Britain Europe Politics

The Brexit Party and the EU elections

We live in strange and momentous times.   An extraordinary opinion poll this Screenshot 2019-05-13 at 07.41.14past weekend showed The Brexit Party gaining more votes than the conservatives and Labour combined.   And this was not an outlier. Why is this happening?  There is a genuine upset and anger of the politicians to deliver what they promised.  They promised that our votes would matter and that the results of the referendum would be enacted (they, of course, did not expect the people to vote for Brexit).  At the last general election, 80% of our MPs promised that the result of the referendum would be enacted.   The fact that it has not happened is not because it is impossible – but because 75% of our politicians do not want it to happen.  They have lied, been weak and shown a hubris and inability which has been astounding.  Therefore many people (including some who voted Remain) are turning to the Brexit party.   Nigel Farage, whatever your views may be about his personality and policies, is as an astute a politician as Alex Salmond.  The Brexit parties publicity, launch and rallies have been professional, slick and streets ahead of any of the opposition – especially ChangeUK who look amateur in comparison.

The failure of the politicians to get us out of the EU has resulted in humiliation for the UK, an extension being begged for, and because of that the UK has to take part in the EU elections on May the 23rd.  So I am sitting here with my postal vote.  How will I vote?

I can’t vote for the Conservatives – they have shown a level of incompetence and hypocrisy which is breathtaking.  Prime Minister May has shown hubris and made continual promises which she keeps breaking.   She has shown no understanding of the EU and her attitude towards immigration is in my view disgusting.  If you want to see how badly she and her team have done just watch the Storyville documentary “Brexit – Behind Closed Doors”  The EU negotiators treat Britain with contempt and even boast about how they are making Britain a colony.  Olly Robbins – one of May’s key negotiators actually tells Guy Verhofstadt that he wants to become a Belgium citizen.  These are the people in charge of Brexit!  Such is their hubris that they think people will vote for them anyway just to stop Jeremy Corbyn!  No wonder they are sitting at 10% in the opinion polls.

But the Labour party are not much better. They have tried to straddle the fence.  On the one hand, you have the middle-class Blairite socialists who are fanatically pro-EU.  On the other, you have the traditional working-class Labour MPs and voters who largely voted Brexit.  The Labour party is moving away from its traditional roots so I suspect that in reality, their real position is that of Remain.  On Monday Tom Watson declared that Labour was “a Remain and reform party”. But Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, has said: “Labour is not a Remain party now”.   Confused?  Anyway, I can’t vote for Labour because Lord Adonis, one of their candidates publically declared, ‘if you are for Brexit, don’t vote Labour”.  So I won’t.

The party I voted for last time has also told me not to vote for them.  Nicola Sturgeon has said that a vote for the SNP is a vote for a second EU referendum.  I ain’t voting for that.  Not least because as someone who voted Yes in the Indy referendum I realise that Sturgeon has dealt a possibly fatal blow to the idea of Scottish Independence by supporting a ‘confirmatory’ 2nd referendum.  This is explained well in this article – Want Scottish Independence?  Vote Brexit party.

Screenshot 2019-05-14 at 15.03.07The Lib-Dems are another party I have voted for in the past.  It’s bad enough that they have Guy Verhofstadt campaigning for them, but their attempt at ‘cool’ politics and appealing to the ‘youf’ vote,  ‘Bollocks to Brexit’, is juvenile playground politics.

I once voted for the Greens in an EU election.  Never again.  They are to the Left what UKIP is to the Right – so extreme that I could never vote for either.

So that leaves me only one choice – a spoiled paper or the Brexit Party.  Because the Brexit party have no policies other than Brexit…as Claire Fox (the former revolutionary communist who I actually admire to some degree) is one of their candidates –  because David Lammy, Gavin Esler and others keep calling me a racist –  because I support being out of the EU- because they have a more diverse group of candidates than any other party…..and because the SNP keep telling the world that they speak for me and the million other Scots who support Brexit – I have done a protest vote.  (My prediction by the way is that Scotland will send a Brexit MEP to Brussels – I hope the SNP realise what they have done!).

As an example of the professionalism and diversity of the Brexit party here is their election party political broadcast.

I hope that those who seek to dissuade by mocking and yelling ‘fascist, Far Right’ will wake up and see where they are pushing people.  It’s about democracy.  That is far more important to me than being in or out of the EU.   Stopping Brexit is likely to mean the end of any meaningful democracy in the UK.  Like millions of others,  I would see little point in voting if our votes can just be ignored.

These are historic days.  The Conservative party could be destroyed.  The UK could have a former Marxist as Prime minister.  And the Far Right (and Far Left) could find themselves with influence and power in the UK…What a mess!  What we reap we will sow.   Lord, have mercy!

Footnote:  It has been pointed out to me that the Brexit party have no policies.  That is the point.  If they had policies I would probably not agree with half of them.  This is a protest vote for a protest party in an election that should not have been held.  80% of our politicians promised this election would not happen – either through incompetence or dishonesty – they have not kept their promise.


  1. Farage is openly racist and, if that doesn’t sway you, has repeatedly said that he wants to get rid of the NHS and replace it with a private insurance based system.

    Be very careful of voting for a party with “no” policies.

    “No policies” also means they have even less of a clue as to how to implement Brexit than the Tory government does.

    If I were you I would hold my nose and vote Tory. Personally I disagree with nearly every Tory policy, including going ahead with Brexit, but at least they aren’t racist.

    Also (not that it matters that much) I think your Andrew Adonis quote may be wrong. Because a few years ago he said on a radio show that people who wanted to remain shouldn’t vote Labour. It was stunning at the time because a Labour politician was encouraging people not to vote for his party.

    1. Pete – I think it’s a good idea if you are going to make strong negative claims about someone – that you have evidence. Could you provide the evidence that Farage is ‘openly racist’ – or are you just repeating gossip?

      The Adonis quote is correct – he was videoed making the comment and it has been widely shared. However can you evidence your claim that he told people who voted Remain not to vote Labour? If that is true it would I suspect have surfaced to show how inconsistent he was. Here is my evidence –

      1. Promoting Brexit by using an image of a queue of Middle Eastern refugees isn’t racist? Saying that foreigners are infecting British people with HIV isn’t racist?

      2. The poster was stupid and wrong and xenophobic – I don’t think however it was racist – what race was it targetting? You will also have noted that the Brexit party have hardly mentioned immigration – and their candidates are the most diverse of any of the parties. You are just repeating memes and attempting to use ad hom to smear everyone.

      3. Typical Robbo- a political chameleon.

        The man who used the columns of the Free Church of Scotland Monthly Record to extol the virtues of the Euro in 2002.

        There is poor wee UKIP standing and I know it would stick in your craw to even mention them far less vote for them but their lead candidate ( ie me) is an adherent of the Free Church and unlike the Brexit Party actually has some commitment to Christian values

      4. Could you provide evidence of my having used the columns of the Record to extol the virtues of the EU? I can’t recall doing that!

        Donald – you are right in saying that I won’t be voting for UKIP – and forgive me saying this but your UKIP style rants, including this one – don’t seem particularly Christian to me. You are not exactly encouraging people to vote for you!

      5. David,

        I appreciate that you replied to my 22 May post.

        I expected you to delete it.

        I shall check out the Monthly Record in question. I have a copy in the house.

        Check out your own blog however . At the time of the 2016 referendum where you appear to be promoting a pro -EU position.

        Now apparently Robbo has been converted to the Brexit Party.

        Brilliant. Where have you been all these years?

        I have been contesting elections since 1999 on an anti EU position and am fairly familiar with fellow travellers in Scotland.

        None of the Brexit Party candidates in Scotland ( with the honourable exception of Calum Walker) have lifted the proverbial finger to get us out of the EU in that time. Where have they been?

        To imply that any expression of disagreement with David Robertson is to be classified as a rant is to stifle any kind of debate. I am simply expressing an opinion.

        You persist in attributing to me and others anti- Christian attitudes.

        Perhaps only those who are without sin should cast the first stone.

      6. Donald….I sincerely hope that you are not promoting yourself as the ‘Christian’ candidate! But whether you are or not I don’t think anyone reading my blog in 2016 would have been left in any doubt where I stood! I campaigned for Leave. I also think you were just making up the stuff about me writing in the Record in 2002 in favour of the euro! But maybe I have a false memory!

        Its never a good idea to quote let him who is without sin cast the first stone – when you are busy chucking them!

    2. @Peter Jermey

      “I disagree with nearly every Tory policy, including going ahead with Brexit, but at least they aren’t racist”

      Why does it matter whether or not “they” are “racist”, for the present purposes?

      “This is a protest vote for a protest party in an election that should not have been held. ”

      So admitted Wee Flea.

      And that is why I will be voting for the Brexit party myself. I would vote Brexit even if my candidates were all open racists, crooks, child molesters, Marxists or neo-Nazis. I’d vote for a pig if there was a pig on the ballot paper, and it said it was a Brexit pig.

      If more than half of all the votes cast on the Euro elections are for either the Brexit Party or UKIP, calls for a second referendum will evaporate and constituency parties will begin in earnest to deselect sitting MPs who have been Brexit traitors.

      If fewer than 48% of the votes cast are for other parties, calls for a second referendum will intensify, because unless the Leave parties (including UKIP and the DUP) poll almost as many votes as all the other parties put together across all four countries of the Union, or more than the other parties, the lie used to argue for a second referendum that the public has had second thoughts about Brexit will gain a superficial credibility.

      Nigel Farage is turning into a gifted politician, delivering a silver-tongued false promise that if he wins this quasi-referendum, the Brexit MEPs will change politics for good. That promise will be broken because nothing is going to change politics for good except the return of Christ the King. However, I will still vote for Farage’s party, because of what it says on the tin. I will do this in order to vote for Brexit.

      I don’t want the UK to elect a Brexit Party government with Nigel Farage as PM. I don’t care if he is an “open racist”. I want a Brexit Party landslide in the Euro elections, so that the Parliament we’ve got learns from this, and implements Brexit, preferably by rejecting May’s disastrous withdrawal agreement again, then getting on with preparing for the WTO-terms Brexit that was enacted for more than two years ago, which should have taken place on 29th March, and which will, by law, take place on 31st October, as planned for the past 2+ years.

  2. If the MP’s manage to force a second referendum on the issue of Brexit then surely this will set a precedence for any future referenda, including a future Scottish Indy Ref. In other words, voting in any referendum will be
    pointless unless the result is favoured by Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP should be careful what they wish for.

    1. Parliament have already had three votes, why shouldn’t the public have two?

      I’m not personally in favour of any more votes. The current parliament does not have a majority for Mays deal or no deal. The government must decide whether to abandon Brexit altogether or have a general election.

  3. I always watch their rallies on Facebook. People I can believe in everyhwere. I voted with the 17 mill thinking that was it but no, Westminster wont do it so we vote again. Bexit all the way.

    1. I just love to see honest happy people. They just know they are doing something right,
      Now switch to the scowls, sneers and downright glum faces of some others who just know they are doing wrong.
      Take your pick folks – next Thursday.

    2. The trouble is that just voting “Brexit” won’t make it happen. There has to be an implementation plan as well.

      This is the great con – the leave vote could not have won if they had presented plans to leave. As soon as you start making plans to leave they lose a majority because Brexit means three or four contradictory things. It’s therefore impossible to implement in such a way that voters get what they thought they were voting for.

      Politicians should take note of people like Johnson, Farage and Trump. You can get better electoral success with a slogan than with a detailed plan. People can pick holes in your plan, but a slogan can mean whatever the voter wants it to mean.

      1. Yes the Leave vote did present plans to leave and they still won. What I would like to see is the plans to ‘remain and reform’….its a slogan without any substance.

  4. It is interesting, if we think something is going to go our own way, it’s called a ”sure fire bet”. This was the gamble David Cameron took, he and the whole of the British with him felt they had a sure fire bet. They were wrong. In fact if the May 23 Euro election opinion polls are true we are in for a major revolution. Most folk who were neutral over the EU just now appear to ”want it all over” and they are angry at the EU and our MPs for prevarication. Rightly so. Nigle Farage could well end up with a tranche of highly articulate and able MEPs arguing in Brussels for action on Brexit; they will be a thorn in the side of the Commissioners who hold the real power.

  5. Another fine article…. I followed you all the way…. until the end! Surely, logically in this EU election the Brexit party should have got your vote?

      1. Apologies I read ‘protest vote’ as a spoiled paper and missed your footnote…. but I am in hospital so not at my sharpest… I too intend to vote for the Brexit party and am glad they currently have no policies

  6. This is my opinion. I’m not claiming any authority for saying this. Nevertheless, I really don’t agree with you on this one. It’s my belief that to vote for a Brexit candidate is a sinful act, hazardous for the soul’s welfare, in the same way and for broadly similar reasons as voting for Mr Trump was in the last US Presidential election.

    Obviously, neither Leave nor Remain are God’s cause, a simply matter of one way righteous and the other wicked, in the way that deliberately casting one’s vote for reasons of xenophobia or a wish to oppress the poor would be. Both are positions a Christian may legitimately come to for considered reasons. However, the Brexit Party is so much a fiefdom of Mr Farage, that voting for it is choosing him, rather than the actual candidates where you are. Indeed, it does not seem to be a political party in the normal sense, with members, meetings etc. It appears to be a private limited company under his control.

    Even by the standards of other political organisations, it is also very opaque where its money comes from, who might be influencing him behind the scenes.

    If you believe that Mr Farage, as he has consistently shown himself to be, has the right sort of personality and ethical calibre to hold high office, that is your choice and your decision. For it, you are accountable. Likewise, it is your choice whether you feel that as a person occupying your position, it is better to blog this, rather than keep your thoughts to yourself and your ballot paper in the booth in your polling station. You presumably accept the responsibility that flows from your position that some might interpret your blog as your encouragement and endorsement that they also should vote for Mr Farage’s party.

    I do agree with your final sentiment “Lord have mercy!”. That a Minister of Religion is implicitly encouraging people to vote for Mr Farage is a symptom of that just as the ascent of Mr Trump has been.

    1. I’m sorry but when you start telling people that to vote for a particular political party is sinful you have stepped way over the line. You have no right to call sin what God does not. And you have no right to put your political opinion as to the standard by which sin is to be assessed. I don’t think it is sinful to vote for any of the parties involved in this election – whether pro or anti EU. I also don’t appreciate you coming on my blog and telling me what I should and shouldn’t say. And I don’t really have much time for the paranoid conspiracy theories either. Your analysis of the Brexit party is as superficial as your definition of sin. And your equation of my voting for Brexit with the rise of Trump is as daft as my saying that your support of Clinton would be a triumph for Karl Marx! I don’t support Trump and I would ask you to avoid this kind of superficial, shallow analysis.

      1. The only thing I registered was to wonder whether Dru is related to Tim Brooke-Taylor – after that I stopped reading . . .

      2. Hilary Clinton is a capitalist centrist, not a communist.

        Trump and Farage are both popularist nationalists playing on people’s fear of racial difference and claiming to be outside the political establishment (whilst obviously being part of it). Farage has also campaigned for Trump extensively in the US. I think it’s difficult to argue that they are not part of the same political movement.

  7. Lord have mercy indeed! Many Christians are using the comparison with King Cyrus as the example of God using whoever he chooses to affect and effect history! I love it, for to those who have eyes to see, who are convicted and privileged to be Watchmen, it has been clear that without the Cyrus figure of Nigel Farage, we would not even have had the referendum!
    That should surely draw us to biblical conclusions as to where we are in the prophetic timeline – the End Times surely!

    God who is orchestrating all the complexities and has refuted the EU foretells that there will be a revived Roman Empire in the last days, of ten not 28 nations. Expect to see much more cataclysm there and in Britain (whether we ultimately get out or stay in) because the prophecies in the Old and New Testaments will continue to be fulfilled.

    Jesus’s message is that ‘when we see these things coming to pass’ like the increasing ‘birth pangs’ in pregnancy, we are to ‘look up, for now is your redemption drawing near’ Luke 21:28.

    Dr Clifford Denton, one of our most faithful Watchmen over the past 30 or 40 years posted this last week on

    And Tony Pearce, whose, has been increasingly pointing to ‘the blessed hope of the church’, Jesus’s second coming, but very much related to the EU and Israel:

  8. The success, rise and fall of UKIP seemed to hinge on the personality and leadership of Nigel Farage, who I agree is a very good politician irregardless of what you think of his views. UKIP has now become so extreme that you couldn’t vote for it, and I think that is a large part due to the leadership of Farage providing a ‘safe and legitimate space’ to the more unsavoury anti-immigrant and right wing views. My question is, what is to stop the Brexit Party from going that way (because I suspect they will be here to stay as we don’t seem to be Brexiting any time soon)? Is the Brexit Party not going to become the new UKIP with all its extremism simply packaged under a much more appealing logo?

    This isn’t to disagree with your stance, I would agree that I think if you want Brexit you don’t have a choice but to cast a vote for the Brexit Party.

    1. I think I read that the Brexit Party has supporters (who donate, or pay to attend the rallies) rather than members (who pay to join). The writer of the article I saw seemed to think that this was intentional, in order to prevent a takeover like the one that happened to UKIP.

  9. “Brexit have no policies”
    in stark contrast to Change? Labour has lots of policies – just none that all the part agree on. Conservatives have policies that they can’t get through. So, Brexit not having policies isn’t what sets them apart.

    1. They have one policy which is to get rid of the NHS and move to a system where we all have to have private medical insurance.

      I’m not counting Brexit itself as a policy because their position on it is so vague as to not really be a policy.

      I think, in particular for elections where we vote for a list, it is very dangerous to vote for a party with no policies. I feel the same about Change U.K.!

      1. I’m afraid again you are either ignorant of what you are proclaiming as fact, or you are knowingly lying. The Brexit party have no policy to get rid of the NHS. I’ve read their manifesto (such as it is). The Brexit party does not have a clear policy on Brexit – they do. They support it and want out. Just like the Lib Dems have a clear policy to stay in.

  10. For those who live in England and who want to leave the EU, there is another option: the English Democrats, who want England to have its separate parliament too.
    Regarding Brexit, they are taking a legal route by mounting a legal challenge against the government that claims the extensions are unlawful, and that we actually left the EU on 29th March 2019.

    If you want to find out more search for ‘Robin Tilbrook’ using your favourite search engine.
    The main stream media appears to have refused to run with this story.

  11. Here’s an excellent compilation of politicians telling us one thing and then doing the exact opposite.

  12. A good and helpful analysis.

    I’m at a loss as to why there is suspicion of Farage. Perhaps I’m not aware enough of his views in other issues but anything I have heard him say I have considered to be good sense.

    The dishonesty of other parties and their betrayal of democracy means there is no moral superiority over Farage in them as far as I can see. I am sickened by their mendacity.

  13. I accept that you are entitled to feel annoyed. I came onto your territory and disagreed with you. However, are you really saying that something is only sinful if God has specifically said it is? Do you really think that? Most of us think we have to work out these things from the whole of his testimony. However, if you’d feel more comfortable with different terminology, I’m willing to rephrase it and say that I think anyone considering voting for the Brexit Party ought also to give careful thought to whether doing so might be an action that is seriously morally questionable.

    I’m not saying this because my political opinions are different from Mr Farage’s, though you’d be right to guess that they are. Just as with Trump, it’s the personal qualities of the man and the questions that hang over some of his associates that raise the moral issues that hang over voting for them. After all, apart from his wall and his vapid slogan about making America great again, Trump never stood on much in terms of policies.

    You commend Mr Farage as “an astute politician” as though that is an actually an argument in his favour rather than just an observation. So is Mr Trump. After all, he won.

    Just as you think I have stepped out of line, as I said yesterday I also query whether you might be doing so as a Minister. You’ll be acutely conscious that there is a difference between the Minister of St Peter’s Church and David Robertson, blogger, between you speaking as Minister, and you shooting off your personal opinions on politics. Yet your blog doesn’t really distinguish between them. There’s no obvious health warning to warn when you’re switching from one to the other, when you’re speaking with some ministerial authority and when with none, when you’re saying what you think is God’s position on something and when you’re just expressing your personal foibles. It’s a hazard that people might feel that because they respect you as the former, they should accept your voice on the latter. It’s a temptation when you feel strongly about one of the latter to blur the distinction, but it’s one that St Paul marked even when he was saying something which most of us would accept represented his divinely endowed wisdom.

    Obviously, how you publicly balance your two identities is your decision and your responsibility. I do think though that there are moral questions for a Minister about when and how to advocate a personal opinion on controversial politics, rather than keeping it yourself and your ballot paper in the booth in your polling station

    Besides, if we move on from the moral dimension, even in policy terms, it seems to me that there are inconsistencies in your position. You’re a Scottish nationalist who disagrees with the SNP. So presumably, you don’t think that it would be a denial of democracy to continue to advocate either Scottish independence or another referendum on that. Yet you say that going for anything other than Brexit now on Mr Farage and no deal “is likely to mean the end of any meaningful democracy in the UK”. Furthermore, perhaps this is less visible in Dundee, but the party you’re encouraging your flock to vote for is one that is really quite closely linked to English nationalism. What is more, should Brexit be delayed further, and MEPs take their seats, what policies does the Brexit Party stand for? Mr Farage has said he’ll only reveal these later. On past form, do you really want to find you have voted for a party which you find has linked up with a group of fairly nasty like-minded nationalists in the European Parliament.

    Anyway, I’ve said my piece. It’s up to you whether you give it the reflection I’ve suggested. That’s enough.

    1. I don’t mind you disagreeing with me at all – go for it…but don’t patronise.

      Yes – I am really saying that if God does not say it is sin – you (nor I) do not have the right to call it sin.

      Farage is an astute politician – that is not a moral statement. So is Salmond…so was Obama….its a statement of fact not moral approval.

      My blog is not the blog of St Peters…It is my personal blog and I feel perfectly fine with stating my own personal opinions on my own personal blog. Sorry if that offends you. I never preach politics in my pulpit and I do not tell people how to vote. My blog makes it perfectly clear that this is my own personal blog – not the blog of St Peters or of the Free Church. It is not even the blog of Solas – the organisation I set up. And I am not St Paul.

      I am a supporter of Scottish independence – but I also accept that we had a once in a lifetime referendum in 2014 – and I don’t think that we should have another one for a decade. The EU referendum has not been implemented. We should have another one after it has been implemented and put into practice.

      If the Brexit party is an English nationalist party (just another unevidenced smear) then why are the opinion polls suggesting they will win two of the six Scottish EU seats.

      Thanks for your comments – I have reflected on them – and have found them wanting…

  14. Why do you say that UKIP is extreme right? I know the hostile media keeps telling us so, but on what basis have you reached that conclusion for yourself? I do genuinely want to know, because I am an evangelical Christian who is a member of UKIP and I am perplexed by your assessment of it. UKIP is the only political party which campaigns for free speech and also opposes the tyranny of political correctness. Even the Brexit party has specified certain subjects which must not be spoken about, and that cannot be healthy. So, I genuinely would appreciate it if you could outline what it is that you find so objectionable about UKIP. Many thanks.

