump-types are the only ones who are unintimidated by the task.

    • and some time after theyd had their hissy fits over acid rain…the trees were still dying or looking crook
      but then they found?
      the trees had been benefitting from the sulphur?, from memory

      whatever it was it showed the entire saga up for the non event it was

    • theyd better hope the cops get em before the local do

      im so sick of the never before fires in oct claims
      I just bet Trove has some many decades past reports on just this in drought years
      and back then less would be morons with matches, more likely lightning or farm equipment

    • Do you remember the Greek fires a few years back now? They could apparently be seen by satellites from space. Turned out many of these fires were started deliberately in the unusual tinder dry conditions where natural combustion had occurred. Was it not the Australian Green movement per se that demanded that forest debris was not deliberately cleared from the ground, providing massive amounts of tinder dry fuel for the general fire season, causing direct/indirect loss of property at great distress to those people who lost their homes, & great cost to the insurance companies who had to pay out? The Green movement is perhaps not the benign benevolent caring group that they portray themselves as! After all, they, like other followers of Vladimir Illiyich Ulianov, believe that all property is theft, at least when it doesn’t belong tothem of course!

  3. Q: When will the climate scare hallucinations end?

    A: When the lights go out. The heaters stops heating on a cold winters night…
    and the pitchforks come out for the Greens who produced it all.

      • Dont worry griff its coming, snow pack across the northern hemisphere is already way above what it was last year, 16ooo deaths due to cold last year in the UK alone, keep looking griff the real state of the climate can be found if you can be bothered to look

  4. “October Revolution”. Catchy. Seems like I’ve heard it before, but where? All they need are some red flags with hammers and sickles to complete the picture. Turns out Greenies are Reds in disguise.

  5. Thatcher later became unconvinced of the so-called science of climate change. As noted by By Dr. John Happs:-

    “Thatcher argued that the distortion of science by the IPCC was being used to advance an anti-capitalist, left-wing political agenda, which inevitably threatens any nation’s growth, progress and prosperity.

    She was explicit in her book Statecraft:

    ‘Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.’”

  6. Labour peer Andrew Adonis called the prime minister a “total disgrace” for spending the evening making dismissive comments at the book launch while Brexit was at “crunch point”

    Because Labour has been working tirelessly to help move Brexit along… oh, wait. Adonis et al. have been making Brexit as difficult as possible, against the clearly stated wishes of the majority of Brits.

    • The forces behind the unrest know precisely why they are using the term.

      History of term “October revolution”.
      The October Revolution, officially known in Soviet historiography as the Great October Socialist Revolution and commonly referred to as the October Uprising, the October Coup, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Bolshevik Coup or the Red October, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that …

      October Revolution – Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › October_Revolution

    • stinkerp

      100%!

      We note all the quotes in the MSM are from critics of Boris. Not one from a supporter!

    • stinkerp,

      A small majority of the minority who voted in the Brexit referendum were in favour of an undefined exit from the EU. The share of the vote was 52:48. The two major political parties (Conservative and Labour) are attempting to fulfil the will of the 52% but the relatively few Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists want to stay in the EU.

      The UK and EU have been integrating their economies laws, legal systems and institutions for four decades, and have been trying to decide how to unravel that for the less than four years since the referendum.

      The UK government’s investigation of the probable effects of the UK leaving the EU is named ‘Project Yellowhammer’. It shows that Brexit is not without potential problems. The ‘hit’ to the UK economy would be severe in absence of a trade deal with the EU (i.e. with the UK’s by far largest trading partner), but the most serious problem of implementing Brexit in any form is to find a way to keep an open border between Eire and Northern Ireland: failure to do this would breach the Good Friday Agreement and induce return of the Irish ‘Troubles'(the New IRA has already committed atrocities on the assumption there will be a ‘no agreement Brexit’.

      People wanting to make their own assessment of the known difficulties of implementing Brexit can read the Yellowhammer Report for themselves here
      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

      The “clear majority of Brits” want
      * their jobs to continue,
      * their living standards to not fall (at least, not by much),
      * the United Kingdom to remain united, and
      * peace in Ireland.
      The UK Parliament is struggling to find a way to implement Brexit that would meet those desires.

      Members of the Brexit Party (which has failed to get any elected MPs; n.b. not a single one) pretend that Parliamentarians doing their job of representing the people are “making Brexit as difficult as possible, against the clearly stated wishes of the majority of Brits”.

      Richard

        • Sparko,

          Please explain your assertion that my post is “deluded” and “sophistry”.
          I stated facts together with only one estimate which was from the government and which I both referenced and linked.

          Richard

          • Start with your point of view, and then work backwards.
            In the absence of a logical train of thought, you can use cards like “they’re all thick and we’re all really clever” if you want.
            And so on and so forth.

          • Sparko,

            No, people can make their own judgements on who is “thick, clever and/or deluded” as well as observing who is using sophistry.

            I cannot stop you from “working backwords” from your opinions as you ask me to do. But I will not do it because I prefer to cite facts and referenced (preferably linked) evidence and to work forwards from that to formulate my opinions.

            Richard

          • Yellow hammer is mostly nonsense. The people who wrote that are the same Eggspurts that declared that the UK economy would collapse if we didn’t adopt the Euro. I’m sorry that you have to clutch at straws and treat a speculative worse case scenario as absolute truth.

          • Sparko,

            I offer my sympathy for your total lack of anything worthwhile to say, but I object to your misrepresenting things I have said.

            For example, I wrote,
            “The UK government’s investigation of the probable effects of the UK leaving the EU is named ‘Project Yellowhammer’. It shows that Brexit is not without potential problems. ” etc.
            And I added,
            “People wanting to make their own assessment of the known difficulties of implementing Brexit can read the Yellowhammer Report for themselves here
            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

            You reply to that with factually incorrect assertions about those who wrote that report and say to me,
            “I’m sorry that you have to clutch at straws and treat a speculative worse case scenario as absolute truth.”
            <Providing the Government's own Report is NOT clutching at straws" especially when I linked to it for people to make "their own assessment" of the Report's findings. Also, I said those findings are of "potential problems" which is NOT asserting "absolute truth".

            You ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ when you behave as you have in your comments here.

            Richard

          • Richard, Yellowhammer is just an extension of project fear. As I’ve pointed out, govt bureaucrats don’t exactly have a decent track record of getting predictions right. Treating its warnings as absolute truth reeks of sophistry. Incidentally, the govt should also have studies on the various scenario for dealing with the inevitable collapse of the EU and Euro. I wonder what you would.say to that report.

          • Richard, the centrepiece of your argument is a load of tosh. Therefore the rest of your extrapolation is pure sophistry,as I stated in the original post.
            That is all I need to say.

          • Sparko,

            It seems that mistakes are all you have to offer. And you are mistaken if you think I will lower myself to answer your childish abuse by using childish abuse.

            Richard

          • Richard, as I’ve pointed out Yellowhammer is a speculative report a worst case scenario. The govt probably commissions many such reports on all subjects, like the collapse of the euro, collapse of the EU, terrorist attacks.etc etc. Most don’t come to pass, most turn out over time to be laughable nonsense, bit like most climate predictions.
            If you’re that worried, then sell up and move to Europe, but be warned that Italy is looking to leave the Euro, as it is strangling thei economy, and default on its trillions of debts, which it simply cannot afford to pay. But that’s just another scenario

        • Sparko old chap, you come across as using the same thought process as the folk the topic started with ?

          What was as close to a 50/50 result to the referendum as it was possible to get will require major compromise by both sides of the argument in order to be resolved 🙂

          • If the result had been the other way, would remain have compromised ?.
            But there is no compromise to be had, The EU is hellbent on becoming an empire, regardless of what their voters think,

      • Except for a couple of by-elections, they haven’t had a chance to win any seats … Bit disingenuous to say they don’t have any seats … Come next election without Brexit, they’ll have a fair number …

        • MikeP,

          You are being very disingenuous when you write,
          “Except for a couple of by-elections, they haven’t had a chance to win any seats …”
          When leader of the ‘Brexit Party’ Farage failed to get elected as an MP in two successive General Elections having chosen to stand in the Constituencies he then judged to be most likely to elect him.

          Come next election with or without Brexit, pigs will still not be flying.

          Richard

          • Look up the history of the Scottish mats, and their utter destruction of Scottish labour. You really do have a very narrow and selective point of view.

          • Sparko,

            Please go and troll somebody else. Your trolling of me is wasting space in the thread.
            And to avoid another of your ‘yah boo’ responses, I point out that your comment about “Scots Nats’ has no relevance to anything I have said here.

