Some Blatherings About Brexit

I was not intending to post tonight since my daughters have lauded their father with a splendid banquet and nice pressies. But I cannot resist. I hope that this post will be short.

It concerns what will happen after the referendum if the vote is ‘Leave’.

Leave what?

Leave the EU? What is the ‘EU’? I doubt that most ordinary people, including most politicians, know what ‘THE EU’ is. I don’t. The letters ‘EU’ stand for ‘European Union’, but have those words ever been defined? What do they mean? What does the phrase ‘UNITED States of America’ mean? What did the phrase ‘UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics’ mean?

History has taught us that such UNIONS are artificial. They are Empires, in reality. Who is the Emperor of the USA? Who is the Emperor of the European Union?

What is different in today’s world is that, generally, despite fraud, Emperors are voted into office by the People rather than by the Elite or by conquest.

We really ought to wake up. ALL Governments, since time immemorial, have needed an Emperor (King, Prime Minister, President, Secretary, Chairman, whatever).

But the EU is different. The real ‘Emperor’ is not known and not visible. ‘Emperors’ are just Spokespersons. The real power is elsewhere.

That is what is so frightening, and why we should get out. And that is why the People of Europe are rebelling. The real power lies in the UN, the WHO, the IPCC, but most people do not know that.

There are all sorts of weird things. For example, by what right does the International Monetary Fund comment on Brexit?

Questions need to be asked about the nature of the IMF  – what it is for and how political it is. Does anyone have any idea what the IMF does? I don’t. I read somewhere that it gets grants from the USA which it spends upon its salaries and gives a bit of what’s left to some dictator or other. What has it got to do with the UK? Who cares what its over-paid academic boss thinks? Let her base her organisation in Nigeria, Ethiopia or Somalia, and then let us consider her worth.

Is that not very true? Is it not very true that the UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, etc, are ALL based in the healthy, wealthy West. Not a single one of them are based in, say, Sierra Leon. Not one. But would it not be better for all these wealth creating organisations were based in countries where they could employ people who needed work?

When did Cameron, or Corbin, say that they insist that those organisations should be based in third world countries?

They are hypocrites.

When Cancer Research UK (CRUK) relocates its Head Office to ‘The Ivory Coast’, or wherever, THEN I might possibly send it £2. And the same goes for Oxfam etc. When they relocate to where the efforts and our money are needed, THEN I might believe them.

In fact, our Government should be forcing them to relocate so that employment in that charity is native, and not healthy, wealthy West.

When will the idiocy end? I have a friend who is active in caring for homeless people. She works for nothing and is very kind. We give her surplus groceries from time to time. Our ‘charity’ is as nothing compared to the great needs of such people, but it helps a little.

‘Charity Begins At Home’, but I do not know what that means. In so far as a Charity has unpaid volunteers in the UK who, literally, distribute food and arrange shelter for the unfortunate and homeless, then it is worthy of my contributions.

But Oxfam etc have become leaches. They make no sense. They live in the UK and drain contributions to support themselves in the UK. Maybe Government should only support them if they live in the countries which they claim to be helping.


The UK Taxpayer has been funding ‘The Charity’, known as the EU, to the tune of £6,000,000,000 per an. What has the EU ‘Charity’ been doing with that money? Why is that ‘Charity’ based in the most comfortable of places? Why is its Headquarters not placed in the Outer Hebrides?

We can thus see that Cameron et al have no understanding of reality. They live in a comfortable zone and they create their own reality within that zone. Thus, the idea that the Houses of Parliament could be relocated to the Outer Hebrides is incomprehensible to them. And, of course, they are right. That idea is stupid. I mention that idea only to illustrate extremes.


In my opinion, there is only one question in the Brexit debate, and that is the Sovereignty of the British People. It cannot be shared or transferred. It is absolute. In so far as successive ‘progressive’ governments have failed to understand that European wars have not, to my knowledge, been caused by the UK, then the UK has no shame. Other nations in Europe have the shame. That shame is the killings and mutilations of untold numbers of plebs.

We must exit the EU because it was always based upon a false premise. The False Premise was that it was THE PEOPLE of Europe who wanted to go to war with each other. It was always the Emperors who wanted wars. The EU has itself become an Emperor, who wants to wage war – in The Ukraine, for example.


At home, we see more and more examples of cruelty inflicted upon the vulnerable – the smoking ban in jails and lunatic asylums. It is unlikely that such cruelty will cease at smoking bans. As long as we cannot sack legislators, then we cannot repeal bad laws.

That is the most important thing.


3 Responses to “Some Blatherings About Brexit”

  1. inisfad Says:

    Frankly, as you advise that you don’t know what the EU actually means, it would behoove you to understand it before you vote. And if you think that ‘unions’ are ‘artificial empires’ perhaps it would be a good idea to study what workers’ rights were before and after unions were instituted. Unions are intended to be protective of workers – just because a union ‘leader’ may be corrupt, greedy, etc., does not reduce the actual meaning of what a union is supposed to be. And amusingly, you can have this corruption whether you are in a single government, or union of many states. Staying in the EU has far more benefit that leaving it – whether for trade, human rights, ecology, etc. The UK is actually one of the largest contributors – it is a leader in the EU…If you don’t like what the EU is doing, your own UK leaders are at fault, as nothing is passed in the EU without UK approval. It’s that simple. As this blog has originally been about tobacco, I wonder then, what kind of ‘savings’ you will have when you suddenly do not have an EU to get your tobacco from? Where you can only bring in one carton of cigarettes from another country? Where tobacco distributors suddenly do not have their markets to import from? All this ‘take back our power’ spew that we hear from, essentially, very right wing sites, is nothing more than xenophobia at its very worst. And amusingly, there is nothing about leaving the EU that stops immigration. Australia is not in the EU, and their migrant situation is double what is in the EU, per capita. While it is good to research for yourself, to discount information that ‘experts’ indicate, because ‘experts’ in tobacco control have an agenda, is illogical. Sometimes experts actually do know what they’re talking about……

    • garyk30 Says:

      An expert would not confuse a ‘worker’s rights’ group with a conglamorate of political/national states.

      Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Russia have survived without EU. Membership; while, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain are total disasters in spite of their EU membership.

      ‘Experts’ in Brussels absolutely ‘know’ that their opinions are more correct than the opinions of people that are the result of millions of people over hundreds of years of experience.

    • junican Says:

      We are trying to look at the very broad picture, Inisfad. For example, ‘workers’ rights’ in the UK have been well protected for years, but is that the case in, say, Bulgaria? But we know little or nothing about Bulgaria, and we know little or nothing about what the consequences of imposing wealthy Britain’s ‘workers’ rights’ on Bulgaria. What about ‘workers’ rights’ in Turkey? Is Turkey currently fighting a little war with the Kurds, or not?
      The USA declared Independence and created its Constitution. We note that the US Constitution is humanitarian in its nature. It is about the rights of individual citizens. The EU is nothing of the sort. It oppresses individual rights. It collectivises individuals into groups. At the top, it is cruel and repressive. But, above all, it is unaccountable and authoritarian.
      One might reasonably ask if Gordon Brown knew what he was doing when he jetted off to Portugal to sign the Lisbon treaty. Who told him that the Lisbon treaty was a great idea? He sneaked off there and signed, without any serious discussion in Parliament. Remember that treaties are arrangements between Governments and not between Parliaments. That might have been OK when treaties were seen as ‘ad hoc’ solutions to specific problems, but the EU treaties are permanent. Thus, they are not really treaties at all. They are OBLIGATIONS.
      That is the crux. There is no mechanism for EU Directives to be annulled. They are set in stone.
      That is what we object to.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: