BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

shortfall

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

shortfall

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

mrfpb

When David Cameron said he would trigger article 50 the day after a leave vote, was he lying?
When he blocked the whole of government from preparing for a leave vote, was that misconduct in public office?

Who's conduct was more damaging, Cameron or Boris?

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

shortfall

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

Hang on, I'm only offering a counter to some suggestions here that Ball's crowdfunded case wasn't a politically motivated act. It would appear that's exactly what it is and he appears to have deleted his previous blogs that allude to his real objective which is to derail Brexit. Rather than answer this you've accused Paul Staines of being Lynton Crosby's rent boy, Boris Johnson's financial backer and having an ulterior motive to run a smear against Ball because he's spanking (his own) money on getting Boris into No. 10. This all may be true but as you've provided no actual evidence we can't take your claims seriously and until you do it's just a load of squid ink designed to distract from the real story about Marcus Ball's motives.

pblakeney

mrfpb wrote:

When David Cameron said he would trigger article 50 the day after a leave vote, was he lying?
When he blocked the whole of government from preparing for a leave vote, was that misconduct in public office?

Who's conduct was more damaging, Cameron or Boris?

Start a crowdfunding thing then.
Many would be happy to see shiny Dave pay a price too.

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

Hang on, I'm only offering a counter to some suggestions here that Ball's crowdfunded case wasn't a politically motivated act. It would appear that's exactly what it is and he appears to have deleted his previous blogs that allude to his real objective which is to derail Brexit. Rather than answer this you've accused Paul Staines of being Lynton Crosby's rent boy, Boris Johnson's financial backer and having an ulterior motive to run a smear against Ball because he's spanking (his own) money on getting Boris into No. 10. This all may be true but as you've provided no actual evidence we can't take your claims seriously and until you do it's just a load of squid ink designed to distract from the real story about Marcus Ball's motives.

So what if its politically motivated. I don't get the beef, anything to do with a politition is politically motivated. Guido didn't write his piece out of kindness and fair play.

shortfall

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

Hang on, I'm only offering a counter to some suggestions here that Ball's crowdfunded case wasn't a politically motivated act. It would appear that's exactly what it is and he appears to have deleted his previous blogs that allude to his real objective which is to derail Brexit. Rather than answer this you've accused Paul Staines of being Lynton Crosby's rent boy, Boris Johnson's financial backer and having an ulterior motive to run a smear against Ball because he's spanking (his own) money on getting Boris into No. 10. This all may be true but as you've provided no actual evidence we can't take your claims seriously and until you do it's just a load of squid ink designed to distract from the real story about Marcus Ball's motives.

So what if its politically motivated. I don't get the beef, anything to do with a politition is politically motivated. Guido didn't write his piece out of kindness and fair play.

Read back through the paragraphs you've quoted. Morstar claimed that Marcus Ball's motive was simply to hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty. Marcus Ball himself said that his case isn't about stopping Brexit but about stopping lying in politics. Yet he is quoted in his since deleted blogs as saying
"Once these prosecutions have established that politicians did indeed lie to voters our next step will be to take other action to prevent Brexit. This may be in the form of a judicial review… We will also work to reverse Brexit and ensure our membership of the European Union is not lost”

Nobody is pretending that the Guido Fawkes site is politically impartial, least of all its author Paul Staines, but that isn't the issue. He is quite open about his views. Anyway, back to your initial claims which you have yet to substantiate. Where is your evidence that Paul Staines is Lynton Crosby's rent boy? What is the substance to your claim that he's financially backing Boris? And how much is he allegedly " spanking" on getting Boris into 10 Downing St?

morstar

For my part, I have quoted what is in the public domain in good faith.

Not sure I can take a 3rd party, partisan interpretation of his merits of a now removed blog as gospel either.

If anything, it underlines the importance of integrity.

shortfall

morstar wrote:

For my part, I have quoted what is in the public domain in good faith.

Not sure I can take a 3rd party, partisan interpretation of his merits of a now removed blog as gospel either.

If anything, it underlines the importance of integrity.

That is fair enough. Now we need to establish whether there is substance to the Guido Fawkes blog post. What we don't need are unsubstantiated allegations and clouds of squid ink from Dark Haired Lord who clearly isn't interested in uncovering facts when he can just smear people he doesn't agree with instead.

ETA
Presumably Marcus Ball will be seeking recourse in the courts if anything published about him in the Guido Fawkes Blog is untrue. If he doesn't then we can draw our own conclusions.

Pross

Out of interest, under a private prosecution what would be the potential penalty if found guilty and would it be the same as under a public prosecution?

Pross

Shortfall wrote:

Presumably Marcus Ball will be seeking recourse in the courts if anything published about him in the Guido Fawkes Blog is untrue. If he doesn't then we can draw our own conclusions.

So anyone who doesn't bother to defend themselves against allegations is automatically guilty in your eyes? Interestingly, a lot of people also say that people are trying to hide things when they do sue so it's a no win situation.

shortfall

Pross wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Presumably Marcus Ball will be seeking recourse in the courts if anything published about him in the Guido Fawkes Blog is untrue. If he doesn't then we can draw our own conclusions.

So anyone who doesn't bother to defend themselves against allegations is automatically guilty in your eyes? Interestingly, a lot of people also say that people are trying to hide things when they do sue so it's a no win situation.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. We are discussing a person who is litigious enough to crowd fund a court case against a politician he accuses of telling untruths. A high profile political blogger has now publicly accused him of being a liar and of concealing the real motives behind his court action. In those circumstances I am merely suggesting that people are free to draw whatever conclusions they see fit if he doesn't take legal action to fight allegations that he himself is a liar. That's all.

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

Pross wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Presumably Marcus Ball will be seeking recourse in the courts if anything published about him in the Guido Fawkes Blog is untrue. If he doesn't then we can draw our own conclusions.

So anyone who doesn't bother to defend themselves against allegations is automatically guilty in your eyes? Interestingly, a lot of people also say that people are trying to hide things when they do sue so it's a no win situation.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. We are discussing a person who is litigious enough to crowd fund a court case against a politician he accuses of telling untruths. A high profile political blogger has now publicly accused him of being a liar and of concealing the real motives behind his court action. In those circumstances I am merely suggesting that people are free to draw whatever conclusions they see fit if he doesn't take legal action to fight allegations that he himself is a liar. That's all.

I'm not sure anyone cares about his motivation. It doesn't change anything that BJ has done.

Pross

Shortfall wrote:

Pross wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Presumably Marcus Ball will be seeking recourse in the courts if anything published about him in the Guido Fawkes Blog is untrue. If he doesn't then we can draw our own conclusions.

So anyone who doesn't bother to defend themselves against allegations is automatically guilty in your eyes? Interestingly, a lot of people also say that people are trying to hide things when they do sue so it's a no win situation.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. We are discussing a person who is litigious enough to crowd fund a court case against a politician he accuses of telling untruths. A high profile political blogger has now publicly accused him of being a liar and of concealing the real motives behind his court action. In those circumstances I am merely suggesting that people are free to draw whatever conclusions they see fit if he doesn't take legal action to fight allegations that he himself is a liar. That's all.

The alternative of course is that he isn't litigious by nature but felt so strongly about this issue that he felt the need to take action, which I think is what he has been claiming (does anyone know if he has a history of taking things to court).

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

Hang on, I'm only offering a counter to some suggestions here that Ball's crowdfunded case wasn't a politically motivated act. It would appear that's exactly what it is and he appears to have deleted his previous blogs that allude to his real objective which is to derail Brexit. Rather than answer this you've accused Paul Staines of being Lynton Crosby's rent boy, Boris Johnson's financial backer and having an ulterior motive to run a smear against Ball because he's spanking (his own) money on getting Boris into No. 10. This all may be true but as you've provided no actual evidence we can't take your claims seriously and until you do it's just a load of squid ink designed to distract from the real story about Marcus Ball's motives.

So what if its politically motivated. I don't get the beef, anything to do with a politition is politically motivated. Guido didn't write his piece out of kindness and fair play.

Read back through the paragraphs you've quoted. Morstar claimed that Marcus Ball's motive was simply to hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty. Marcus Ball himself said that his case isn't about stopping Brexit but about stopping lying in politics. Yet he is quoted in his since deleted blogs as saying
"Once these prosecutions have established that politicians did indeed lie to voters our next step will be to take other action to prevent Brexit. This may be in the form of a judicial review… We will also work to reverse Brexit and ensure our membership of the European Union is not lost”

Nobody is pretending that the Guido Fawkes site is politically impartial, least of all its author Paul Staines, but that isn't the issue. He is quite open about his views. Anyway, back to your initial claims which you have yet to substantiate. Where is your evidence that Paul Staines is Lynton Crosby's rent boy? What is the substance to your claim that he's financially backing Boris? And how much is he allegedly " spanking" on getting Boris into 10 Downing St?

Staines has openly admitted to running an online campaign in support of Johnson. I think that would count.

pinno

TheBigBean wrote:

On the subject of private prosecutions, Andrea Leadsom's brother in law and Conservative Party donor, demonstrates why it should have limits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... fund-quant

Who cares? Sh*t sticks. It's BoJo after all.

He was sh*t as Foreign Secretary and therefore, not capable of being PM and should not be in the running.

Fair means or fowl, I don't honestly care.
Remainers need to have a collective voice and learn how to stick the knife in.
Read the Daily Heil and think about fairness.

tailwindhome

Meanwhile in the constituency of Ireland South they're still counting for the last MEP place.

There's a suggestion that there may be a full recount - possibly to take up to 28 days (presumably counting staff have to go back to their day jobs)

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

morstar wrote:

The guy doing the prosecution originally looked into around 10-12 people from both sides of the Brexit argument. The motivation for his actions is to try and hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty.

Boris was the only candidate where they felt they had a strong enough case to pursue. It was not a targeted witch hunt.

Guido offers an alternative explanation.

https://order-order.com/2019/05/29/camp ... -campaign/

Guido is funding boris. Guido is lynton crosbys "rent boy"*

*

Very illuminating. Do you have any comment on the substance of the article?

I don't need any. Guido is spanking money on getting bj in #10, guido claims ulteria motive as a distraction from his own.

So that's a "no" then, even though his article contradicts suggestions here that Marcus J Ball isn't politically motivated.

Politician complains something is politically motivated... wow. Just wow. So if he breaks the law only his friends can complain?

Hang on, I'm only offering a counter to some suggestions here that Ball's crowdfunded case wasn't a politically motivated act. It would appear that's exactly what it is and he appears to have deleted his previous blogs that allude to his real objective which is to derail Brexit. Rather than answer this you've accused Paul Staines of being Lynton Crosby's rent boy, Boris Johnson's financial backer and having an ulterior motive to run a smear against Ball because he's spanking (his own) money on getting Boris into No. 10. This all may be true but as you've provided no actual evidence we can't take your claims seriously and until you do it's just a load of squid ink designed to distract from the real story about Marcus Ball's motives.

So what if its politically motivated. I don't get the beef, anything to do with a politition is politically motivated. Guido didn't write his piece out of kindness and fair play.

Read back through the paragraphs you've quoted. Morstar claimed that Marcus Ball's motive was simply to hold politicians to a higher standard of honesty. Marcus Ball himself said that his case isn't about stopping Brexit but about stopping lying in politics. Yet he is quoted in his since deleted blogs as saying
"Once these prosecutions have established that politicians did indeed lie to voters our next step will be to take other action to prevent Brexit. This may be in the form of a judicial review… We will also work to reverse Brexit and ensure our membership of the European Union is not lost”

Nobody is pretending that the Guido Fawkes site is politically impartial, least of all its author Paul Staines, but that isn't the issue. He is quite open about his views. Anyway, back to your initial claims which you have yet to substantiate. Where is your evidence that Paul Staines is Lynton Crosby's rent boy? What is the substance to your claim that he's financially backing Boris? And how much is he allegedly " spanking" on getting Boris into 10 Downing St?

Staines has openly admitted to running an online campaign in support of Johnson. I think that would count.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... es-blogger

The above link covers Paul Staines campaigning in support of Boris. He hasn't hidden his support of Johnson. That a political Blogger is using his influence to support a politician he favours isn't the story here. What is of interest is Marcus Ball pretending that his legal action is politically impartial and nothing to do with blocking Brexit when the exact opposite appears to be the truth. Perhaps there's a perfectly innocent explanation for him deleting his online activities that demonstrate his motivations?

shortfall

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... court.html

Included in the above article is an allegation that Marcus Ball is paying himself £24000 from the crowd funding, despite this statement appearing on the page 'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

darkhairedlord

Shortfall wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7084113/STEPHEN-GLOVER-politician-tells-whopper-taken-court.html

Included in the above article is an allegation that Marcus Ball is paying himself £24000 from the crowd funding, despite this statement appearing on the page 'This is a non-profit campaign. The people involved are volunteering their time freely.'

No one cares about Ball, but there is no love for bj.
If ball has also done something wrong then crowd fund a campaign against him. I'm sure that if it's in the mail it must be all above board.

rjsterry

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Staines has openly admitted to running an online campaign in support of Johnson. I think that would count.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... es-blogger

The above link covers Paul Staines campaigning in support of Boris. He hasn't hidden his support of Johnson. That a political Blogger is using his influence to support a politician he favours isn't the story here. What is of interest is Marcus Ball pretending that his legal action is politically impartial and nothing to do with blocking Brexit when the exact opposite appears to be the truth. Perhaps there's a perfectly innocent explanation for him deleting his online activities that demonstrate his motivations?

You initially asked where was the evidence that Staines was backing Johnson. If he didn't attack Ball he wouldn't be running much of a campaign. Ball's motives probably are political, but private prosecution is not reserved for those pure of heart and in any case, I'm sure that will be tested in court. I suspect there is a good reason the CPS as a public prosecution did not take this on, and I am concerned about the precedent such a case will set. I don't for a moment think it will lead to politicians being more truthful - more likely they will avoid saying anything of substance at all, like Farage. But Ball's motivation really is a sideshow.

shirley_basso

"Brexit: AA Gill argues for ‘In’

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of that most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia

It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”

It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”

Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.

The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.

And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.

All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.

There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.

The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty

We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”

Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

Nine out of 10 economists say ‘remain in the EU’

You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.

Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.

The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.

There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.

The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.

Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?

I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in."

shirley_basso

Do coopster and john80 relate?

darkhairedlord

Peak Blighty!

pinno

It's an excellent piece.

bobmcstuff

Basically sums it up for me.

Especially the bit about judges being in Westminster or Luxembourg: what difference can it possibly make?

shirley_basso

I would be very interested to read a similar piece for the leave campaign, just to see if I am missing anything