“Pound soars on Brexit hopes”

Recently the pound has rallied strongly against the dollar. I doubt though you’ll see my headline on the BBC!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

59 Comments

  1. Jerry
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    …nor on Sky News, or even ITV News and especially not on Ch4 News -best we not even touch the Free to Air non UK broadcasters beaming their even more europhile content into British homes, whilst the only channel that can be counted on to be europhobe means jumping into bed with that nice Mr Putin!

    • Anonymous
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      Jerry – The BBC has a duty to be impartial. Impartiality is in its charter because it is allowed to demand licences on pain of imprisonment, unlike any other broadcaster.

      In fact some 10% of magistrate court cases are for non payment of BBC licences.

      It is also the most widespread broadcaster – enabled by a government authorised tax which is quite unlike all the other broadcasters you mention.

      • Hope
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        When are you going to get rid of Cameron who encourages and makes threats to the people of this nation? I have never witnessed such open disgraceful treasonous conduct by any leader of any country.

        Reply Mr Cameron commands the support of a majority of MPs so he would win a motion of confidence in him were 50 Conservative MPs to exercise their right to require one. Even on the big topic of the EU where he is most at variance with his party he may succeed in getting just over half the Parliamentary party to agree with him over remaining, though the balance is dependent on a higher proportion of Ministers so agreeing.

        • Hope
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

          What does that say about Tory MP values? At least you are looking at the possibility.

        • The PrangWizard
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

          Reply to reply:

          Some may consider taking no action to show dismay with the leadership by Cameron as pragmatic, others as defeatist. I don’t know if the necessary 50 MPs are there, but as for the outcome, it is stating the obvious that debate is the basis of our parliamentary democracy, and MPs across the House enter debates knowing perfectly well they will be on the losing side, but stand up nevertheless.

          If there are 50 then surely they must act. What other opportunity is there for MPs to reflect what is a strong grassroots feeling? We have fixed term parliaments and votes of no confidence have effectively been abandoned enabling a government or a PM to act in an authoritarian manner and neither should be allowed to get away without challenge.

        • Vanessa
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

          Hope – I agree entirely. As a government which is supposed to represent the British public (in all its colours) it is supposed to be neutral and has NO RIGHT to campaign (with taxpayers’ money) to stay IN the EU. It is illegal and the judiciary should take him to task about it as I am sure it is written in the laws of referenda. How dare he use MY money to persuade others to stay IN the EU.

          • Hope
            Posted March 5, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

            Actually JR’s reply is irrelevant. Cameron is going and the Tories need to get a new leader before the next election. It might occur to them that after selling out his country, betraying the brave men who fought for freedoms he enjoys- even though he would never have the courage to stand up for the nation against Hollande or foreign leaders, offending all grass root supporters and associations, membership halved under him that they might need to get someone in ASAP before the party becomes irrelevant.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:10 am | Permalink

          @Mercia; Absolute rubbish, Thatcher helped give the EU the biggest kick-start ever, she could have effectively blocked it’s creation by refusing to sign the SEA, she could have effectively stalled the ERM etc (so putting back the Euro), judged by your condemnation of Cameron, Thatcher must have been even more “treacherous”, as she helped set up the monster that has become the present day EU.

          Oh and as for your comments about the media, and the need for MPs to be ‘in-touch’ with what their electors think, it just shows how out of touch and extreme your own politics is – but we knew that already considering the company you (allegedly, on your own admission) keep elsewhere…

        • Jerry
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

          @Mercia; OK, just read my comment as “Thatcher’s time” rather than just Thatcher, the conclusion is the same, the UK government from 4th May 1979 to 28 November 1990 did as much, if not more, damage to the UK by way of their interactions towards the EEC/EU as any government before or since and if you want to call earlier or latter PM’s and their governments actions in relation to the EEC/EU “treacherous” then you also need to do so to Thatchers time also.

          As for your reply about MPs needing to be in touch with those who vote for them, what ever…

      • Jerry
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        @Anonymous; “The BBC has a duty to be impartial.”

