A Family Gathering Discusses Brexit

Our daughter J and our granddaughter S, plus our great-granddaughters E and L, ventured to the sunny, warm North from the bitterly cold, wet South today for the weekend. L is only six months old, and, although we have seen many pics, we have only now actually seen the baby in the flesh – and a bonny little girl she is. Little E is now three years old. She does not know her great-gps, and, in the recent past, has been suitably wary. Tonight, I managed, at last, to break the ice. The ice-breaking involved a couple of games. In the first game, I get on my hands and knees and defy her to push me over. Funnily enough, she would not actually do it herself. Instead, she told her mum to push me over, and she pushed against her mum. But the effect was the same. Great fun. In the second game, I was a lion. I roamed around on the floor, on my hands a knees, roaring. She had to run from her mothers chair to her aunt’s chair when I was not looking. Of course, I pretended not to notice until it was too late to catch her, but there was lots of roaring and much excitement on her part. I think that the ice has been well and truly broken.

The interesting bit for adults was our discussion of Brexit, once the children were abed. All of us are voting ‘Out’, without any prompting. We are a motley bunch. We have an ex-banker, a teacher, a deputy manager of the finance dept, a mother of four who is a sculptress, a young mother and a disabled person. All are voting ‘Out’. Readers will know my own reasons, which revolve mainly around the massively expensive bureaucracy and corruption. The main view expressed revolved around the ‘invasion’. Note, I do not say ‘immigration’ in itself. It is the massive numbers involved which were troubling, as well as the chaos. I really think that the atrocities in London, Paris and elsewhere have made a far greater impression than is generally believed or mentioned in the media. It is reasonable to believe that the people are very sceptical of politicians who say that ‘most Muslims are peaceful’, which I have no doubt that they are, but it is the 1% who are not peaceful who make all the trouble. 1% of 100,000 is 1,000, which is an army when they are armed with kalashnikovs and bombs and don’t care whether they live or die. But there is also the massive stress placed upon the taxpayer by ‘the invasion’.

But there was more to it. A point was made that some Big Business organisations are actually pressuring their employees to vote ‘Remain’. Can you see that? It is easy to imagine. If some big company wants its employees to vote ‘Remain’, it is reasonable to expect that company to circulate its employees with leaflets telling them how beneficial the EU is for that company. It is small companies which are being burdened with oppressive regulation.

So, in our age and occupation varied company this evening, we voted 6 – 0 for ‘Out’.

Tomorrow night, we have having an extended family ‘do’. One of my sister’s (now sadly deceased) sons, my nephew, will be fifty years old. There will be much jollification after a splendid meal. If I can, I’ll see what that company thinks.

The strange thing is that, whatever the result of the vote, the vast majority of treaty agreements will continue to exist. We will still use our passports; we will still fly to holiday resorts; we will still have free trade with EU countries; the pound will still vary in value as compared with the euro and the dollar. Whichever way it goes, the UK Government can make demands, and the first demands must be, a) we WILL NOT accept ‘the invasion’ in anyway whatsoever, b) we WILL NOT pay any contributions without knowing EXACTLY what our money is to be spent on, c) we WILL NOT put into our law anything which conflicts with the Common Law of England (Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland); we WILL decide where are armed forces will be deployed, and no one else will; we WILL negotiate special trade deals as and when we wish, if they are in the interests of the people of the UK; we WILL abrogate the Social Chapter of the treaty which created it, but we will separately continue with those parts of that chapter which benefit the people of the UK and others provided that UK taxpayers are not burdened unfairly; we WILL NOT pay the costs of the EU seats in the UN, WHO or elsewhere – the EU is not a ‘State’. Etc.

If the EU can re-run referenda, then so can we.


I am not sure whether Cameron is a dope or not. I have received leaflets which say that ‘The Government’ want to ‘Remain’. What Government is he talking about? If he is talking about the politicians, then, clearly, the ‘Government’ is split since the some members of the Cabinet are in favour of ‘Leave’. If he means the top people in the Civil Service, then why does he not say who they are? In any case, the Civil Service is not supposed to have any such political ideas. It is supposed to be totally neutral. Or does he include NGOs? I read somewhere today that organisations which receive Government funding, like CRUK, are not allowed to comment. But can they put pressure on their employees?


Whatever the result, the present political set up in the UK cannot continue. For some time, the difference between the ‘Haves’ and the Have Nots’, aka, between Tories and Labour, has become more and more obscure. Is it any wonder, then, that both those parties are vying to occupy the middle ground? The middle ground is ‘the average’, aka, not the best. The team occupying that esteemed position in the English Premier Football League is Chelsea in 10th position. This year, Chelsea is the best team in the English Premier League in terms of ‘the average’.