            Richard

          • Well I would if I could, but everywhere I look, you seem to have gotten there first. But what is wrong with bringing up the Scottish Nats. Going from 6/59 to 56/59 in one election, is very much relevant as a counter argument. I think the brexit party could break through, especially against selected MPs. People are losing faith in their MPs, just like they have in Scotland.

          • Sparko

            100%. The SNP was a complete joke when I lived there is the 70’s and 80’s. Scorned and laughed at, a bit like the Brexit party.

            Richard S Courtney is simply a bitter remainer who simply cannot admit that Democracy was served in 2016 and that Brexit should have happened by now, but for the determination of remainers to undermine Democracy itself to have their own way.

            Spoiled brats. It’s pathetic, disgusting and dangerous.

      • Richard,
        Who are the Authors of the the Operation Yellowhammer document?
        The Treasury under Theresa May?
        The Civil Contingencies Secretariat of The Cabinet of Theresa May’s Government?
        Although anecdotal, the following are estimates of parties described as Remainers-
        British Public Servants -90%
        British Parliamentarians-75%
        British Media – 83%.
        With certainty, British Supreme Court- 100%. (11/0 in Miller v. The Prime Minister).
        The term “Operation Fear” will also be familiar to you.
        Brexit means Brexit even if Operation Yellowhammer wants to second guess what 17.4 million Britons meant in the 2016 Referendum.

        • Herbert, it’s actually Project Fear. Btw These are also the same people who predicted economic disaster when the UK didn’t join the Euro , funny how they’ve gone very quiet on that.

        • Herbert,

          I don’t know where you get your anecdotes, but I am reminded of the famous “Carry On” line,
          “infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in fa’ me!”

          Wallow in your “anecdotal” disinformation if that gives you comfort. I prefer verifiable data,

          Richard

          • Richard , Yellowhammer was written by the same people who declared that the UK economy would collapse if we didn’t join the Euro. Its the economic equivalent of RCP 8.5. it is not verified, and it is not fact.

          • Sparko,

            The Yellowhammer findings are the government’s assessments of potential problems of Brexit and – as such – are the best available information about the potential problems which cannot be fact until after Brexit.

            Herbert’s anecdotes are ridiculous assertions of unnamed sources.

            Richard

          • So you’ve admitted that Yellow hammer is mostly speculative nonsense. Now what about the rest of your original comment, I do have to point out the lack of verified facts.

          • Sparko,

            The assertion of “speculative nonsense” is your misrepresentation which has no relationship to anything I have said or written.
            As I have repeatedly said, the government’s Yellowhammer investigation is the best available assessment of probabilities of Brexit effects we have and people can judge it for themselves here
            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

            I point out to onlookers from outside UK that the evidence-free assertions and misrepresentations being displayed in this thread by ‘Brexiteers’ are typical of behaviour in the referendum campaign.
            Politicians of all political Parties in Parliament are trying to sort out the resulting mess.

            Richard

          • Seems to me Richard you are being given a hard time over what you write and reproduce. A tad unfair I would say, the simple facts are,the referendum was a ambiguous simple vote,that was acted upon by the government of the day. Who along with all political parties have not acted in the spirit of the referendum, all parties including the government have hijacked Brexit for their own political motives, I have just posted how the libdems changed there minds with cash incentives, the whole of UK politics and the judicially are basically all corupt,these debates and arguments are pointless and only play into the hands of the corupt, divide and conquer, we are seeing it played out right now every day in UK politics.

          • Sparko,

            The probabilities reported in Yellowhammer ate facts. The accuracy of each of those probabilities cannot be known as a fact until after Brexit.

            I appreciate that this is difficult for an anonymous troll to understand, but it is perfectly clear to most readers of this thread.

            Richard

          • Probabilities are not facts Richards, they are estimates of likelihood of outcome, and tend be quite speculative ( goodness me, there’s that word again).
            lots of “woulds” and “coulds” do not fact make, no matter how loudly you shout.

          • Sparko October 9, 2019 at 10:21 am
            Probabilities are not facts Richards, they are estimates of likelihood of outcome, and tend be quite speculative ( goodness me, there’s that word again).
            lots of “woulds” and “coulds” do not fact make, no matter how loudly you shout.
            ——————-
            gh
            All projections, future financials are by the fact they are trying to predict the future simply probabilities. they obviously only lose the “would and could” when the future becomes the present.
            Yellowhammer was initially a base-line best estimate. It was released as worst case.
            It was a probable outcome as estimated by numerous agencies. Many industries will suffer when “just in time” manufacture is not possible. Much fresh food will be more expensive and not as fresh when shipments are delayed by customs. Mangelwurzels, parsnips and turnips will be cheap as these are grown in UK!
            in 2018 2,497,804 lorries used dover
            this is 6843 per day
            this is nearly 5 per minute
            add a delay of 60 minutes for customs gives an additional 300 lorries to park up. (ignoring cars etc)

          • ghalfrunt, Dover allegedly is the UK’s 9th largest port. The other 8 larger ports seem to have this sussed. Oh and maybe we can just diversify our farms and grow more local produce. Oh and food transported from abroad on a lorry is clearly not going to be fresh.

          • Oh and ghalfrunt, I forgot to mention that most of our “fresh” food comes from outside the EU. So I guess nothing my will change, except they may become cheaper if we drop the tariffs

          • “In 20175 the value of imports was greater than the value of exports in each of the broad categories of food, feed and drink except ‘Beverages’ which had a trade surplus of £1.71 bn, largely due to exports of Scotch Whisky.”

            from my government link above

          • Ghalfrunt, just read that comment of fresh food, so 70% at least doesn’t come via the EU.. key word that Vis. Have a nice day.

        • The term was “Project Fear”.

          I called the Leave response “Operation Comfort Blanket” and described it as ‘Panglossian’ to say the least. (“all for the best in the best of all possible worlds”, for those who don’t know the source.)

          I wouldn’t accept Sparko’s argument that we all consider leavers to be thick but consider ..
          • the entire leave campaign was designed to be as free from facts as possible. Facts from the government were routinely rubbished as ‘Project Fear’;
          • the campaign relied on myths and outright lies about what the EU is and what its powers are;
          • then and ever since, Brexiteers demonstrate their complete ignorance of the EU and Britain’s place in it every time they put finger to keyboard.

          Draw your own conclusions.

          • Feel the need to reply, but speculative disaster scenarios aren’t actually fact. In fact, one of the salient real facts one can take from the Brexit vote was that the UK economy didn’t immediately collapse immediately despite the repeated mass stating of the “facts” by the remain camp.
            So forgive me for pointing out that remain “facts” do have a habit of being complete unfacts, or lies, one in a long series of lies like for example
            “The UK economy will collapse if we don’t adopt the Euro” .
            In reality it did the opposite.
            You can speculate if you like, why it is, those with functioning memories, ignored the remain “facts”.
            Just saying

          • Perhaps Newminster can explain to us the inner workings of the Euro currency, and how its internal balancing of accounts world. ( Like how much the southern European countries real debts are ). Ps calling brexiteers uninformed, is the same as just calling them thick.

      • “The ‘hit’ to the UK economy would be severe in absence of a trade deal with the EU (i.e. with the UK’s by far largest trading partner)”

        While just how severe is open to debate, it’s also the subject of much scaremongering. We buy far more from Europe than they buy from us, so it should be more important for them to strike a deal[*]. It’s a pretty good rule of thumb that as long as you have the money, you will find someone willing to sell you what you need. Yet many of the scare stories I read are about shortages of certain imported goods. I find such stories difficult to believe.

        [*Of course it is also argued that the pain will be spread out amongst all the other members, so the pain will be much greater in the UK. This is certainly the hope, and intention, of at least some Eurocrats. They are quite determined that Brexit should be made as painful as possible for the UK, pour encourager les autres.]

      • Richard S Courtney

        What a lot of utter rubbish.

        “A small majority of the minority who voted in the Brexit referendum were in favour of an undefined exit from the EU.”

        The turnout for the referendum was 72.2%, massive by any comparison!

        If people were complacent enough not to turn out to vote, by default, they support the winning side.

        Project Yellowhammer was an examination of the worst case scenario. It is simply not likely to happen.

        The ‘hit’ to the UK economy would be severe in absence of a trade deal with the EU”

        Where is your evidence for this other than the usual big business community who are desperate to enjoy the comfort of, what amounts to a Fascist organisation, the EU. Most small business organisations are behind Brexit.