        How many more times do I have to repeat this, all broadcasters have a duty to be impartial, especially when elections or referenda have been called. It’s the law of the country, not just something written in a corporation or companies founding charter.

        How the broadcaster is funded is irrelevant, but if similar numbers defraud Sky of their rightful income then 10% of magistrate court cases would be for non payment of Sky subscription fees, thus your point was what exactly, other than to perhaps point out how many people in the UK are willing to break the law!

        “It is also the most widespread broadcaster – enabled by a government authorised tax which is quite unlike all the other broadcasters you mention.”

        Actually commercial TV (and radio, for that matter) is, as you have been told before, the fact that you don’t like the facts won’t change those facts. Otherwise feel free to tell us how we can avoid paying the advertising tax at the checkouts, a “tax” that even though with no use for a TV (the totally blind) have to pay, or people with no use for a radio have to pay (the stone death), even the death and blind…

        • Anonymous
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

          Jerry – You seem to have a bit of a temper on you.

        • Anonymous
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

          OK, Jerry. Then we’ll take your statement as being correct:

          That commercial TV (and radio) is more widespread than the BBC. Your statement proves that they are under represented in magistrates courts.

          Commercial TV has to persue its non-payers through the civil courts, hence their lower appearance than the BBC in magistrates courts.

          The BBC, however, is able to go straight to criminal prosecution.

          Therefore it has a far greater public service obligation to be impartial in politics.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

            Jerry

            I also think you are mixing up broadcasting standards with a need for impartiality.

            If I don’t wish to view Sky then I don’t subscribe to it. If I do wish to subscribe to Sky through a TV then I have to pay a license fee to the BBC whether I watch it or not (I don’t, as it happens.)

            This is like me saying to you that you must pay a fee to the Daily Mail if you wish to read the Guardian.

            How would you feel ?

            The BBC should not be taking an active and biased part in politics as it does and as has so clearly been shown by our host in this posting.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:59 am | Permalink

            Apologies to our host for the length, replying to two consecutive comments from the same person.

            @Anonymous; “The BBC, however, is able to go straight to criminal prosecution.

            Only because it is less easy to evade the ‘advertising tax’. But I think you will find that stealing from a shop goes straight to a criminal prosecution – and probably a lot quicker than any TVL fee evasion does, no polite letters from the stores management asking the customer to kindly pay the full amount at the checkout, no reminder letters to do so, no polite visits in person by a representative of the store to do likewise, not a shoplifter is down the nick, in court before that the first of the many TVL fee reminders gets delivered.

            “Therefore it has a far greater public service obligation to be impartial in politics.”

            Normally you might have a point, but we are talking about periods of elections and referenda, at such times there is no difference in the broadcasters obligations.

            “If I don’t wish to view Sky then I don’t subscribe to it”

            But you pay for the broadcasts from ITV, Ch4 and 5 (and their sister channels), and do so regardless of even owning a TV. In the same way you also pay some money to Sky by way of the paid-for adverts they carry.

            Also, how many more times, no one is being forced to watch broadcast TV, even less these days when news and much entertainment can be legally accessed via the internet (or Blu-ray players connected up to monitors rather than full TV’s). As has been pointed out before, if you chose to keep or use a motor vehicle on the public roads then you need to pay the relevant VED, even if you never drive it, never use the motorways, never use the A roads, that you might only travel 12 miles in any given month you still have to pay the full fee, no one has to buy a fishing licence (assuming still exist?) if they do not partake in the sport, the TV licence is just the same.

            “This is like me saying to you that you must pay a fee to the Daily Mail if you wish to read the Guardian.”

            As the Daily Mail, and Guardian both carry commercial adverts I probably do contribute towards their profits, even though I neither buy nor read either! Sorry @Anonymous but you really still do not seem to understand how commercial publications/broadcasting nor their advertising revenues work and who pays for it, even though you have been told before.

            “The BBC should not be taking an active and biased part in politics as it does”

            No UK licensed broadcaster (including those with only a EPG listing) should be showing any bias in their coverage of any party political elections or referenda here in the UK, it is the law, no broadcaster is more or less important in this regard.