Cameron is said to have modelled himself on Blair. I suppose that means that he saw Blair’s strategy of occupying the middle ground. But that strategy falls apart when others occupy the high, moral ground. That is obvious when you consider the plight of Vapers. Vapers occupy the ‘high, moral ground’. They have substituted inhaling harmless vapour which contains some flavours and some nicotine, for inhaling millions of toxic substances of which tens of thousands are carcinogens, and which will kill them in an instant. They have abandoned the low ground, smoking, and occupied the high ground of not smoking.The middle ground needed to be amoral, and so it has turned out. Vapers can occupy the high, moral ground, but they must pay a ransom for their supplies to be allowed through the cordon. The ransom is ‘conformity with the average’, which means abandoning the high, moral ground.

The reason that I write this is that we, smokers, drinkers, vapers, fatties, prisoners, mental patients, etc, must understand what is happening. The reason that ASH ET AL can lobby MPs is because MPs have funded ASH ET AL. If it were not for that money, ASH ET AL would not exist, since the academics would not pay for it. The reason that MPs accept the lobbying is that they have paid for it. Put another way, if the Gov set up a research team and paid the costs, then the Gov would have to accept the results of the research. How can it be otherwise?

But, once again, we must ask, “What do you mean by Government?” Which comes down to who holds the purse-strings.


I had dealings with National Statistics. I do not think that Nat Stats has been corrupted – as yet. I think that there have been attempts to corrupt Nat Stats. I vaguely remember a question on a Nat Stats survey which employed a double negative. The double negative is not immediately obvious. The question was something like, “Do  you not go to the pub as often because of the smoking ban?” That question, at first sight, seems reasonable, and most of us would think so, but it is not reasonable. In that sentence, there is a double negative by virtue of the words ‘NOT go to the pub’ and the word ‘ban’. Many people would have been confused. Several months later, Nat Stats corrected that double negative by rephrasing the question, something like: “Since the smoking ban, do you go to the pub, a) more often, b) less often, c) makes no difference.  The results of the two surveys were quite different.

That situation was several years ago. Nat Stats must have been a bit off guard at the time. If there is one Government organisation which is above politics, it must be Nat Stats.

In Australia, Nat Stats have revealed that PP has made no difference to smoking prevalence or youth smoking. Therefore, there has been no overriding health benefit from denying tobacco companies of the  use of their logos. Australia can make whatever laws it wishes to, but it must abide by the treaties that it has signed up to or withdraw from them. It cannot have it both ways. Why should not Indonesia ban the logos of Australian companies?


PP in Australia is HUGE as a challenge to International agreements about trademarks. Weird, is it not, that the UK Gov has also gone down that route, in support of Australia, when there is nothing be be gained except aggro.

The stupidity of Government is incomprehensible.


6 Responses to “A Family Gathering Discusses Brexit”

  1. elenamitchell Says:

    I don’t go to Pubs or Bars anymore, since I can’t smoke. Does this count?
    Leave or Stay is of no real importance to me. I haven’t lived in UK for a very long time.
    But will UK leaving really affect me personally?
    I don’t actually care. I have thrown in my lot with France. And here I will stay.
    I suppose that it might affect my Pension somewhat. But I have been there and done that, and survived through all of the Exchange Rate fluctuations.
    I know where I want to be.
    Somewhere where I can sleep easy in my bed without fear.

    • junican Says:

      What more can you ask for other than contentment? Is that not the problem with ASH ET AL – that their chief objective is to destroy contentment?

  2. inisfad Says:

    Your vote for leaving or remaining should not be based on immigration or xenophobia. There is a good discussion here:

    • junican Says:

      I watched your link. I accept not one word of it. The guy is talking about ‘immigration’; he is not talking about ‘the invasion’. The two are totally different things.

  3. woodsy42 Says:

    The stupidiy is entirely comprehensible: Nobody is ever held responsible and nobody gets any blame or penalty for the costs or fallout of their stupidity. There is nothing to limit their stupidity.
    Pleased to see your family are voting the right way 🙂

    • junican Says:

      That is precisely the point. For example, who precisely said, “Let’s include ecigs in the TPD”. Some one individual must have spoken the necessary words. Who was that person? If a skyscraper building is to contemplated, then some one person must say, “What are the foundations going to be?” Night is ignorance and daylight is required to illuminate the way forward.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: