web analytics


By Pete Moore On September 4th, 2019

I know that Leavers are unreasonable, thinking that we could ever be a sovereign, independent and self-governing country, just like most of the world. What got into our minds?

Let’s allow our betters to decide instead. We, the people, ought to know our place. Isn’t that so, Comrades? Richard Burgon is the Shadow Lord Chancellor and an architect of Labour’s policy with regards to the EU. He’s just the kind of intellectual giant we can safely entrust with stewardship of the country. This is what Labour would do. Give it a watch –

Yep, you heard that right.

Labour would win a General Election on a platform to remain in the EU. Then it would negotiate a leave deal with the EU. Then it would campaign against that leave deal in yet another referendum.

Apparently these are the grown ups.


  1. Bill passes third reading in the Commons by a majority 28 votes:


    Johnson is blabbering like a drunk at a wedding who has over stayed their welcome at the podium

  2. Pete

    Isn’t that demonstrating a willingness to give people a chance to vote for a specific detailed leave proposal even if the new Labour govt. opposed it. I would think that’s quite a laudable policy don’t you ?

  3. But what does Boris Johnson offer? Certainly no prospect of a “renegotiated” deal. The hype about “serious negotiations” taking place is just more lies. Like the lie that he was not going to suspend parliament. It appears that all he offers is lies and bluster. This is from the excellent Nick Cohen:

    “In a report of the highest significance this morning, Peter Foster of the Daily Telegraph showed that all Boris Johnson’s blustering that giving him a free hand was the only way to get a deal out of the EU was so much bull. (I know, I know, I was shocked too.)

    The Johnson administration has not been sincere about striking a compromise with the EU and has put forward no serious proposals on the Irish border. Foster reported that two ‘highly placed’ sources had told him that Dominic Cummings had described the EU negotiations as ‘a sham’ in internal strategy meetings at Downing Street. Meanwhile the Attorney General had warned Johnson it was a ‘complete fantasy’ to think the EU would bin the backstop to please him. Either he accepted the EU’s terms or we crashed out.

    Downing Street denied the report.‘Dom has not said this,’ an anonymous press spokesperson said. ‘He does not believe this to be the case. Such anonymous and unsubstantiated claims should not be printed. We note that these claims were not put to us in advance by author, denying us opportunity to make clear these allegations are untrue.’ Foster was wrong in other words. Not just a little bit wrong but so wrong the government believes his journalism should not have been printed. (I should perhaps tell younger readers that, in the old days before the Johnson administration, it was not considered to be the role of governments to tell a free press what it should and should not print.)

    But who believes Johnson’s Downing Street? Ten days ago, my newspaper the Observer broke the story that he was planning to shut down Parliament to stop it thwarting a no-deal Brexit. Downing Street spin doctors led by one Rob Oxley, formerly of Vote Leave, denied the report. As with this morning’s Telegraph, they didn’t say that it was mistaken or that the Observer’s political correspondent Toby Helm had gotten the wrong end of the stick. They didn’t even reach for the handy cop out that Her Majesty’s Government refuses to comment on leaks or speculation. They said the report was ‘entirely false’. Most journalists and politicians appeared to believe them. I imagined they reasoned that, surely, no government would be stupid enough to condemn a story so unequivocally unless it was telling the truth. A few days later Johnson revealed that he was indeed planning to suspend Parliament.

    As the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Downing Street has lost the right to be believed, and its Putinesque rants about which stories should and should not be published only thickens the mendacious atmosphere that hangs over it.”


  4. Peter –

    Let’s play a quick game. I haven’t clicked the Speccie link but it must be Nick Cohen. I thought maybe Matthew Parris, but he’s not on The Observer.

    How did I do?

  5. Pete – you won the game.

    That car crash interview reflects the ‘thinking’ of the Remainers in that they are unable to conceal their mendacity so it would really be better to state what they truly believe i.e. renounce Brexit and simply tell the public that their wishes mean nothing.

  6. Let’s play a quick game. I haven’t clicked the Speccie link but it must be Nick Cohen. How did I do?

    You won Pete, and jolly well done. But I attributed it to Cohen on the third line of the first paragraph. Shame that you missed it, but here it is again:

    “This is from the excellent Nick Cohen:”

  7. No wonder they want the EU to run the country, they’d be properly shown up for the fools they all are.

    Well done Pete