            How ever you (and others) try and spin this as a “BBC problem” it is not, it is an industry-wide problem, if the BBC is going to be sanctioned for alleged bias then so too must others, perhaps by the loss of their broadcasting licences or some other restriction.

            The way this debate is going I wonder if our host now regrets using the BBC as the butt of his ‘joke’?!…

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

            What makes the BBC unique (Jerry @6.59) is the unique way it’s funded (as they keep telling us.)

            All of the advertised goods you mention can be avoided and I wouldn’t ever dream of shop lifting. So no problem there.

            I can do very little, however, to avoid paying the BBC license fee.

            As one that is allowed to call itself the *British* Broadcasting Corporation and which does have access to some many living rooms (whatever you say) it is especially obliged to show the way – and give a great example to other broadcasters – of political impartiality.

            One thing you do not deny, however, is that Mr Redwood was right to say that it was biased, so no. I doubt he regrets using the BBC as the butt of his joke.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

            Jerry @ 6.59 – If the ‘uniquely funded’ BBC cannot behave itself in a way ‘unique’ to the rest of the commercial channels – setting an example to them on how to broadcast impartially – then perhaps the licence should be scrapped.

            I see no reason why the BBC should be treated differently on recent performance.

            I also think your terse and impatient manner with me does nothing for your argument at all.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

            @Anonymous; “What makes the BBC unique is the unique way it’s funded”

            Not in relation to the laws regarding elections and referenda coverage – all broadcasters have the same duties and requirements, or should have, regardless how they are funded. The “unique” but different ways both the BBC and Sky are funded are irrelevance to the issue.

            I can do very little, however, to avoid paying the BBC license fee.”

            So just who’s forcing you to watch TV? Stop talking utter nonsense, you make yourself sound like you’re addicted to television!…

            I have fully licensed TVs that have barely been switched on in six weeks bar for occasionally watching a commercially bought DVD, I’m even managing to survive without having the BBC-P channel on in the background whilst I’m working, preferring CDs or the radio – and with the use of the internet I bet I’m just as up to date with regards the important world issues even if I don’t know who is dating who in Corrie or what ever.

            Oh and as for those advertised goods that “can be avoided”. Well that is a lot more difficult when you don’t know what to avoid, because it’s not always the goods or even the brand name, but the company who is making the product that one needs to know and that information is not printed on such products as supermarket own label goods for obvious reasons. As you would understand if you knew anything about the retail supply chain and how things like own label or secondary brands work. Not choosing to use a TV set, if you don’t want to comply with the law, is thus a lot easier in comparison.

            Oh and sorry if I sound terse and impatient, perhaps you should try actually understanding the issue you are arguing about rather than just using it to have another anti BBC rant – it’s even more annoying when the self same issues, with the self same facts, on this self same website were only debated a few weeks back. I think your next comment @Anonymous should be an apology to our host!

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

            Jerry – If Dr Redwood requires an apology from me then I shall give it.

            If the BBC expects to be uniquely funded then it had better behave uniquely.

            Neither your exhaustive explanation nor the “pound falls on news of Brexit” issued by the BBC convinces me that we should continue with a broadcaster calling itself British nor with a licence system enforceable under the criminal justice system.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

            @Anonymous; “If Dr Redwood requires an apology from me then I shall give it.”

            So doing the correct thing has to be dragged out of you on pains of perhaps being banned?! 😯
            What ever, but that still doesn’t change the fact that how ever many times you repeat your rant it will still be based on a factual lie, more so after you have been informed of the facts.

            “If the BBC expects to be uniquely funded then it had better behave uniquely.”

            OK have it your way on this “uniquely” funded nonsense – Sky is also “uniquely funded”, want to watch a single NON Sky (owned) subscription channel then you need to pay for at least the basic Sky package regardless of your wish to watch any of them [1] – I’ll take it then that you will now also condemn Sky for their political bias too, based solely on their unique method of funding?

            [1] otherwise tell me how to watch the Discovery Channel channels, for example, via satellite without first paying Sky rather than the owners of the Discovery Channel channels direct

            “broadcaster calling itself British nor with a licence system enforceable under the criminal justice system.”