        “The “clear majority of Brits” want
        * their jobs to continue, (There is as much reason to believe their jobs will improve).
        * their living standards to not fall (at least, not by much), (It is known that tariffs on many imported goods will be suspended for 2 years by the British Government which will lead to prices in the shops reduced by as much as 25%)
        * the United Kingdom to remain united, and (A Clean Break Brexit would necessarily mean Northern Ireland remains within the UK. Merkle is now demanding that NI remains attached to the EU under any agreement)
        * peace in Ireland.”
        (Peace in Ireland is entirely dependent on the Co-Operation of the EU. The UK has no need for border controls, it’s the EU demanding customs inspections which is the problem)

        It is clear that Nigel Farage of UKIP drove the Conservative party to calling a referendum, with very few elected MP’s. There has not been a General Election since the Brexit Party was formed so it’s impossible for them to have MP’s. Nor are they ‘pretending Parliamentarians are making Brexit as difficult as possible, it is evident from the resistance to it demonstrated by innumerable members of parliament, some initiating and supporting court cases, and the Liberal Democrats stating they will revoke Article 50 (and therefore Brexit altogether) if they achieve power. This has all stymied Boris Johnsons negotiating position with Brexit and has led us directly to the position we find ourselves in now.

        When you feel it necessary to spread your biased bile about a democratic, once in a lifetime referendum which invoked Article 50 by almost every single member of Parliament, I suspect a scientific blog where the facts are more important than distorted beliefs is the wrong place to do it.

        • HotScot,

          My post was factual and accurate. Your “load of utter rubbish” is more properly attached to your own post.

          You quote my saying,
          “A small majority of the minority who voted in the Brexit referendum were in favour of an undefined exit from the EU.”
          and you make two ripostes.

          Firstly, you rightly say,
          “The turnout for the referendum was 72.2%, massive by any comparison!”
          Yes, that is true but I was talking about a minority of the UK population (i.e. not only the proportion of the electorate).

          Voters were not a majority of the population of the UK in 2016.
          According to http://ukpopulation2016.com/population-of-uk.html the UK population in 2016 was “65.348 Million”.
          So, the 33,500,01 counted ballot papers in the referendum were from about half of the UK population, and the votes for Brexit were only about a half of those who voted.

          Your other point says,
          “If people were complacent enough not to turn out to vote, by default, they support the winning side.”
          Well, I don’t accept that.
          Those too complacent to vote are clearly content with the status quo which – in this case – is ‘remain’.
          But that does not matter because a minority of the UK population voted to leave whichever side of the vote the non-voters of the electorate are allocated.

          Simply, I stand by every word of my paragraph that said,
          “A small majority of the minority who voted in the Brexit referendum were in favour of an undefined exit from the EU. The share of the vote was 52:48. The two major political parties (Conservative and Labour) are attempting to fulfil the will of the 52% but the relatively few Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists want to stay in the EU.”
          And your nit-pick does not impress me.

          You then say,
          “Project Yellowhammer was an examination of the worst case scenario. It is simply not likely to happen.”
          Sorry, but that is not correct. A version of the document was leaked a week before its official released. The only difference between the two versions was the title.

          The leaked version was titled ‘HMG Reasonable Planning Assumptions”, and the officially released version was titled ‘HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions”.

          The Commons repeatedly requested to know when and why the title was changed and the government persistently refused to answer either question.

          You have your opinion on what is “likely to happen”. Personally, I have read the Yellowhammer document and it seems reasonable to me: that is why I provided a link for people to make their own judgements.

          Richard

          • Richard

            Hot Scot was clearly talking about 72% of the electorate.

            I am genuinely astonished that you appear to be saying that the entire UK population should be taken into account when considering the overall vote

            Only those over 18 are eligible to vote as you know. Many chose not to. It should be assumed that those who didn’t vote either didn’t care what the result was either way, or that they were happy to accept a vote by the majority of their peers.

            There are few Governments or even MP’s who would be in power if they had to meet a criteria of receiving a vote representing 52% of the entire population. Euro elections are typically 45% of the electorate

            here is the approx. voting proportions in the referendum

            17.4 million people voted to leave 16.2 to remain
            406 constituencies voted to Leave, 242 voted to remain.
            148 Labour constituencies voted to Leave, 84 voted to Remain
            247 Tory constituencies voted to Leave, 80 voted to Remain.
            9 regions voted to Leave, 3 voted to Remain.
            160 MP’s voted to Leave 486 voted to Remain.

            The last figure being the one to cause the problems, as MPs believe they have the right to over rule the will of the people, aided and abetted by a group of well funded remainers and the EU commission who also think the people got it wrong and must be ignored.

            By any criteria it was a well distributed leave vote that would have delivered a thumping majority to a ‘leave’ govt

            tonyb

          • tony b,

            You say to me,
            “Hot Scot was clearly talking about 72% of the electorate.”
            Yes, I know and I said that, but I was not and he was replying to what I had said.

            You continue,
            “I am genuinely astonished that you appear to be saying that the entire UK population should be taken into account when considering the overall vote”
            I am genuinely horrified that anybody would dispute the fact that Parliament has a duty to take into account the desires of the entire UK population.
            We live in a representative democracy because mob rule is not a good idea.

            The referendum result tells us that on the day of the referendum the UK population was divided in its desires. Parliament is attempting to find a way to obtain Brexit while protecting everybody. But extremists on both sides are attempting to disrespect the referendum result by pretending their desires should be imposed on everybody.

            It seems the only thing the extremists on both sides have in common is their desire to disunite the kingdom.

            Richard

          • Richard S Courtney

            We live in a representative Democracy, but a referendum is not a parliamentary decision, it is a decision of the people.

            Therein lies the problem, because whilst a Parliamentary Democracy is entirely unsuited to refernda, it has been brought to bear by those who are determined to remain, against the wishes of those who want to leave.

            Whichever way you cut it, the referendum was a binary option on the ballot paper and there were no conditions applied. The Scottish referendum was exactly the same ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ but I didn’t see parliamentarians getting involved in that because the final vote was close. Where was the outcry for a deal then?

            The world is laughing at us mate. The oldest Parliamentary Democracy in the world can’t deal with a simple referendum. Our American friends are shocked that a Democratic decision has been meddled with and the N. Koreans are laughing up their sleeves.

            There is absolutely no doubt that the advocates for remain have caused this, the likes of Dominic Grieve and many others who swore blind, on camera that the referendum result would be delivered come what may. And then May did come along, also determined to betray all the promises made by remain believing politicians.

            So who are the liars here?

            Your other point says,
            “If people were complacent enough not to turn out to vote, by default, they support the winning side.”
            Well, I don’t accept that.
            Those too complacent to vote are clearly content with the status quo which – in this case – is ‘remain’.

            Whether you accept it or not, it is a fact. The people that don’t vote surrender their vote to those who win. That is historically the case, in any Democratic society. There was no option for the status quo, the referendum was clear, ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’. You might consider it a minority of voters that won the day but had it gone the other way there is absolutely no doubt that the minority voting remain would have had their way without question.

            Amongst the rest of your arguments, this one really is the most miserable.

            But what upsets me the most is the utter lack of endeavour and courage shown by remainers. Whilst China’s growth over the last 40 years has been meteoric, we have remained shackled to a stagnating bureaucratic monster. And whilst Trump has been accused of protectionism, there can be no better an example of protectionism than the EU.

          • HotScot,

            You say to me,
            “But what upsets me the most is the utter lack of endeavour and courage shown by remainers.”

            Well, that is an example which is confirmatory of my observations that said,
            “The referendum result tells us that on the day of the referendum the UK population was divided in its desires. Parliament is attempting to find a way to obtain Brexit while protecting everybody. But extremists on both sides are attempting to disrespect the referendum result by pretending their desires should be imposed on everybody.

            It seems the only thing the extremists on both sides have in common is their desire to disunite the kingdom.

            Your “upsets” may be right, but ‘remainers’ may also be right to point out that caution – not only “endeavour and courage” – is an appropriate quality when considering how to jump off a cliff.

            Richard

          • Richard S Courtney

            “The Commons repeatedly requested to know when and why the title was changed and the government persistently refused to answer either question.”

            Michael Gove addressed that question five times on the same day in Parliament. I watched it!

      • “The UK Parliament is struggling to find a way to implement Brexit that would meet those desires.”

        The UK Parliament is doing everything possible to prevent Brexit, while refusing to have an election that would settle the matter… because they know the Remainers would lose.

      • Um…the majority voted for Brexit. That’s what the vote tally showed. If people didn’t vote, that’s their problem. Thanks for the bloviating, though. We’ll, uh, ponder that.

        The elected leaders of a representative democracy are required to honor the outcome of the vote. Many have forgotten (or never believed) that they represent their constituents. They think they are a power unto themselves. That explains the so-called “populist movements” in Western countries that the deaf ruling elites find inexplicable. They think they know what’s best for the proletariat and can’t understand why the great unwashed would oppose them, so they blame it on everyone but themselves. Xenophobia, racism and nationalism figure prominently in their diatribes.

        In fact, people woke up to the fact that their leaders don’t represent them anymore and started to replace those leaders and divorce themselves from undemocratic institutions like the EU.

      • The Brexit Party have yet to have the opportunity to stand candidates in General Election Richard. They came into existence only after May’s failure to keep the law and depart the EU on the 31st of March this year.

        • Annie,

          The Brexit Party is the latest version of the Nigel Farage Party and it was reformed in January 2019, but it predates the referendum and was active in the referendum campaign. It posted candidates in the most recent three General Elections and all those Brexit Party candidates (n.b. every single one of them including Nigel Farage) failed to win any seats.

          Brexit Party candidates may affect a future General Election by obtaining votes from other candidates, but you are living in a world of your own imagination if you think there are likely to be many – if any – Brexit Party MPs.

          The Brighton and Hove Constituency has repeatedly elected the Green Party’s only MP, Caroline Lucas. Her parliamentary influence is negligible but it is more than the influence of all the Brexit Party MPs because there are none.

          Richard

          • Richard S Courtney

            All blatant lies.

            Nigel Farage resigned from UKIP following the referendum believing his job was done.

            Richard Tice formed The Brexit Party (falsely described by you as “the latest version of the Nigel Farage Party“) when it became apparent that Brexit was being sabotaged, he invited Nigel Farage to be political head.

            The Brexit Party has never fought a General Election, despite your blatant distortion of events.

            And you have the gaul to accuse the Leave campaign of lying!

  7. No, Thatcher did not support the notion of climate change having recanted her earlier views when more evidence was in and following talks by Lindzen and Singer

    https://theecologist.org/2018/oct/17/who-drove-thatchers-climate-change-u-turn

    Whilst Lucas and Mc Donnell support XR as they all want to overthrow Capitalism, Boris is a firm advocate of the free market and realises the supporters have no idea what they are asking for in wanting zero emissions by 2025

    tonyb

    • Tonyb,

      You say,
      “No, Thatcher did not support the notion of climate change having recanted her earlier views when more evidence was in and following talks by Lindzen and Singer”

      Huh!?
      Anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) global warming (AGW) was an obscure, scientific hypothesis that had existed for a century before Margaret Thatcher adopted it and used it to create the AGW-scare as a method to further her personal political advancement..

      The AGW-scare had no usefulness to her after she had left office as Prime Minister so she then recanted her promotion of the scare, but by then the scare was out of her control and she could not ‘put the genie back in the bottle’. It is ridiculous historical revisionism to say that means “Thatcher did not support the notion of climate change having recanted her earlier views”.

      My analysis of how and why she was creating the AGW-scare was conducted before the scare existed and can be read here
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/

      Richard

    • Hi tony

      Viewing all this from across the pond, it seems the country is in a pickle.

      What is your forecast for what will have occurred, by say, January, 2020. What would you like to be done?

      Watching Prime Ministers time debate is far superior to watching our Congress. The problem is the American networks carry only snippets.

      • Heres one effect of a no deal Brexit and possibly with a deal, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49970197

        The above will destroy rural family farming. The instigator of the above was the previous environmental minister M Gove. He in my personal opinion is a green slime environmental extremist, who has somehow crawled his way into government to further the global warming agenda. Which ever UK party is in power they all without fail follow the global warming agenda, Farage may have hinted at not towing the AGW agenda its yet to be seen exactly what he and any party he may represent have in mind.

        • B d Clark

          Riiigghhhtt……From the BBC website. That would be the BBC which has made every attempt possible to negatively influence and undermine the Brexit referendum.

          • Riggggght from the BBC web site the most biased left wing rag I’ve ever had the privilege to read ,never the less there reporting on the lack of tariffs is correct, the lack of tariffs if a no deal Brexit happens will be devastating,

            I for one voted for Brexit, there was no announcement in 2016 that the global warming agenda would hijack the implementation of Brexit, what you need to understand is the left have hedged all their bets be it Brexit or no Brexit,the green agenda will progress what ever the outcome, as the article clearly makes out. It’s not eu policy it’s a UK right wing governments policy of hardly any tariffs,it would also be any other governments policy to push the green slime agenda ,Gove took advantage of this ,even if a no deal Brexit happens far left green slime agenda policys will be implemented, another industry bites the dust in the globalisation of world governments,see the bigger picture Scott,

          • B d Clark

            The 88% of goods coming into the country are not all agricultural products. In fact, agriculture represents a small proportion of that.

            However, by way of example, all government support was withdrawn from New Zealand farmers. There were huge fears and lots of scare stories about the industry being finished, instead, it has never been healthier because NZ rolled up it’s sleeves and found new markets.

            The NFU are always bleating (pardon the pun) about threats, yet since joining the EU our agricultural sector has been in terminal decline. Perhaps you should have a bit more faith in the British people who are always squealing about not being able to buy British grown produce. perhaps if they are told they can aid in that endeavour by buying British they just might support British farmers.

            The green agenda of a socialist global government might be an expressed desire of some prominent people but there is no conspiracy to turn the world into some sort of Gulag.

            The British government is blatantly using climate change as cover to raise taxes to pay off the national debt.

            Is there one single MP who truly believes in global warming and associated accelerating sea level rises? Of course not, otherwise why would they waste £5bn (£10bn according to some contractors) of taxpayers money refurbishing Westminster Palace which is mere feet away from the River Thames at high water? According to some estimates, the place would be swamped before they completed the job.

          • A none existent tariff will destroy any revival of UK manufacturing you will not see a revival ,what ever % you claim will be small in the agricultural business it will still equate to many millions of £s lost to imports,plus the same farms will have to fight export tariffs the two combined will destroy small medium sized farms.brexit will not be what you think it will be , you failed to acknowledge the deeper game being played here the same minister who put in play the environment over farming is a Brexit minister in boris Johnson’s government in charge of the practicalities of leaving hes a advocate of global warming and it was his decision to ban new diesel’s and petrol cars by 2040 ,you dont belive in global warming right were both at one on that score, but look at what Johnson and his minister are going to do ,Gove has made a whole raft of legislation based on the lie of co2, there will be no new prosperous UK when we live the EU under Johnson and his green slim minister

          • B d Clark

            Listen to yourself man!

            This is all just speculation and scaremongering. You sound like a hysterical climate alarmist.

            The fact is we know no more about what will happen with Brexit than we do about the climate.

            In both cases the government has a vested interest is scaring the bejeezuz out the population so the status quo and the ‘easy option’ isn’t challenged.

            And after 40 years of climate scare stories not one of them has manifested itself, in fact usually quite the opposite. Brexit is exactly the same.

            Without endeavour and courage the human race wouldn’t have evolved to where it is now. We know we are facing a massive recession within the EU, even they admit that. We know the Italian voters feel much the same way as Brexiters. Greece has been wrecked by Brussels/Germany and the stated desire is for the EU to raise it’s own armed forces.

            Why? Where are the treats to Europe that NATO is not already dealing with. And whilst the UK’s defence capability has been eroded to the point that it isn’t much better than Dad’s Army, we are handing the keys to an EU Army to Germany.

            And of course the mechanisation of that Army will doubtless fall to Germany with it’s massive manufacturing expertise; Mercedes, BMW and VW, strange they were also major contributors to mechanisation of the last Army Germany had.

            Have you learned nothing after two wars with that country? It harbours ambitions to seize as much of Russia as it can get, and always has done.

            The EU has been cited as the most successful peace initiative Europe has ever seen, but they fail to mention that during that period Germany has not been allowed to raise a standing Army.

          • Seems to me your li ving in fantasy land,your not even responding to my latest post to you, Brexit or not what Gove has planted into legislation will not allow any industry in a post Brexit UK, your dream of a prosperous uk will not happen,I’ve explained this to you in my last post to you, which you conveniently ignore.you have been sold a lie,your comprehension of the bigger picture is sadly lacking,gove has based all his legislation on the lie of co2 ,hes implementing one of the world’s toughest climate change regimes which will not see your dream of a independent UK we will be locked in chains.your even contradicting your own belief of the lie of global warming,Brexit is the biggest scam of all time taken over and minipulated by every party in the UK for there own ends,the conservative party have and will abuse the peoples vote for a toltarian green UK.get real Scot and go and read the legislation.

          • So you want to preach about the second world war do you,let me give you a lesson,why do you think Germany invaded Europe,just to conquer, what do you think the 3rd Reich was about,the war was a means to a ends while you watched the propaganda films of every one blowing themselves up,the germans were implementing plans drawn up from the 20s and 30s for a federal state of Europe, the first thing they did was take over the banking systems next was agriculture, infrastructure to a central hub =Germany were it was redistributed whole countries were designated to certain production again every forwarded to the central hub for redistribution. Hitler was advised not to bother with the UK, we were deemed trouble makers,never the less plans were drawn up for a invasion.

            3/4 of the way through the war it became apparent the federal state of Europe was not going to happen YET,have you read the red book Scott a fascinating read, and so behind the scenes the 4th Reich was born.the end of the war was not so much a end to hostility but a capitulation to Germany for the end of hostilities, the 3 stooges churchill Eisenhower stalin broke Europe up and paved the way for the 4th Reich =the EU, the plans of the germans in the 20s and 30s have essentially been implemented in full,the quote system implemented through the EU essentially mirrored the German plan for designated countries to fulfill certain roles in production,hence the demise of UK manufacturing heavy industry, relocated to Europe which has been going on sinse the late 60s

            That’s the overall snap shot Scott if you would like a more detailed account just ask, you really need to understand that the 4th Reich end game is still being played out,these dark powers are playing you and the people through Brexit.

          • B d Clark

            I didn’t need to read the red book (?) to figure any of this out.

            But what consigns much of it to mad conspiracy is that no one could have predicted the rise of the Far East nor the fall of the Berlin wall.

            Korea contributed to the downfall of the Clydeside shipyards because labour and materials were much cheaper. Steelmaking here was decimated by the Chinese. We lost our car manufacturing to socialism, nationalising Austin, Morris, Triumph etc. under British Leyland, as well as the Japanese who could manufacture, transport and sell better cars, cheaper than the British worker could.

            The top eight shipbuilders in the world are now Chinese, Japanese or Korean, with Italy and Russia making up the last of the top ten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_shipbuilding_companies

            It’s taken Japanese companies to show just how good British car workers can be when not under a socialist government and their Unions.

            The only manufacturing of any meaningful sort the Germans have are cars. They have no shipbuilding or any other heavy industry.

            Indeed, they have no financial sector to talk about. Thanks to Thatchers wisdom we now have a thriving banking sector, rivalled only by New York.

            I would, however, agree with you that the half of Germany remaining after WW2 had a run at ‘unifying’ Europe but it seems strange that whilst they were reluctant to include the UK, they are now desperate we don’t leave the EU.

            Perhaps the reason Germany lost control of their run at global domination once again is the rise of the Far East.

            My belief is that in a genuine attempt to work together rather than against each other, the Germans, French and Italians started the Common Market. The problem is it grew into a monster no one could control, especially when the wall fell and countries within Eastern Europe were unexpectedly free to apply for membership.

            And the most unexpected problem of all? Immigration from Eastern Europe. No one had figured on that until the wall fell. And the first destination of preference? A very wealthy Germany which immigrants could, almost literally, walk into.

            How to deal with it? Legislation of course, ensure every other country welcomes immigrants and Ryanair and Easyjet would do the rest. The problem is, of course, it caused resentment, and the UK held a referendum which was fought, in great part, on the subject.

            So, whilst Germany might have harboured ambitions for European dominance for a short while, it rapidly unravelled by events that could not be predicted.

      • Ceresco kid

        The elite do not want Brexit and neither does the EU and they are colluding with each other to prevent it, with all the consequences that has for a democratic vote.

        The so called ‘withdrawal deal’ was an insult, hatched up by a former PM who did not want to leave and who did not release details of it until the last minute.

        it was heavily voted down in Parliament.

        As for what will happen next?

        Several possibilities. Boris will resign and try to force a General Election. He will probably get a majority as he would be seen to be trying his hardest to escape the clutches of the EU.

        Another possibility is that the EU are famous for last minute deals, so approval of a variation to Boris’ current plan is possible.

        In reality Boris plan is little different to what went before as it still, in effect, makes the UK a vassal state. My guess is that he would rather have a no deal which creates its own problems, not least that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal.

        Let’s bear in mind that in simplistic terms the UK has a £90 billion a year trade deficit with the EU because of the way the single market rules have been put in place to favour German manufacturing and French farm produce. For this decades long deficit the UK pays a net 10 billion a year ‘membership’ fee. 95% of UK companies have no direct dealing with the UK and exports to them represent about 10% of the UK gdp.

        The ‘cost of compliance’ to EU rules is reckoned to cost us 30 billion a year as it applies to ALL UK companies whether or not they have trade with the EU (not all the rules are wrong but it is estimated that keeping only the good ones would save £15 billion a year.) So the EU can be seen to have a considerable vested interest in having some sort of deal with us.

        I would rather have a sensible deal, but if you ever read the Varoufakis book ‘Adults in the room’ you will know the chicanery at the heart of the EU and that everything is biased towards the ‘project’ a decades long plan for the integration and sublimation of individual EU countries. So the project trumps common sense.

        If it came to it would reluctantly go for ‘no deaL’ to get us out of the octopus like tentacles of the EU which reaches into every part of our society.

        tonyb

        • tonyb

          Well said.

          ‘No Deal is better than a Bad Deal’ seems to have been lost somewhere along the line!

          • Seconded. It’s often said you only get to negotiate a good deal when you are prepared to walk away with no deal. Eurocrats are past-masters at running rings round naive UK governments and civil servants. It only takes a little bit of bravery to call the EU bluff. They can’t threaten us with anything we can’t endure and in the long run, the country will probably bet better off as a result.

            Another thing I never see discussed in the media is this: Throughout all the years of UK membership in this Franco-German project, UK citizens have been told that the benefits of EU membership are subtle and long term. But now that we propose to leave, we are told that the the pain, loss, and suffering will be immediate. Huh? Something doesn’t add up.

        • Not completely accurate.

          With the childish behaviour of British politicians you will find that the mood of the EU 27 has changed from wanting us to stay to wanting to be rid of us. I hope they do so by rejecting any request for yet another tiresome and pointless extension – it only requires one to do so. But we are caught in a circular blame game with Johnson doing everything to force the EU to throw us out while they feel they would have to agree to an extension to show willing. But their patience is wearing thin as they – especially Macron – have plans to advance the superstate project. And given what they know about us now, why on earth would they want to keep us as members? You can also ask those committed to overthrowing the referendum result if they really think it will be like nothing happened if they succeed?

          You also bring up one of the biggest fallacies that the EU does last minute deals. This is a view many of the stupid Tories, including Johnson, believe. What they have not understood is that this is an international treaty negotiation held under a defined set of rules where the idea of a last minute deal at midnight is laughable. It has already been pointed out the Johnson that the EU Council meeting next week – NOT a summit as the media morons keep saying – is not a place for negotiation.

          • Gerry

            Did you watch the Brexit documentaries, several of them intended for airing only after we had left in March and are therefore especially enlightening?

            The EU is a duplicitous organisation far more interested in ‘the project’ than in jobs and prosperity as Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, lreland and many others can testify, as can the millions unemployed through their policies and those impoverished by it. In 1974 Jean Rey ex president of the European commission railed against the notion of Britain holding a referendum on its membership

            ‘A referendum on this matter consists of consulting people who don’t know the problems, instead of consulting people who know them. I would deplore a situation in which the policy of this great country should be left to housewives it should instead be decided by trained and informed people.’

            They are Plato’s ‘Philospher Kings’. An elite who believe they have a special right to rule over us.

            Have you never read Stiglitz, Murray, Varoufakis or Lever that exposes the chicanery at the heart of this organisation in numerous well referenced citations? Through her astonishing claims that Black is white and day is night as regards the WA Theresa May unfortunately fitted right into the mainstream of EU leaders who are determined to railroad through ‘the project’ no matter its costs in terms of democracy or the economic well being of its citizens as we have seen in Greece, Cyprus, Spain etc.

            We have all seen the shameful lies and manipulation over the last few months from our elected leaders. Here are some from Juncker and others.

            “ We decree something then float it and wait some time to see what happens . If no clamour occurs and no big fuss follows because most people do not grasp what had been decided we continue step by step until the point of no return is reached”

            “Greek crisis in 2011 “When it becomes serious, you have to lie. “

            British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

            On the introduction of the euro “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

            On Eurozone economic policy and democracy “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”

            On EU monetary policy “I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious … I am for secret, dark debates”

            On French referendum over EU constitution “If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘we continue’,”

            October 2016 ‘there must be a threat ‘ said French President Francois Hollande; ‘ there must be a price…otherwise other countries or other parties will want to leave the European Union. ‘

            tonyb

    • griff

      You missed a bit.

      Janet Street Porter, by her own admission is a serial protester.

      Get past the headline clickbait and she’s right into it: “Look past the inconvenience, the traffic chaos and the silly slogans and you won’t see many ‘crusties’ (as Boris Johnson mistakenly described them) but fresh faced idealistic young people, pensioners and workers.

      But as usual, you’ll distort anything you can find, and if you can have a crazy old bird like JSP distort it for you is right up your street.

      However, the daft bat goes onto say:

      You can mock the women wearing scary masks and spraying blood all over government offices. And yes, there’s a lack of joined-up thinking on the part of protestors who filed off to McDonalds for their lunch.

      Yes, not everyone has banned unnecessary consumption, young people haven’t stopped buying trainers and travelling by car. Even so, there’s much to admire about the climate change protestors.

      And as you very well know, these are points raised on this blog about the hypocritical middle class protesters (as well as the retired crusty civil servants on cushy pensions) seeking a cause like Janet’s darling, CND, which didn’t go too well.

      But then one of the spokesmen for XR has had his photographs of him off on his French Alps skiing holidays, but no one else is allowed those, are they?

  8. Actually Boris wasn’t at the helm when the ridiculous 2050 Act came about, the treasonous May was in charge, she of ‘let’s spend 3.5 years pretending to make Brexit happen’ whilst secretly siding with the EU.

    But Boris’ fancy piece is a greenie so I’m certain he would have continued with getting the act through if she hadn’t already done so.

    Mrs Thatcher only pushed the green mess we’re in now because she was trying to reduce our reliance on coal, think miners strike; in her last memoir she made clear she no longer supported the greenhouse theory, not that anyone listened to her by then.

    The problem the uk has is not only do we have politicians worshiping the green idol, for mostly financial reasons, but we also have a future king who is as mad as a hatter, one who has been known to converse with trees.

    It’s my children and grandchildren I feel sorry for!

    • Carrie

      You surely aren’t saying that you’re not looking forward eagerly to the massive 3 hundredths of a degree reduction in warming by 2050 that Nature Magazine says will be the result of spending that £1 trillion?

      Assuming of course the sensitivity of co2 to the climate is as large as claimed. Just think! A MASSIVE 3 hundredths of a degree!

      tonyb

    • Carrie,

      You say,
      “Mrs Thatcher only pushed the green mess we’re in now because she was trying to reduce our reliance on coal, think miners strike; in her last memoir she made clear she no longer supported the greenhouse theory, not that anyone listened to her by then.”

      No, she had a much more important personal reason for starting the scare; see
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/

      But, so what? Whatever her reason, Thatcher started the global warming scare.

      Richard

        • Patrick MJD,

          Really?
          Please state your evidence of named politicians you think promoted global warming before Margaret Thatcher.

          Richard

          • Patrick MJD,

            It may have slipped your attention but the document signed in 1989 was a decade after Thatcher had started her global warming campaign soon after having first been been elected as PM in 1979.

            Richard

          • May have slipped your mind that Hansen got there before Thatcher at the UN in 1989. He addressed congress in 1988, I am sure you know that. He started the scare at the politically level at least. Thatcher went to the UN in 1989 and cited Hansen to convince other leaders that AGW was a serious threat to all life. I don’t recall her speech writer at the time but he was fully in support of AGW even though Monckton (Former adviser) suggested Thatcher to be more cautious. Thatcher did this for political gain, as I am sure you know, because she wanted the coal industry (Scargill) closed down in favour of nuclear. She wrote later that she regretted that.

            And talking of 1979, do you recall the years leading up to that including the winter of discontent. Do you recall the 3 day weeks, brought abut because of coal shortages? The industrial strikes from late 60’s to mid 70’s that almost broke the country?

            So, didn’t start the scare off, but was certainly guilty of persuading other leaders, spreading the propaganda and setting up politically sponsored and motivated organisations like The Met Office, Hadley Centre and the CRU to “find” cause.

  9. His Chancellor SaJid Javid announced plans to combat climate change at the recent Conservative party confer and was greeted with total silence. Boris Johnson was present and I am sure the hostility of his supporters to climate change action would not have been lost on him.

    However my local council has declared a climate emergency (what complete and utter fools) and this has been supported by the two Conservative councillors for my ward. I despair at the level of stupidity of current politicians.

    • Alex Sinclair

      Our British Government are using climate change as cover to raise taxes and pay off the national debt.

      Don’t be fooled by the global conspiracy theories.

  10. I suggest the first thing to do is to apply for planning permission for a raft of windmills and solar farms in the areas where the protestors live. If they react in the same way as they react to fracking proposals their Humbug will be exposed.

    OT, the latest BBC scare is about sometime penguins, where models show they could perhaps be at risk from global warming if the sea ice where they nest is lost due to global warming.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49978007

  11. ” Legendary British PM Margaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was a significant advocate of climate action. Her 1989 UN speech urging climate action helped raise international awareness. Thatcher set up the Hadley Centre, one of the UK’s leading climate research centers.”

    That may be but her motivation was to crush the communist coal miners union … which she did.

    • Streetcred,

      Her political party were willing to go along with Thatcher’s creation of the global warming scare because the scare could be used against the coal industry, but her reason for generating the scare was much more personal.
      So what?
      The salient fact is that Margaret Thatcher deliberately created the global warming scare whatever her motivation for that was.

      Richard

  12. Eric,
    I have long forgiven Thatcher and Boris for their green errors.On Thatcher,see comments on “Statecraft” on this thread.
    I have a lighthearted theory that the “ green and pleasant land”of William Blake has devolved into a land enveloped in a green miasma whereby anyone who enters the Island becomes poisoned.
    Thatcher recovered from her poisoning and one day I have hopes that Boris will too!
    First things first.
    Boris needs to get Britain out of the EU later this month and then on to a Road to Damascus moment on the settled science.

    • If he delivers Brexit I’ll be celebrating, as you say there’s a chance Boris will wake up and realise what a disaster renewables are.

      But Boris has thoroughly alienated Nigel Farage, and I quite like Nigel, I once spent 20 minutes one on one with Farage downing free champagne at an event. I find it difficult to imagine someone who shares my values, but who also thinks Nigel is “not a fit and proper person”.

      • Eric Worrall

        Whilst one can never trust a politician, I believe Nigel is one of the most honest. His resignation immediately following the referendum success he drove convinced me of that. He had one job and he did it. He’s one of the most important politicians in the world right now, despite never having been an MP. He is currently holding the governments feet to the fire. If Boris drops the Brexit ball, it runs the risk of The Brexit Party being swept into Downing street on a wave of support from every Democrat in the country.

        As I have said elsewhere, the British government are using climate change as cover to raise taxes and pay off the national debt.

  13. “Legendary British PM Margaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was a significant advocate of climate action.”

    True. However, uniquely in my experience, she had the integrity to change her mind when the evidence persuaded her otherwise. This is also well documented.

    As to the comments on Extinction Rebellion. They are following a well-established trail. One that was pioneered by (excuse the pun) the Young Pioneers and the Hitler Youth. Nicholas Taleb coined a term for this, paedophrasty. It is the paedophrasts that should excite our contempt and should be tried and locked up.

    • Yes, I knew swampy as I was in Newbury at the time of the controversial bypass. he was a pain in the backside. I wonder how much he has paid in taxes over his life compared to the benefits he has received as I believe he now has 4 children.

      tonyb

      • I doubt hes contributed much to society,particularly as you say he has 4 children. I never met him but I do know the area he lives,teepee valley was around long before the new age travellers movement, these guys took advantage of the helpful spirit at the valley and caused a lot of trouble and resentment the only common ground was a superficial way of dress,the tactics of XR remind me of the travellers movement of the 80s and 90s a total disregard for any one and anything ,I’ve no doubt XR leaders come from this back ground,they just found religion in the form of global warming. I have been previe to seeing the interaction of all these fringe groups,there not all cut from the same cloth , XR and its beginnings have caused a lot of trouble ,drawn attention to quite peaceful people who have nothing in common with them.

  14. Steve Borodin,

    Thankyou for your comment that says,
    ““Legendary British PM Margaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was a significant advocate of climate action.”

    True. However, uniquely in my experience, she had the integrity to change her mind when the evidence persuaded her otherwise. This is also well documented.”

    YES! WELL SAID!
    We have no chance of changing the minds of existing politicians – especially those of the present UK Government who are members of her Party – until we promote those historical facts.

    Richard

  15. Mrs Thatcher was a minister in the Heath government. Wikipaedia says of his government: “Heath also tried to curb the trade unions with the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and hoped to deregulate the economy and make a transfer from direct to indirect taxation. Rising unemployment in 1972 led him to reflate the economy; he attempted to control the resulting high inflation by a prices and incomes policy. Two miners’ strikes, in 1972 and at the start of 1974, damaged the government; the latter caused the implementation of the Three-Day Week to conserve energy.”

    Note those last three words – “to conserve energy”.

    “Throughout the mid-1970s, especially 1974 and 1975, the British economy was troubled by high rates of inflation. To tackle this, the government capped public sector pay rises and publicly promoted a clear capped level to the private sector. This caused unrest among trade unions as wages did not keep pace with price increases. This extended to most industries including coal mining, which provided the majority of the country’s fuel and had a powerful trade union.

    “By the middle of 1973, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) – drawn from a workforce who almost wholly worked for the National Coal Board – were becoming more militant with the election of Mick McGahey as vice-president. The national conference passed resolutions for a 35% wage increase, regardless of any government guidelines, and for the election of a Labour government committed to “true socialist policy” including nationalisation of land and all key monopolies.[5]

    “As inflation increased, miners’ wages fell in real terms and, by October 1973, average wages were 2.3% lower than recommended by the Wilberforce Inquiry, which reported on miners’ pay in 1972. In November 1973, the national executive committee of the NUM rejected the pay offer from the NCB and held a national ballot on a strike. The vote was rejected by 143,006 to 82,631. However, an overtime ban was implemented with the aim of halving production. This action hurt the coal industry …

    “To reduce electricity consumption, and thus conserve coal stocks, the conservative prime minister, Edward Heath, announced a number of measures on 13 December 1973, including the Three-Day Work Order, which came into force at midnight on 31 December. Commercial consumption of electricity would be limited to three consecutive days each week.[2] Heath’s objectives were business continuity and survival and to avoid further inflation and a currency crisis. Rather than risk a total shutdown, working time was reduced to prolong the life of available fuel stocks.”

    Heath called a general election for February 1974, which he lost.

    Mrs Thatcher supplanted Heath as leader of the Conservative Party a year later. The Labour Party went from bad to worse, resulting in the “Winter of Discontent”.

    “Strikes had helped bring down Heath’s government, and Thatcher was determined to succeed where he had failed. Her strategy of preparing fuel stocks, appointing hardliner Ian MacGregor as NCB leader, and ensuring that police were adequately trained and equipped with riot gear, contributed to her triumph over the striking miners.”

    Heath had imposed the three day week, and had upset people. Thatcher knew that there were decent stocks of coal at power stations, and was happily importing coal, better to let the ire fall on the miners. By being prepared she was able to wait out the what many thought was an attempt at a coup from the mining unions.

    No wonder that she started the hare about climate change, and the Hadley Centre. She was preparing for the war from the mining unions who managed to bring Edward Heath down.

  16. Watch this amusing short video by conservative vlogger Mahyar Tousi on Extinction Rebellion.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqR-9Fl9fFQ
    The most interesting thing of all you’ll see in the video is David Suzuki’s child doing a Greta-style speech at the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in 1992.

  17. Dudley Horscroft,

    You write of Margaret Thatcher,
    “No wonder that she started the hare about climate change, and the Hadley Centre. She was preparing for the war from the mining unions who managed to bring Edward Heath down.”

    That is so wrong one could write a book on it. However, it is not relevant history here where the important points are
    1.
    for reasons of personal political advantage, Thatcher started the global warming scare (as explained here https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/ )
    2.
    and she recanted the scare after she had left office because it was no longer of use to her
    3.
    but she could not stop what she had started because the scare had ‘taken on a life of its own’ (as the link also explains).

    Richard

    • Richard,
      having lived and observed the politics during the disastrous Callaghan premiership that preceeded Thatcher’s premiership and the events of her time in office I would say that you are correct in downplaying the actions against the coal unions. The main problems of the early years were control of inflation and the Falkalands War, which came completely out of the blue, but which established her as our best leader for many years. The 1974/5 coal strike , not supported by all miners, came after her decisive electoral victory in 1983, by which time coal was already declining as an issue, and in any case massive contingent supplies had been established at power stations.
      I read somewhere that more mines had been closed by the previous socialist Govts than were closed by Thatcher. I don’t know if that is true, but as a teenager I used to listen to the Third programme, when it had plays and documentaries , not just music, and the left wing playwrights of that time (’50s and ’60s) would produce plays with titles like ” Close the coalhouse door Ma , there’s blood inside” reinforcing a theme that coal mining was a horrible way to earn a living and many politicians of the Left would say that they were fighting for a future in which no son of their’s would be forced to go down the pit.

      • A correction , I meant , of course , the 1984/5 coal strike. A friend of mine who was a lecturer at the University of West England at Bristol and regularly took the train to London would sigh as they passed Didcot power station during the strike and he could see the mounds of coal there. His father had been a coal miner.

        • mikewaite,

          Thank you for your sensible comments.

          You say,
          “I read somewhere that more mines had been closed by the previous socialist Govts than were closed by Thatcher. I don’t know if that is true,”.
          It is true but on its own is misleading.

          The socialist Wilson government published the ‘Plan For Coal’ and instituted it by creating a relatively few large and productive mechanised (mostly longwall faces) mines while closing the existing many, small and unproductive mines where coal was dug by miners using picks and shovels. The small mines killed many miners (I am here choosing my language deliberately) but one of the effects of their replacement by mechanised mines was to make the British coal industry the safest soft-rock mining industry in the world.

          The Thatcher government came to Government in 1979 and implemented the ‘Ridley Plan’ which closed the mechanised mines.

          All that is history. It has a slight relationship to Thatcher’s generation of the global warming scare (but not much, see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/) and very little pertinence to Brexit.

          Richard

          PS I was the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management.

          • Not all pits went mechanized some were only part mechanized depending on the size of the seam and the geology of the seam,private mines were numerous still working by hand,an air line and a small pneumatic were considered a luxury in some small pits,these mines are all but gone today,not because of Thatcher but because they cant get a licence to extract, apart from the forest of dean .

  18. So you’ve admitted that Yellow hammer is mostly specualtive nonsense. Now what about the rest of your original comment, I do have to point out the lack of actual verified facts.What was that word I used ? Ah yes sophistry.

  19. So you’ve admitted that Yellow hammer is mostly speculative nonsense. Now what about the rest of your original comment, I do have to point out the lack of actual verified facts.What was that word I used ? Ah yes sophistry.

    • Sparko,

      Your repetitions are ridiculous.

      As I said in reply to the first time you made this silly misrepresentation (above),

      The assertion of “speculative nonsense” is your misrepresentation which has no relationship to anything I have said or written.
      As I have repeatedly said, the government’s Yellowhammer investigation is the best available assessment of probabilities of Brexit effects that we have, and people can judge it for themselves here
      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

      I point out to onlookers from outside UK that the evidence-free assertions and misrepresentations being displayed in this thread by ‘Brexiteers’ are typical of behaviour in the referendum campaign.
      Politicians of all political Parties in Parliament are trying to sort out the resulting mess.

      Richard

      • Your desperate clinging on to a speculative risk assessment, is why I keep referrng to it.
        Why don’t we talk about another scenario, like what happens if a country like Italy decides that enough is enough and leaves the euro ?. Ever thought about that ?.

        • sparko,

          I have refuted each and every detail of your trivial and mostly silly points.

          Troll someone else because your ludicrous trolluing of me is wasting space in the thread.

          Richard

          • Well you know, I thought that if you’re so worried about the speculative Project Fear scenario outlined in Yellowhammer, and seem to be so determined to push it down everyone’s throat at every opportunity , it’s only right that I should outline some of the real risks to staying in, like for example having to be responsible for the very real debts of the Italian and French banks, the very real public debts of the Italian, Greek and Spanish debts and the increasing Target 2 debts of the Italians, Greeks and Spanish, which could become a massive problem if the Italians decide to drop out of the Euro since it’s basically ruining it’s economy. But hey ho, you can claim the “win”

          • Oh Richard, you are quite wound up. as I recall, the economy was supposed to crash immediately after the vote in a Brexit armageddon and quite frankly it didn’t.
            That’s why it’s called Project Fear.
            And since when has someone’s opinion been a refutation ?, but look I’ll take the granuid in 2016 over a poster in 2019

          • Your the one doing the constant winding up,by your trolling your not adding anything further to the debate,your being fanatical about your position ,we get were your coming from we get were Richard is coming from.

          • I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Richard, stop baiting him your bringing the thread into disrepute.

          • Sorry, but I wasn’t the only one to call him out on his sophistry. Project fear is what turned me into a leaver, it made me check the facts.

          • Sparko,

            The only salient fact here is obvious to all; viz. you are an anonymous troll attempting to disrupt civil discourse because you know nothing but want to push an agenda.

            Richard

          • Richard S Courtney

            You may think you have, but all you’ve done is lecture people on your ‘unarguable’ position which you simply cut and paste with reference to your own blog it seems.

            You present as a typical dogmatic climate alarmist who simply refuses to consider the opinions and evidence of others.

          • Richard has presented a middle of the road approach to Brexit,which you have mistakenly taken as a remainers stance,hes done no such thing. Your understanding of Brexit is naive you seem to think jolly old UK will prosper after we leave the EU, you have not taken into account any of the legislation this administration have already put into law you seem to think allowing goods into the UK with no tariffs is somehow in the UKs favour,why would any business start up in the UK when the odds are heavily stacked against them,from imports to environmental legislation hows that going to attract inward investment,just how are existing exporters going to manage with the EU playing the tariffs game, your denial and excuse for UK farmers is staggering you said tariffs will be small yet small in %terms equates to many millions of pounds the UK farmers will lose against untariffed imports,the result will be many small and medium farms will go bust,gove has already said farms will have to produce exotic produce,that’s a addmission traditional will be destroyed, is this your vision of a independent UK, your talking rubbish Scot and you know it. From the day of the referendum the disgraceful actions of all UK politicians have minipulated the result into something no one voted for.

          • B d Clark

            Why would any business start up in the UK with zero tariffs? Because raw materials are cheaper, the cost of living lower.

            The legislation you waffle about is almost inconsequential to the common man until he has to pay for it, which we’re doing for EU legislation and red tape which is discouraging business from coming to the UK.

            Our agricultural industry is already failing. Have you bothered to look at how many farms are being sold off or broken up? Remaining farmers paid not to grow produce.

            New Zealand’s farmers made the break from government subsidies and despite the doomsters like you, they are now booming thanks to being forced to find new markets.

            It’s all misery with you lot. I have yet to hear mention of a positive aspect of Brexit coming from a remainers mouth.

            Nor is it all financial, being able to govern our own country is a big part of this. How about the fifth largest economy in the world working closely with the first largest economy in the world instead of battling with 27 other countries to pass trade deals that take 20 years. Utterly insane.

            Any deal we get with the EU will have a transition period tagged onto it. That means negotiating with the EU over trade and, considering Brexit itself has been delayed, and trade deals are not the most galvanising initiatives for the EU, just how many delays do you think there would be under transition. It would drag on indefinitely.

            So far, the EU have achieved their objective over Brexit. To make the break as difficult as humanly possible with the ever recurring spectre of Art. 50 revocation, more delays and utter mayhem within British politics.

            You people didn’t believe them when they told us they would punish us for having the audacity to leave. You people somehow believed it would be all sweetness and light with nice amicable negotiations and good will agreements.

            No country enjoys dealing with the EU. They are a predatory, protectionist, socialist bureaucracy.

            But that’s fine according yo you lot, just let them raise their own armed forces. Who here doubts that will involve the mighty German manufacturing organisation mechanising it. It’s not like Mercedes, BMW and VW don’t have experience. So where do the string of power then lie?

            You people are blind and unwilling to learn the lessons history has taught us. Never allow Germany access to a standing army again.

            Strangely, our British armed forces are a shadow of their former self, which rather reminds me of an earlier period in time.

            The sooner we leave the EU without a deal the better. Then we can embark on helping Italy and Ireland to leave as well.

          • Your talking rubbish boy,your ignoring the facts how every one will be affected to push your idealism, you sound like and copy global warmests mantra waste of space,

        • B d, actually you’re wrong. You cannot negotiate with people who are zealots.
          And the leaders of the EU are zealots. They have no concern for the common people, they are chaff, look at Spain, look at Greece, look at Italy and it’s perma recession. The great project must take precedence. The great project must go onwards. People like this don’t negotiate, they dictate.

      • Richard , civility is a two way street,cut and pasting comments everywhere is not civil discourse. I guess your just offended because I didn’t give your Gish galloping nonsense the response you expected.
        just saying.

  20. “what they billed as the start of a two-week “October revolution”. ”

    That should send a chill down the spine of any student of Russian History. The October Revolution is what the Soviet Communist Party called the coup d’etat that put them in power and launched the the 75 year reign of terror called the Soviet Union, and murdered about 50 million citizens.

    Further proof, as if any were necessary, that warmunists are watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside, whose real aim is communism.

    • Ghalfrunt, just read that comment of fresh food, so 70% at least doesn’t come via the EU, and at least 51% comes from the UK
      Key word here is via . I think we will survive, especially when they just bypass the EU

  21. I think we should all keep calm about a no deal exit from the EU. There are millions of entrepreneurs with commercial interests who are not going to allow the politics to affect their businesses. See Calais for eg. So it will be just another Y2K alarm. Referring to the larger picture , I feel that the British majority subconsciously recognised the EU to be a misconceived socialist construct which is therefore bound to fail. It was our good fortune that the genius of socialist chancellor Gordon Brown kept us out of the Euro, from which follows today.

  22. though to be fair the UK government is also making large investments in nuclear fusion research.

    It would be far more useful to research nuclear fission, namely advanced sodium and/or molten salt reactors.

  23. Watching this as an expat from a good distance, TWO vital fact about the current events in the UK escapes the BBC and MM.
    This can only be deliberate.

    1/ That the UK is sitting on very large amounts of fossil energy, which will have to be used, to change it’s current dependency on French electricity, & refinery products.
    (coal, gas and new discoveries of oil at least as large as the north sea).
    The greeny activity will have to be supressed by force, in order to make these vital resources available inc new nuclear, NOT supplied by unwiling French nor rent seeking Chinese.

    2/ That the EU has stored up a toxic and dangerous series of countries which are essentially bankrupt.
    If there were no other valid argument to support the UK leaving the EU this one alone would be enough.

    Remaining a member of the single market forces the UK to fork out for the vast debts of the Italian state, and the French banks following the Italian ones forcing the French ones into a public bailout.
    Read Bear Stearns on steroids.
    Nothing Brexit could do, will be comparable.

    Brexit should have been about the real issues above.
    ie:-
    A vast opportunity to get out of the suicidal EU CO2 hoax, and the vast EU banking pyramid ponzy scheme, all in one hit.

    In 2016 I didn’t vote.
    If the same referendum were held again I would – TO LEAVE, and there are lots more who think the same.

    Go stuff that in your pipe and smoke it Griff!

    • Hear hear,
      Especially about about the Italian Banks, and lets add the target 2 debts of the Italians running at nearly £450 billion, on top of the £ 2 trillion or so public debt, quite important if the Italians decide to bail out of the euro, which they clearly want to do.

  24. Ho-Hum! Just more of the same:
    Daisy Lowe insists she’s ‘just trying to save the planet’ as she defends using private jets after joining Extinction Rebellion protests
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10097561/daisy-lowe-gas-guzzling-private-jets-and-globe-trotting-holidays-extinction-rebellion/
    I wonder if she bought ‘carbon offsets’? That would make it all okay, wouldn’t it?
    I’d like to know how to get in on this ‘carbon offsets’ game. It’s becoming so commonplace you could make a fortune from it. Why, you can even get paid for growing grass:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/28/the-stupidest-thing-the-federal-government-does/

  25. ‘Crusties’ in ‘hemp-smelling bivouacs’ – putting the ‘stink’ back into ‘extinction’.
    There were some on my train home tonight.

  26. It’s a shame Boris Johnson is such a green – after all people like him never left the green, had to step out of the green.

    Following the RGB / YMC concept he’s missing 2 components out of 3.

Comments are closed.