I’m talking about the UK Uncensored inbox.
After a few days when hardly any Brexit-related emails arrived, suddenly there’s been a flood of responses to our last article and also to the latest political events.
Today I’ve again taken some excerpts. Please forgive me if your own observations aren’t included below: we don’t have space for everything we’ve received. But I’d like to thank all contributors – we do appreciate the favourable comments that several people have made.
Mind you, some of you who don’t like what we’ve written!
For example, ‘A’ has criticised my description of Theresa May’s effect on the Tories… “Ripped asunder, torn asunder, but shattered asunder? If you are going to write something PLEASE make sure it makes sense in English”.
As asunder means ‘into several pieces’, I’d beg to differ about my use of words. To me, “shattered asunder” looks a reasonable description of the present state of the Conservative Party. After all, it has just suffered its worst election result since the Reform Act in 1832!
And ‘P’ reckons I “clearly understand nothing about politics & even less about Jeremy Corbyn” when I say that the latter’s “willingness to say absolutely anything simply to get elected as PM (like that would help the country at the moment?) isn’t working either”.
OK, maybe I don’t understand politics – I normally avoid writing about it. But by according Labour just 14% of the overall European election vote, the British electorate appears to agree with me that Mr Corbyn’s campaign strategy was badly flawed and that he wouldn’t exactly be the PM the UK needs right now.
Meanwhile, ‘M’ is puzzled that “a referendum campaign which contained more ‘lies’ than any previous political campaign and asked a ridiculous binary question on an extremely complex subject is being portrayed as the ‘will of the people’ while a second vote, on real options far less unknown, is somehow ‘undemocratic’! The current ‘will of the people’ is probably for a narrow Remain win on the basis of the last three years’ demographic changes.”
‘H’ doesn’t believe that “much consideration was put into the Brexit vote by UK farmers (although a vast majority of them voted to leave)”.
“Michael Gove’s promise that Britain’s farmers will be protected from overseas produce prices is an empty one. We cannot expect (say) New Zealanders to agree to duty-free entry of UK goods while we impose import duty on their lamb and dairy produce.”
‘N’ is also concerned about “misperceptions or downright inaccuracies”, starting with “the perception that the EU is an outside party, mainly dominated by Germany, dictating to the UK. In fact Britain has been one of the strongest voices determining EU policy and also the prime instigator of the European Court”.
And ‘E’ says that he knows “how awful it is to only hear one’s own opinions reflected back to oneself and how this goes to reinforce one’s own prior opinion”.
“The Remain camp, because of its foolish attachment to honesty, presented its economic case… from a multiplicity of independent ‘best effort’ models of the UK economy. These were incomprehensible to the great majority of the public who chose instead to believe the simplistic lies presented by the Leave camp (immediately on the side of a bus, but basically emanating from the side of a fag packet)… in what was a deeply-flawed referendum”.
Also, “the public wasn’t adequately presented with the arguments concerning the possibility of the break-up of the UK”, while many “were persuaded that ‘immigrants’ were a direct and significant factor in their misery concerning insufficient housing and an overwhelmed NHS. But there is no inherent shortage of housing land while the proposition about the NHS is false: indeed the latter is highly reliant upon immigrant labour”.
Never let it be said that we don’t publish Remain views when we receive them!
Has any analyst ever calculated an election ‘fib factor’? I can think of a few politicians whose ‘terminological inexactitudes’, as Churchill once called them, were rather more numerous than their truthful utterances.
But whether the referendum campaign was a pack of lies, the facts are that the UK voted to leave the EU. Had the 2016 result been the other way round, how many Remainers would be demanding a second poll now? Not a huge number, I suspect.
Even then, I’ve no problem with a second ‘peoples vote’ now – on the basis that provision had been made for this at the time of the first referendum. Yet it wasn’t. So, on the assumption that Brexit vote No.1 was binding on Parliament, I believe our elected politicians now have a fiduciary duty to organise the withdrawal. Full stop.
“I don’t think UK Uncensored plays to a Leave audience, quite the reverse”, says ‘H’. “I voted No to the EEC in 1975 as I didn’t wish to join a rich man’s club or a United States of Europe. In 2016 I voted leave for the same reasons and because the likes of George Soros see the EU as a stepping stone to a fascist world government.”
“I voted to leave the Single Market, the Customs Union, the Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies, the ECJ, the Kafkaesque European Arrest Warrant, the insane Eastward expansion and the daft notion of a European army. No ifs, no buts, no qualifications.”
“I always thought we’d have to leave without a deal as Verhofstadt, Juncker, Tusk and Co. would never negotiate at all, never mind sensibly, as long as we were members of the bloc. The fifth columnists in Westminster, the civil service and the media have done a wonderful job for Brussels. Once we leave on WTO rules, perhaps the EU will see sense and negotiate a mutually-beneficial trade deal.”
Some strongly-worded sentiments there from a committed Leaver. And now for some more general comments…
“A nice range of comments in your review”, says ‘T’, “there are some common threads”.
“First, trade generates wealth. Second, politicians are self-important knights on white chargers intent on correcting perceived wrongs by taking (wasting) more and more from the wealth creators and redistributing it to their pet projects/cronies. In days of yore, breadwinners had a self-imposed sense of providing for their dependants. Today, many think that ‘someone else’ must provide for me and my family.”
What’s the point here?
“We’re addicted to state support and will elect anyone who offers more of the same, regardless of how that’s funded. The EU has expanded on the promises of ever-more ‘jam tomorrow’ if the potential recipients agree to whatever the Brussels bureaucrats want in exchange.”
“With a vote of 52% leave and 48% remain, and clear geographic demarcations, of course Brexit was doomed to fail”, says ‘L’. “The whole voting system has to be re-evaluated. Unless there’s a clear majority, much of the population will be more than discontented.”
“Further, we can’t just blame our politicians for this mess, but also politicians in the EU for not listening to, or acting upon, popular sentiment throughout Europe. Forcing immigration policy on all member states was a big mistake as it has perpetrated European right-wing nationalism: historically we all know this is undesirable. Many of the UK’s and EU’s problems and issues are due to a complete lack of common sense in governance.”
Amen to that. I’m tempted to repeat my story about how Belgium’s lack of government a few years ago did that country no harm whatsoever.
But let’s finish today with some interesting thoughts from ‘R’: “Brexit isn’t the real problem, but a symptom of a much bigger issue that’s threatening democracy all around the world: globalism. This takes the work to where the cheap labour is or, as in the case of the EU, cheap labour to where the work is.”
“Globalism is widening the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, with the middle class slowly but surely being driven into the latter category. Globalists control the politicians who in turn create laws and encourage behaviour that undermines the people they govern. More often than not, these changes aren’t even announced, let alone explained properly.”
“Globalists support liberal/left of centre politics that creates laws which impact the ‘have nots” but seldom the ‘haves’, who can use their accumulated wealth to circumvent the consequences. Brexit has exposed globalism for what it truly is, and has highlighted the extent to which the elites are prepared to ride roughshod over the masses in order to get what they want. Democracy is truly at the crossroads!”
What happens now? And how much does it depend on the identity of next PM? One thing is certain, though. British politics certainly doesn’t stand still!
To repeat, many thanks again for your comments – please keep them coming on email@example.com