            Perhaps that is why British Sky Broadcasting recently changed its name (back) to just “Sky”, after all it’s news service has had just as much bias, so all you need to achieve now is to make the defrauding them of their rightful and lawful income a non criminal offence, just as you wish to do for the BBC…

            etc ed

            Reply Most of us think there is a difference between having to pay a licence fee for the BBC because we have a tv, and taking out a subscription for Sky which we do not have to do just for owning a tv.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

            Reply to reply

            Thank you. And sorry for extending this exchange.

            Jerry does make some good points but seems to support the commercial method for funding the BBC – as do I.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

            @JR reply; “Most” being those who dislike the BBC, often for political reasons, hence all the brickbats accusing them of bias even though such bias is present on other channels too…

            Also, people have to pay for commercial TV even if they have no TV, so when are ITV, Ch4 and 5 going to have to become subscription services, when is Sky going to be banned from broadcasting paid for commercial advertising and thus not make people pay for a service they chose not to use?

            Oh and if having to pay for the privilege of using an item of personal property, regardless of how often (and where) or not it is actually used, perhaps having to in effect pay twice or up-front is so wrong in principle then I take it that people like you John will be pushing Mr Osborne to do the right thing come his budget a week on Wednesday with regards VED – abolish it and raise such taxes as are needed via fuel duty, thus people will only then need to pay for the miles they drive.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 5, 2016 at 6:22 am | Permalink

        A duty it ignores every single day. They hardly employ anyone who is not a pro EU, green crap believing, tax borrow and waste, magic money tree, second rate art graduate. It comes out in nearly every question they ask.

        Questions such as should the government not invest in such and such. When governments “invest” they always start by preventing (the usually far better) investments by others through over taxation of them. There “investments” are anything that someone sensible would consider to be an “investment”.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Indeed you will not hear it from the BBC, almost to a person they are for remaining in the anti-democratic EU’s death embrace. Their blatant bias is nauseating they might just succeed in burying the UK yet.

    Talking of nauseating and bias I see that Cameron fresh back from his Hollande “threats” jaunt has found a new sound bite “no Schengen, open door immigration” he says. So just plain “non Schengen open door immigration” then I suppose – open to the whole of the EU and the new countries about to join and with the minimum wage to go up hugely to attract them.

    “Yes to a reformed EU” he says what reform? There is none of any substance whatsoever. Nor is even that legally binding. He and Osborne must go, as soon as possible we need a Tory not tax borrow and waste, green crap, pro EU, wet Libdims to lead the Tories. The UK surely must now vote to leave and be rid of them.

    • zorro
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Doesn’t it make your heart leap (not) to see Cameron yesterday with Hollande…?…. Cameron was grinning like a Cheshire cat as Hollande issued veiled threats against the UK in his presence….. and Cameron was silent and smiling. This is the man who was saying that he would stand up for for Britain and all options were on the table if the terms weren’t good enough. I seriously think that he would have sold his mother into slavery if that was the deal to stay in the EU!

      Surely people will not be able to stomach any more set piece situations like that of a UK PM conspiring with foreign powers to neuter the UK’s ability/chance to effectively self govern as an independent nation?

      zorro

      • Hope
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        The Tory party needs to oust him from office for his disgraceful conduct. I cannot see anyone voting for a party who supports someone who behaves in such a traitorous way towards his fellow countrymen.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 5, 2016 at 6:27 am | Permalink

        It showed Cameron off in all his pathetic & disingenuous glory.

        He is unfit to be the leader of the Conservatives. He is clearly a pathetic, pro EU, greencrap subsidising, tax borrow and waste Libdim and a serial ratter.

    • Vanessa
      Posted March 5, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic – the BBC receive huge sums from the EU (on top of our licence fee) in the form of “loans”. So if they are a “good boy” and don’t say anything to upset the corrupt, greedy little puppets who run this “Union” they do NOT have to pay them back !!! Nice, eh? Also the BBC iplayer is available worldwide !!! WE pay for that luxury so the “World” can access the BBC website for free.

  3. Bob
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    “I doubt though you’ll see my headline on the BBC!” I doubt it too.
    I expect the BBC are currently negotiating with David Cameron to get a tax funded replacement for the TV Licence in exchange for promoting the “Britain Stronger in Europe” campaign.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      I would not at all be surprised, though doubtless it will not be done quite that blatantly.

      As soon a Cameron agreed to Lord Patten as chair of the trustees it was very clear that Cameron was not sound on the EU nor a real Conservative in any sense.

      • Bob
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

        @lifelogic

        ” it will not be done quite that blatantly”

        Don’t you believe it. And something else, Dave has so many of his BSE supporters lined up for peerages that they’re going to need a house extension due to overcrowding in the House of Lords.

  4. Pericles Xanthippou
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure the currency market is bouncing around aimlessly as it always does. Right about the headline.

    But what an astonishing spectacle: a Prime Minister, atttempting to induce another country with which the U.K. has a treaty or other agreement to violate it! Not actually levying war against the Queen in her realm, perhaps, but only a whisker short of it. That’s treason.

    Meanwhile Emperor Donald, in the vain hope of unwinding Queen Angela’s folly, is creeping around his palace whispering, “Don’t come to Europe!” Yes, well, good luck with that one.

    ΠΞ

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
      • Pericles Xanthippou
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

        Had completely forgotten praemunire; I looked up the statute and was surprised, I must say, to discover its having been repealed as recently as 1967 (Criminal Law Act).

        (Interesting site that Luminarium, of which I have made a note. Thank you, Mr. C.)

        ΠΞ

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 5, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

          You’re welcome!

  5. Mick
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    You are more likely to meet a man from Mars pushing a wheelbarrow full of horse droppings than that?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      rocking horse droppings would that be?

      • Mick
        Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        ? nice one

  6. JoeSoap
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    No gold is rallying now on fear of brexit. Keep up!

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    To me Brexit looks ever more likely by the day. The more one sees of Cameron, Osborne, Hammond, Javid, Mandleson, Corbyn, Liz Truss, May, turn coat Hague and finger up the bottom, but we want a serious debate Anna Soubry, then the more the leave vote will surely grow.

    Their operation fear is just pathetic, they have no sound arguments to put, nor any reform to point to nor any way to restore border controls or democracy while remaining.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Well it depends on the motivation to vote of the “don’t knows”. Will they stay clear because they have been fed with baloney and fear, or will they turn up and vote for the status quo? My guess is the former, which could tip us over the line.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

      Also in the event of a “No” it will be interesting to see how these turncoats take stock of themselves. I can see Javid, May and Co exclaiming they were always “Outers” really, but declared “in” for the sake of loyalty and cabinet unity.
      We really need to make sure they are “out” from anything to do with power.

  8. Antisthenes
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    There are not enough words to accurately describe how low our moral compasses have descended. WIt must be if the BBC can repeat unsubstantiated claims to further their biased views and aid the vested interests they support. Usually if is for the lefties, progressives and the climate change scammers now they have added the remain in group.

    Once a lie is told and then proven to be false they do not retract or apologies to put the record straight as they are obliged to do. This type of behaviour is endemic in so many of us. The PM and his remain in cronies are all guilty of the same to their shame. Politics and the MSM have sunk to new low depths of decency and honesty that would not have seemed possible a few decades ago.

    Not just politics and the MSM but society as a whole have followed them down thanks to the left being allowed free rein to indoctrinate us all with their ideology. Now mediocrity, dishonesty, corruption, incompetence and amoral behaviour and so many more bad things are not punished or at least shunned and discouraged. No instead they are positively encouraged and even admired.

  9. agricola
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    The exchange rate is not a thermometer of stay or leave. It is mostly a means of making a profit. Prices of commodities reflect demand from time to time. At the moment Gold is on the way up. Perhaps people judge that tangible assets are worth more than currency.

    The Dollar / Pound was 1.559 in July 2015; 1.449 on 8th February; 1.376 on 22nd February. Now it is about 1.41. Politically it might have more to do with the potential success or failure of Trump or Clinton and be nothing to do with Brexit.

    The Euro / Pound was 1.41 in December 2015. It later hit a low of 1.26 and is now 1.28. I cannot assign any political event to this, rather it might be the exchange that has decided to engineer a profit.

    My instinct is that exchange rates only reflect politics in extremis. Any excuse to mark a currency up or down. This is where money is made.

    Soaring for me is hitting a 10Knot thermal and taking it to cloud base at 10,000 feet.

    Reply Today’s post was a tease to show how silly the Remain argument was!

  10. alan jutson
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Stock market has risen as well !!!!!

  11. Anonymous
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Yet the only person to call the BBC biased to its face was left to hang out to dry on his own !

  12. hefner
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    What about the trade-weighted one over the last year? Nothing to do with Brexit for sure, not brilliant all the same: -5.9%
    Nothing to crow about.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 5, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      But also nothing to get alarmed about.

  13. alan jutson
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    It has been reported recently that the Swiss Government has withdrawn its option to join the EU which has been on file for many years.

    If true perhaps slowly, slowly the World is starting to realise that the EU has had its day.

    News does not seem to have hit the main media yet.

  14. ian
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    The markets are rigged, so I do not know what diffidence it makes and have been since the eighties, to get it right 1988.

  15. Kenneth
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    John, you’ve caught the BBC red-handed (yet again)

  16. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    How many times do I have to strongly advise against reading too much into short term fluctuations of the exchange rate of sterling against one other currency?

    🙂

  17. Pericles Xanthippou
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Meanwhile, despite the formation of what appeared at first to be a comprehensive umbrella group — Grassroots Out — there are still far too many spokesmen for the British side, often contradicting one another: a complete lack of unity.

    The umbrella group seems to be just that: in the shade! (Umbra L.: shadow.) Brexiteers: there’s no ‘I’ in team; get your act together … now! Double up!

    ΠΞ

  18. Margaret
    Posted March 4, 2016 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Does it matter? I can see the mixing of people and circumstance is already happening, The twisters and deliberate damagers are at it again , but a chink of light is coming through as the truth is coming out and people can actually see where and how the collapse of GB and the more recent financial collapse happened. There is nothing more uplifting when people actually witness what others have been experiencing and tell the truth.

  19. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:22 am | Permalink

    What comes down must go up?!

  20. Dr David Hill
    Posted March 7, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Churchill would have told us to keep ‘OUT’. For what Churchill said about the EU (or should I say its forerunner) and fully verifiable was as follows.

    Indeed, for those who cite Churchill as a mover for the EU, this is what he said.
    He said that GB “must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe” but did not envisage the UK being part of the EU.

    Indeed in the House of Commons on 11th May 1953, he said:
    “We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it.

    We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

    If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always chose the open sea.”

    Therefore even Churchill would not surrender our Sovereignty.

    But people need to know the right information about the EU and where all manner of industries are held back with EU red tape. For once we sign into the EU this time, we will certainly be told what we can and cannot do by the EU, even if they wished the UK to take 1 million migrants a year and we would under EU law have to accept it.

    Therefore it is about time that people opened up their minds/eyes to the truth, as once we sign up to the EU this time, it is irrevocable and therefore forever, as it is enshrined EU law and we can never come out unless we wish the EU to sue us under their laws and make the UK completely bankrupt. As they certainly would if we did., as they have no love of the UK, only its money (£55 million a day).

    But for all those who wish to stay in the EU, they do not understand the EU system dynamics and what they are supporting with their uneducated ‘In’ vote. For the myth that the EU accounts are signed off is true if you believe in unreliable accounts, but untrue if you believe in accounts have to be fully transparent and not corrupted. How can this dichotomy be right? etc ed

    • Jon Danzig
      Posted March 13, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      @DrDavidHill – the quote you claim Churchill said in Parliament in May 1953 is actually a fabrication, made up of two different quotes said by Churchill at different times and in different contexts, then stitched together to falsely claim he said this in Parliament. This is unfortunately a deception, as well as representing a betrayal of our greatest war leader.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page