    1. I would not have said it was a couple of years ago – but there has been a shift – with the appointment of Tommy Robinson and the shift towards a demonisation of Islam as the main enemy. UKIP is now basically finished as a political force in the UK

      1. But the ideology of Islam is a problem today in this country, and indeed worldwide. And it is a growing problem.

        It is a stated objective of Islam that it intends to dominate the world, and that it is right to do this with violence. We ignore this threat at our peril. If we don’t act soon, and decisively, then within a few short decades the UK will be yet another Islamic nation.

        I would appeal to you, and every reasonable person, to look at this whole issue carefully because it is so important.

      2. Yes – I know about the ideology of Islam – and do look at it carefully – but the UKIP way of dealing with that is not right. Certainly from a Christian perspective…

      3. Of course Tommy is neither a member or an adviser of UKIP. He advises Gerard Batten on issues regarding Islam and prison conditions in the UK; topics which he is, I should think, eminently qualified to comment on. Let’s not overlook the fact that Mr Robinson is standing as an independent candidate in the forthcoming EU elections.

        Now let’s consider Brexit Party candidate Claire Fox. How should a Christian respond to her views on IRA atrocities and the availability and legalisation of child pornography? See Spectator blog link.

        I suppose from the safety of St Peters one might not feel that Islam represents much of an immediate threat. However survivors of the Easter Sunday carnage in Sri Lanka might think differently, and with some justification. All a matter of perspective and demographics I reckon.

        I am intrigued that Al Mohler, once an avowed ‘never Trumper’ is now largely silent on the President’s foibles.
        Perhaps in the light of subsequent Supreme Court appointments and and anti-abortion push-back he now has realised that sometimes the agents who best serve us don’t always come in the most appealing package. I suspect in not many years from now we might say the same about the aforesaid Mr Robinson and UKIP.

        Anyway back to Claire Fox.

  15. Voting for a party led by a man who stood in front of a poster that was a literal copy and paste job of Nazi imagery is an interesting stance given your line about Theresa May and immigration (your own lines, on this blog, about 400 million people being able to come here also seem to have been forgotten in that criticism of May).

    The beliefs of UKIP now are merely more public as opposed to actually being new. Are you seriously suggesting that appointing Tommy Robinson actually hasnt reflected the actual policy positions of the party for the last decade and more.

    I absolutely get that your are a sovereignty fetishist that cannot see the difference between sovereignty pool (the EU re UK) is differed from sovereignty that is retained (the UK re Scotland).

    I also get you are happy that there is going to be economic damage when we leave because the theoretical democratic restoration will be morally worth the poverty that people will suffer (only church types and certain types philosophers say that suffering is a good thing). I say theoretical because because every international partnership and deal involves giving up sovereignty to a degree. Even WTO rules. A trade deal with the US will involve giving up a lot. And we wont even have a vote on it.

    After all that I am very much in two minds about a second referendum. There is zero merit in running it again for no purpose other than the wrong answer was given. A confirmatory referendum has a little merit given that its has become clear that there were voters who did not have the full picture and linked the outcome to unenforceable suggestions (like the bus money for the NHS).

    There was also breeches of UK electoral law (like it or not, that is a legitimate finding) which makes the result problematic. Even if you (who always argues for proper debate) start crying whataboutery the governments spending – and I dont know if that has been found to break laws – then surely as a democrat you would want a fair referendum where both sides were doing wrong and the result is a problem because of that? Or is not really a problem because your side won?

    There is also an irony about asking for the result to be implemented first. We are never going to have as good a deal as we have now. If we implement Brexit then we will never have the same deal so we cannot reverse the changes that Brexit will create.

    Hence I find merit in asking people if the deal we have is the one they wanted when this all started.

    1. There are so many things wrong with this its hard to know where to begin…but I’ll limit myself to two points.

      Firstly I loathe with all of my being the middle-class snobbery that says the poor who largely voted for Brexit were too stupid to realise what was for their own good and need to be rescued by enlightened people such as yourself – who then pretend that your love for the EU is only because you care for the poor!

      Secondly, you clearly have a limited understanding of what the EU actually is – when you talk about ‘pooled sovereignty’ as opposed to ‘retained sovereignty’. For that to make any sense at all (which it doesn’t) – the EU would have to be an intergovernmental organisation where individual countries retain their sovereignty. But the EU is a supranational organisation whose laws, rules, procedures and courts override the sovereignty of individual nations. The notion that Scotland would have more sovereignty in the EU than in the UK is laughable. We would be subject to rules and laws that we did not make and that we could not remove. At least in the UK we have 59 out of 650 MPs in a parliament that is sovereign (or would be if it was out of the EU). In the EU we would have six out of 750 in a parliament that has very limited powers and cannot even make its own laws!

      1. 1. I am not middle class.
        2. I never mentioned poor people. I said Brexit will cause poverty. I stand by that claim. Dont twist the arguement to cover things I didnt mention. I loathe proponents of Brexit who claim trading on WTO rules is better than trading on EU rules.
        3. I said the full picture. Like the guy who discussed Brexit with Rees-Moog etc on Channel 4 news whose marriage is breaking up cause of the change of circumstances his wife now faces. Like the trade towns in England who want to set themselves up as free ports because they dont want to be outside the EU for trade. Like the “ex-pats” (immigrants in Spain) who didnt like the immigrants in the UK who now find their freedom of movement is no longer guaranteed.
        4. My preference for the EU as opposed to mere trade deals is that there are global problems that need large numbers of countries to come together. Find me a better example of this than the EU when addressing multiple topics (WHO is not a bad one for health but even then its limited).
        5. As I said, I not not wholly convinced for the need for a new referendum although there is some merit for voting on the deal because the deal does mean leaving the EU, for some its not what they voted for (to much leave or not enough leave).

        And anyway, actual democrats should be concerned about misconduct in the referendum. Regardless of who won.

      2. Again I apologise I don’t have time to respond to all your points. But just a couple…

        1. When you say that it is the poor who will suffer most – and you know that the majority of the poor voted for Brexit – by implication you are saying that they were too stupid to know what was for their own good. They should just be satisfied with crumbs from the middle class table.

        2. Democrats should be concerned about misconduct in the referendum – like the fact that Remain vastly outspent Leave. Or the fact that the EU channelled funds through various of its agencies seeking to influence the result. Or that the UK government spent over £10 million on sending a glossy leaflet to every home in the UK telling us to vote Remain. Or that several big businesses and University principals instructed their staff and students how to vote. And despite all that they still lost…But of course they won’t accept the result and will demand a re-run. And another until we get it ‘right’…

  16. Just as well you are not a political party at The Wee Flea. Otherwise you would be way down the alphabetical list on the ballot paper alongside The Brexit Party. Strangely, no other party has ‘The’ before their names – Animal Rights, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal, Greens… no “The” to be seen. Could the Electoral Commission be misbehaving?

  17. David,

    I resent the implication that I am being mendacious. I thought that I was chucking the stones!

    Let me refresh your memory.

    Monthly Record March 2002 pages 6-7.

    An article called Euroland ( which had no business being in the Free Church magazine anyway) by a fellow called David Robertson.

    If you have changed your mind thats great but perhaps a slight nod to those of us who have been challenging the EU for a lot longer than you have would scarcely go amiss.

    As for your sneer about being the Christian candidate I shall leave those of you who are of a mind to do so check out the lead candidates of the other parties and note their commitment to biblical Christianity.

    1. Sorry – that does not refresh my memory…feel free to quote me writing in support of the Euro. Given that your analysis of my anti-EU article in 2016 was that it supported Remain I am not over confident that you can do so….
      I was not sneering about you being the ‘Christian’ candidate – I was asking if this is how you regard yourself…and expressing a hope that you would not be portraying yourself as such, for the sake of the Gospel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: