The Darkest hour

I saw this film on Saturday. It was a moving reminder of how dire the UK position was in 1940, and how brave were the people and their new Prime Minister in deciding to fight on against the odds.

The film portrayed a very human Churchill. They saw him as a man who drank too much, was often tough and thoughtless towards his staff, and who was capable of bad misjudgements. They also captured the strength of mind and character which grasped both how bad the position was, and how despite that knew ultimate victory was possible. He had consistently warned of the dangers from Germany during the 1930’s and understood instinctively that you could not reach a friendly agreement with an evil dictator.

The UK establishment had once again let the country down. It had plunged it into a war with a small and insufficiently equipped army which they put at risk on the continent, just as they had done in 1914. As Churchill assumed office they told him the whole army was likely to be killed or forced to surrender. Having accomplished this dreadful feat, they switched to thinking  facing defeat would be a good time to sue for peace. They thought Hitler might offer an enfeebled UK with no army a good deal, when the history  of the previous few years showed you could not trust his word and should expect him to continue  conquering and occupying countries including our own.

Churchill agonised over the pressures on him to seek a negotiated peace, before he realised that the  public would back his  belief  that the only course was to fight for our freedom. Many of us are so grateful that Churchill and our parents and grandparents decided to sacrifice six years of their lives and to risk untimely death  to driving the hatred and violence out of the world by defeating its  authors.The film got across so well the common sense and determination of the people, in contrast to the rash stupidity of some of the  establishment. It used Churchill s own wonderful words to show he spoke for the majority in a way which defeated or disarmed his many critics amongst the senior politicians and officials.

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

229 Comments

  1. Duncan
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Ah yes, we see what you’ve done there. A not so subtle comparison made to contemporary political developments are apt, relevant and poignant.

    The comparison between those tumultuous events many decades ago and the current travails the UK face today expose the paucity of intelligence, wisdom, courage, integrity, decency and faith of today’s political and bureaucratic elite.

    The Tory party of today still yearn for another great leader with vision, courage and an unyielding conviction to the right way forward. Unfortunately we appeared to have been handed two people whose belief in the UK and its people is close to zero

    Even now, I cannot understand how Tory MPs can elect a person whose political demeanour and stance is so liberal left and pro-EU as to be offensive. It is incumbent on the party and its clan at Westminster to elect a person with a defiance and determination to confront the EU and the strengthening forces of the extreme left.

  2. Andy
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    How Churchill would be turning in his grave if he could see what his party has done to his country today.

    Britain reduced to a rump. An international joke by the mis-ruling Conservatives.

    Energy minister Claire Perry describing the extremists in her own party as ‘swivel-eyed’ – and pointing out that they are mostly mortgage-free men of retirement age. And so say all of us.

    • John Soper
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:23 am | Permalink

      Churchill, and Thatcher too. Politicians who would never have dreamed of reducing Britain to an inward-looking irrelevance

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:33 am | Permalink

      No she didn’t. She described some Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs in that way. She’d do well to remember that that minority of Conservative MPs represent a large majority of Conservative members of both genders, and a majority of the referendum voters of all ages and parties. If she really wanted to moan about men being over-represented she’d do better to complain about Jeremy Corbyn’s Momentum chums who have filled almost all their leadership positions with men.

      • rose
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        I think she meant people who had written to their MPs.

        Token women like her should remember that swivel eyed old men etc. have wives, mothers, girlfriends, daughters, grand daughters, nieces, etc. who don’t take kindly to their menfolk being insulted in in this way.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:55 am | Permalink

      Of Claire Perry (another geography graduate full of the climate alarmist religion) wiki says:-

      She was educated at Nailsea School and Brasenose College, Oxford, where she read Geography, graduating from Oxford University in 1985. One of her contemporaries at Brasenose was journalist George Monbiot, who described her in his column for The Guardian as, at the time, “a firebrand who wanted to nationalise the banks and overthrow capitalism”.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:16 am | Permalink

        Her lefty, pro EU, climate alarmist boss Greg Clark was president of Cambridge University Social Democrats too. What are all these dopes doing in the Tory Party?

    • Ian Wragg.
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      Thanks for the bunker mentality perspective.
      We are not the swivel eyed loons we are the true internationalists.
      I see Trump has exposed the EU for the anti fair trade protectionist outfit it really is.
      I hope he goes ahead with his retaliatory tariffs on EU goods which will flush out the truth.
      Where is our Churchill when we need him.
      All we have is a pale Chamberlain.

      • Chris
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

        Trump was superb, with his outline of a new economic model of economic nationalism. The business leaders were apparently listening closely to him. They are not stupid. They see where the money is going, and in the first year of Trump’s America there is huge inflow of capital back to the US. It was the EU bureaucrats who were uncomfortable and alarmed apparently as of course they are following an out of date model, which is both detrimental to the people and unacceptable to so many.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

          Read May’s Davos speech if you want to be depressed (or put to sleep). Who on earth wrote it?

        • alan jutson
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

          Chris

          The EU are already running scared for when Trump starts Trade negotiations with them.
          He knows he has a good hand and will play it, not like us who seem to have just thrown in the cards.

          Agree he gave a very good and measured speech in Davos.

    • Richard1
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      In fairness to her she has reportedly heard other colleagues described by Brexiteer MPs as ‘traitors’. Such language, if it has been used, is very silly. I cannot imagine JR using it.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        It is however accurate.

        • Richard1
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

          No its overuse – like ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ by the left, diminishes the term.

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        A good politician has a repertoire to fit his market strategy. I am sure mr Redwood would be capable of any form of abuse that the occasion would require and that would probably exclude silly emotional attacks on colleagues who would probably not be impressed by juvenile language.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        I re-read Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech from last January and I look at where we are now a year later and I do feel betrayed, so what word should I choose to describe those responsible?

        • rose
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

          I was very unhappy at that time about the introduction of the intention to have an implementation period. I couldn’t see why we needed more than the two years already committed and feared no good would come of it.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 9:17 am | Permalink

            At that time I viewed the proposed implementation period in the same light as the transitional provisions which are often written into international treaties in order to smooth the change from the existing scenario to the new scenario. That was before people started the oxymoronic nonsense of a “standstill” or “status quo” transition, which has now also been adopted by the EU.

      • mancunius
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        Certainly the word ‘traitor’ is very strong: it implies an ideological and idealistic political stance that is entirely absent from the craven cultural cringe and self-serving behaviour of those who confer conspire with our nation’s enemies to subvert the democratic vote.

        The word ‘Quisling’ would be far more appropriate.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

          Indeed.

        • stred
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

          ‘Quisling’ could be called out as unfair because he was a Norwegian count who collaborated with the enemy during wartime. The YK is only in an economic and political war with an enemy which is trying to punish us and keep taking as much badly needed taxes as they can extort. Collaboration means ‘working together with an is a perfect description of the stated intentions and action of Blair, Clegg, Mandleson, Kerr, and Adonis among others. The Tory collaborators are careful to support Brexit in name but also travel to meet their co-collaborators in Brussels and elsewhere, as when Barnier gave his speech about the UK welching on security in Germany and was accompanied by the Irish PM and Mandleson. Soon after we had the nonsense of the Irish border necessitating EU regulatory control over all products. Whenever May is under threat, the Commission suddenly speeds the process up and it is noticeable that they need to have her in place. Civil servants are also in touch with their opposite numbers when agreeing the wording of statements and speeches.

          The word ‘collaborator’ is undeniable and puts over the meaning better than ‘traitor’. It also may remind collaborators about the seriousness of the charge, should a future government wish to adopt the same view as to their fate as France and Norway.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      The EU supporters , though priding themselves on their superiority and intellect, seem to exist in the gutter , for whenever pushed they immediately retreat to juvenile name calling, for they have called EUsceptics bastards, bigots, xenophobes, racists, swiveled eyed closet racists, fruit cases loons and closet racists, and of course little Englanders. Claire Perry added to the list and called us Jihadists, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that she calls us ‘swiveled eyed’ as well. I suppose the EU supporters have to retreat to name calling as they haven’t got any argument to make in the support of their project.

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

        Define “us” and “EU supporters”.

      • Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        Well said, Iain. And it is odd, is it not, that we don’t hear any cogent argument put forward by Remainers in an attempt (even if vain) to make us see their point of view? As you say, there is name calling and hysterical abuse of those of us who are proud to put our country first. Any points they raise seem to relate to their own financial concerns.
        What a pity that we can’t all be fighting for our country, if only on these pages. What selfish and short-sighted cowards these remainers seem to be.

    • Edward2
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      “And so say all of us”….what you actually mean young Andy is….”we few extremist remainers”

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        Andy may be in a majority, according to recent polling. So maybe your assessment is not correct. Incidentally, no one believes that there is a way back for the UK unless via art 49. Also, the intra Party dynamics and the decision making structure of the EU will almost certainly lead to the result that the UK will have no useful response to the EU negotiating mandate to be released today and that the communications that will follow will lead to a stable future relationship. Reasons: current UK government lacks credibility as long as it tolerates open conflict within its own ranks and more importantly, the EU member states will not be able to agree on anything outside that negotiating mandate. The result will be a stalemate until March 2019 followed by radical “exit”. That is, if the UK population lets a leadership contest in the name of Brexit purety get in the way of governing.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

          I think young Andy is way to the left of Clegg Soubry Chucka Clarke Hesstletine and similar hard Brexiteers.
          That is why I said he was in an extremist and in a minority.
          Had his views been mainstream even amongst those who voted remain then the Greens and Lib Dems should have gained great support at the last election.
          But they did not.
          We know the result of the referendum but it is in the past.

    • Nig l
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:59 am | Permalink

      It should not be forgotten that the NHS was first proposed by Beverage in 1942 under Churchill’s watch and would have been introduced by him if he had not lost the 1945 election although what form we will never know. Attlee took it on with Bevan it’s architect. He admitted he had stuffed the medical profession ‘with gold’ to buy their support and we still see the divisive nature of that today with Consultants contracts and their private work. Even then he was complaining about the vast cost against the proposed budget. This should be remembered whenever Labour crow that the NHS is ‘theirs’.

      • getahead
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        Did not Beverage intend that National Insurance money should be banked before the commencement of spending on the State Pension? This was changed by Attlee who started paying out from taxes which has led to the pensions deficit we have today. Was NHS spending also started too early?

    • Anonymous
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      He would have started turning in his grave about fifty years ago, if truth be known, Andy.

      There is a lot more for him to be het up about than Brexit.

    • libertarian
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      Andy

      That would be the Churchill that absolutely did not want to join the EEC although he thought it was a good idea for the 5

      You are a parody , most of the remainers in parliament are also mortgage free of retirement age too, so your point is totally pathetic…

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Strange that this Andy is not bothered about the blatant political incorrectness of her comments on at least three counts – age, gender, disability – when if a man had said something similar about young women he would no doubt have been up in arms on their behalf … it’s all a bit selective. But I think my main concern is how it seems that there is no longer any such thing as a private communication, some weasel or other will always go sneaking off to the media, either from malice or for money.

    • graham1946
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      ‘Men of retirement age’.

      That’s a laugh. The’extremist’ Remainers in the Lords threatening democracy all seem to be aged about 80 and not much sign of mortgage or financial difficulties there. Perhaps you despise them as well. How about your Mum and Dad. Do you hold them in contempt as well? Such a shallow and view of life all bitter and twisted. You could be happy with a different outlook.

    • acorn
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      Until the Referendum – or at least until the Article 50 letter – Britain could keep going round these endless loops of brassy, breezy optimism (‘they need us more than we need them’ and variants thereof) and sullen, lachrymose victimhood (‘ordinary folk done down by the EUSSR and the establishment’). That won’t do now that Brexit is happening, and happening very soon. Brexiters love to say that the refusal of ‘remoaners’ to accept Brexit is undermining the country in the EU negotiations but the reality is that what makes Britain ridiculous – and incomprehensible – to the EU is, precisely, the deep-rooted inability of Brexiters to accept Brexit.

      For Brexiters are no longer – if they ever were – the insurgents. Now, they drive government policy and are in the key positions of authority to deliver Brexit. And that has exposed both their completely inadequate grasp of the practicalities of what Brexit means and their psychological aversion to taking responsibility for it

      • Jagman84
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        “Now, they drive government policy and are in the key positions of authority to deliver Brexit”.

        I do not wish to be rude but do you inhabit an alternative reality? To call May and Hammond ‘Brexiteers’ is stretching the definition somewhat! The main Conservative Leavers have been marginalised and undermined by the PM and Chancellor. That is the root of most of the concerns expressed on this blog.

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

        Brexiters love to say that the refusal of ‘remoaners’ to accept Brexit is undermining the country in the EU negotiations but the reality is that what makes Britain ridiculous – and incomprehensible – to the EU is, precisely, the deep-rooted inability of Brexiters to accept Brexit.

        We can never know Acorn how our proper departure may have turned out had we negotiated from a united position of what’s best for us and EU (you) instead of the divided position those wishing to remain have projected.

        Had we been as united behind our negotiators as the EU 27 are behind theirs we may have got a reasonable outcome. We had a strong position from which to negotiate.

      • Alison
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

        Quick reply to acorn (3:47 pm), 2nd para: Sadly, Brexiters do not drive government policy. Brexiters make up a quarter of the cabinet; deep-seated remainers such as Mr Hammond make up three quarters. Brexiters are simply not in the key positions of authority to deliver Brexit as it should be delivered. It also seems that unelected civil servants are doing a lot of the steering – away from the expressed will of the people, both in the referendum and in the 2017 general election, via the manifestos of the two largest parties.

        Therein lies the core of the problem, alongside the weakness of Mrs May.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink

        Quite the opposite acorn.
        Leaving the EU is a straightforward.task.
        It is being derailed and deliberately made complicated by the many remain supporting establishment figures in Parliament, in the civil service and in the London media.

        • acorn
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 7:40 am | Permalink

          Chris Grey at The Brexit Blog put it perfectly. “But I think there is something deeper here than Farage’s ego. There is a significant strand of Brexiter thinking, exemplified by Farage, which is besotted with a self-pitying sense of victimhood.

          For these people, winning the Referendum was actually a catastrophe, taking away their victim status and requiring them to do something quite hateful to them: to take responsibility for delivering what they said they wanted and which they claimed would be easy.

          It is that which accounts for the way that since the Referendum they have continually acted as if they were still fighting it.”

          • Edward2
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 11:23 am | Permalink

            Switch your post to apply to remain supporters and it applies even better acorn.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      Climate alarmist Perry clearly has no understanding of science, logic or energy engineering. She is a climate alarmist of the worse type. Replace her with someone sensible (with the requisite skills). A Peter Lilley type please.

      Everyone sensible now knows that climate alarmism is a cross between a new religion and gigantic subsidy seeking fraud against tax payers. Still no significant warming since 1998.

  3. Peter Wood
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Dr. Redwood, to make the obvious comparison; we certainly have our Chamberlain, but where is our Churchill? JRM?

  4. sm
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    At the time of the 1975 Referendum, I was a young mother and housewife, busy caring for elderly parents and a disabled sister-in-law, and with the only source of news being the TV, a daily paper and The Sunday Times; I voted (reluctantly) to stay in what we were led to believe to be a trading agreement with the EEC.

    By the time of Maastricht, I had more personal time and so became very involved with politics at a voluntary level, closely following the whole argument and the dramatic challenge to Mr Major. I was convinced by the arguments of John and others that the EU was a bad idea for Europe and a worse idea for the UK.

    In the years since, I have read more about the history of the EU concept and of course can now follow arguments (from all sides) online. Contrary to the latest nasty accusations by some Remainers that the elderly Leavers are stupid, greedy and selfish, I had a good education, worked in businesses both large and small, and have children and grandchildren whose future wellbeing is vastly more important to me than my own.

    I am in utter despair at the current state of negotiations between our Government and Brussels. I don’t believe every hysterical news item, I do not for one moment think that leaving the EU is an easy task, and I do not wish misfortune upon our European neighbours (my background is completely European), but I do believe that it is time for the introduction of a complete new UK negotiating team. It is too risky politically to replace Mrs May at this time, but sending a strong ‘Stage Two’ team to Brussels is perhaps the only way out of this disaster.

    Please excuse the length of this response, but I feel we are living in a nightmare.

  5. Newmania
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    The young servicemen and women , several of my family , did the dying and sacrificing, the very people who are subject to political subjugation by the old right now. They came home and voted to get rid of Churchill in their millions, notably founding the NHS . They fought against a Fascist regime whose supposed” Will of the people ( Volk) “ lead the to the worst evil imaginable and which still colours of view of excessive Nationalism
    The carnage of the second world war brought many across Europe to the view that there must be another way and it is this noble ideal, and realisation that Europe must recover , that lead , ultimately to the E U .
    Incidentally the Nazis used Plebiscites to cement their power on several occasions , in fact it is a device often used by Fascist , who wish to respect the form of democracy whilst undermining its true meaning .

    • formula57
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:08 am | Permalink

      @ Newmania – Would there be any crossover at all I wonder between the two groups to whom you refer, the “young servicemen and women” who of course gave and learnt so much in those dark days and ” the old right now”?

    • David Cockburn
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      I you had also seen the ‘Darkest Hour’ movie you would have seen that it was nationalism, loyalty to country, that saved Britain from invasion by Nazis.
      Surprisingly, for a modern movie, it was quite truthful, conveyed the atmosphere of the time (as described to me by my mother) and was not full of modern tropes. The presence of the black man on the tube has been criticised but it was representative of the huge African, Caribbean, Indian and other empire help given to Britain.

    • Man of Kent
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      The service men did indeed voteChurchill out . Not because of a fight back against nationalism , although there was an influence from the Education Corps , but mainly due to the success of the coalition government and the centrally planned war effort .
      The feeling was much more ‘ we have won using these methods let’s do it again in the peace ‘ .

      Sadly the Labour Government was not up to the task .
      Rationing was worse in 1947 than at anytime during the war .
      The Marshall Aid was spent not on factories but on nationalising health.
      The USA was not prepared to lend us more for more nationalisation.
      By 1950 the people had seen enough and Labour’s majority was slashed,with Churchill back in power the next year.

      Yes referenda were used by the Nazis but here the history has been quite different.
      Regional governments recommended by the EU were rejected ,as was AVPR recently, and most spectacularly Brexit won against all the government ‘s best efforts to cement power.

    • Duncan
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      This is what happens when you start reading the Guardian. What a sad indictment of our nation that it should produce people with such a warped perception of events

      Playing the fascist card against democrats really is pathetic

      Anyone who voted during the EU referendum affirmed by their decision to vote and participate the legitimacy of that referendum. To then decry the use of plebiscite and indeed the referendum itself simply because you discover you’re on the losing side is deeply disturbing and reveals the totalitarian heart of the remain side

      You lost, accept it and get on with your life

      • Alison
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

        Dear Duncan, I am afraid Remainers have not accepted that they lost. Indeed, increasingly they believe they are winning and will win. Tory and Labour Remainer MPs are now emboldened to speak, argue, amend and vote as Remainers, ignoring the promise to represent the will of the people, and to deliver Brexit effectively and efficiently. Seemingly those in Leave-voting areas are not afraid of their constituents.

        I think it is crucial that we as individuals harangue, remind and re-state, simply and clearly, why it is critical for the UK to leave the EU (Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ).

      • LenD
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 3:49 am | Permalink

        No Duncan..we were badly advised..badly lied to and so now we’re in this fix..we really have no option but to have some ki d of a trade deal with the EU..if there were any other options out there don’t you think we would have heard all about it by now from Fox and Boris..the bottom line is we are screwed and Barnier is starting to turn the screw..we’ll be lucky if we end up with some kind of a Norway plus deal..the EU side hold all of the cards

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      Post the second world war the state sector was not cut back to a sensible size and this has held back the economy massively ever since.

      The virtual state monopolies in heath and education have clearly been hugely damaging. Freedom to choose (and on a level playing field) is what is needed. Freedom for people so spend their own money as they choose.

      If you cannot do this why bother to earn it?

    • Richard1
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      The first party to suggest an in/out EU referendum were the LibDems under clegg – fascists? Switzerland, probably the most democratic country in the world, has them the whole time.

      You are right that Labour got swept in in 1945 and, inter alia, founded the NHS. In retrospect it would be better if they hadn’t been. the 1945 Govt, whilst it did many good things, such as establishing NATO and Developing the UKs independent nuclear deterrent, also nationalised swathes of industry causing decades of economic stagnation and conflict. And who now really thinks the NHS deliverers better healthcare outcomes than the mixed systems seen everywhere else in Europe? But
      Your broad conclusion is surely correct – WW2 led to the belief that only a supranational european Govt to which independent states are subordinated could avoid war. But the pro EU side in the U.K. have always mistakenly (or mendaciously) made out that it’s all about trade. That’s the nub of the problem, and it was inevitable that at some point this would come out in public debate, as has now happened.

    • Ian Wragg.
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      Presumably your relatives would be happy to be ruled by a Franco German axis. Thought not.

      • hans chr iversen
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

        Ian,

        Why, don’t you read what people write before you answer in teh total other direction?

    • stred
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      Churchill would have turned in his grave if he had read the posts by the above two versions of the appeasers he had to overcome in 1939. He had to return after they took back control in 1945 and the ‘old right’ brought the country back and built more council houses than the socialists while making the economy expand.

      • Newmania
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        The appeasers as you put it ,( rather unfairly and a-historically in my own view by the way), were chiefly the Conservative Party which was one of the reasons for their post war defeat.
        Ian that is just so ridiculous I wish you with draw the absurd comparison.
        Whilst I am bragging if I could explain , my father was very much younger than his brothers and while he spent the war at school , three of his brothers were in the Navy Army and Naval Air Support . They were named after the three men who had dragged their own father out of no mans land at the Somme( at night after he had been shot in the shoulder). H e did not regain the use of his arm but was of course exceedingly lucky to survive at all. He died before I was born

        I need hardly say that I am a cowardy-custard myself but I do rather resent Brexit seeking to associate itself with the heroes of this time. They have no greater investment in this country than anyone else and the servicemen came home with a spirit that is as far from Brexit as I am .

    • Edward2
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      Trying to wipe out the individual nation state in Europe and replacing it with a united states of Europe could well lead to more conflict not less.

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        We are a very long way off a United States of Europe. No EU member wants that, as far as I know. It is an anti-EU propaganda item.

        • Jagman84
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

          Do you mean like an EU army? I remember it being described, by Sir Nick Clegg, as ‘a dangerous fantasy’.

          • Rien Huizer
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

            There is no EU army and not likely to be one. There is a EU effort to better integrate EU member states defence forces and especially EU member states procurement. There is as you may know, an incredible amount of waste by too many nationalist weaknesses. And all of this takes place in alignment with NATO. There is a lot of noise about this (US defence contractors do not like competition but they will have their share too and the end result will be good for the taxpayer. Even BAE may benefit..

        • Know-Dice
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          But there are five presidents that do…

        • anon
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

          “ever closer union” in the treaty foreword.

          The only time the union moved in an opposite direction is by writing an article 50.

        • mancunius
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

          Stop pretending – you know very well that it is the avowed aim of the EU, and always was. And many European politicians (von der Leyen, Verhofstadt, Macron, Schulz) have no qualms about using the phrase ‘United States of Europe’ as their goal.
          Just google ‘États-Unis d’Europe’, Vereinigte Staaten von Europa’ or ‘United States of Europe’. Best to google all three, to build up a full picture. It is what the Treaty of Rome was all about.
          Of course, no EU member state will ever dare to ask its own people if they want it or not 😉
          It’s enough that the EU’s leaders and elites further it:
          A single EU Finance Minister; a limitless debt-union (advocated by Macron); eurobonds (advocated by Hollande) and a banking union; a single foreign policy, and an EU army – whose detailed plans were scooped by the German FAZ in April 2016, in a leaked report.

          If it quacks like a duck…

        • Alison
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

          Rien, as far as I know no EU member has expressly stated that it wants a US of Europe. Martin Schulz, possibly to be a powerful minister in the new German coalition government (if the talks finally succeed), has explicitly said multiple times that he wants a US of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen too, in 2011
          http://www.economist.com/node/21528283
          (last line, penultimate para)
          Key officials of the European Commission want a US of E, most visibly perhaps Juncker (a bit more cautious in his words just now), Selmayr. Not forgetting, in the EU Parliament, president Verhofstadt, author of “The United States of Europe” (2006). And they put together plans and actions to realize a US of E. A ‘United States of Europe’ is not an EU propaganda item, it is the aim of these individuals, politicians. A few years ago you will remember a lot of the talk was whether the EU integration would happen via greater euro zone integration first, or cover all the then 27 EU members (or leave some out).
          And of course, the documents released at last from the UK National Archives where Heath’s officials acknowledged internally that the EEC inevitably meant a federal Europe. I wasn’t quite old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum, but I followed the campaigning, and the electorate was lied to.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:42 am | Permalink

          You really believe that Rien ?
          It is mainstream EU policy for the EU to become the United States of Europe.
          Read the five Presidents report as just one example of many.

      • Mitchel
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        The film we watched,on DVD, at the weekend was the 2008 German production “Baader-Meinhof Complex”-a shockingly brilliant account of the exploits of that radical group.Factually accurate,superbly acted and totally immersive in it’s graphic portrayal of the group’s violence and intense internal political debate.

        And a chilling reminder of what happens,in extremis, when opposition goes “extraparliamentary”,even in a civilised,denazified West Germany.An astonishing 30% of under 30s at the time apparently supported their programme of targeted assassination of judges,bankers and industrialists and bombings of US military bases in Germany.

    • Anonymous
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      Newmania – WW2 was the third (or was it fourth) time that Germans had tried to expand into surrounding European territories by military force.

      After the war peace was kept not by the EU but by NATO and Russia keeping Germany divided.

      It is since reunification that we have felt our own country being absorbed into a German dominated superstate.

      There is no comparison between ‘Nazis’ and Brexit voters. On the one hand you keep telling us we’re little Englanders – now you’re telling us we’re expansionists.

      Incidentally I notice the historical rewriting of late. WW2 attrocities were the fault of ‘Nazis’. Germany is never mentioned. She gets off scot free.

      I have read the speeches of Churchill and Truman on the *German* surrender. There is not one mention of the word *Nazi*.

      We were at war with the Germans. This is a vitally important distinction and you are being dishonest in not making it.

      • Anonymous
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        Incidentally – I found a citation of my Grandad’s a few weeks back. He shot down a Stuka with his Lewis gun and survived the war after fighting in both the European and Asian theatres. He was RSM by 1946 (REME)

        Just for interest.

        (He never called Germans ‘Nazis’ either.)

      • Andy
        Posted January 31, 2018 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

        If you read John Rohl’s biography of the Kaiser you soon begin to appreciate that German Foreign Policy objectives haven’t changed in 150 years. They want hegemony over all Europe and this time they are using money and ‘the four freedoms’ to get it.

    • David Murfin
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:59 am | Permalink

      They did vote him in again after five years of continued rationing.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

      • jerry
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:41 am | Permalink

        @David Murfin; Rationing that the country would have had who ever was elected in 1945.

        • Ian Wragg.
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          But it went on until 1953. I remember it well.

          • jerry
            Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

            @Ian Wragg; Rather my point!

          • mancunius
            Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

            Until July 1954, actually, Ian: that was when meat rationing *officially* ended. And even after that, there were severe and frequent local and national meat and dairy shortages and high prices until years later. It was imported Australian and New Zealand butter that helped make it affordable and available. (And we were so grateful, we just kicked them and their products in the teeth a few years later in our EEC agreement. I’m amazed they even speak to us.)

    • jerry
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:12 am | Permalink

      @Newmania; To be fair, it was also the generation who voted Churchill back in to government in 1951, with their manifesto pledge to undo some of the more damaging excesses of the Atlee government, and then kept the Tories in government until 1964.

      Also do not forget that the post-war welfare state, housing and the NHS etc. had become cross-party peace time commitments during the war, they would have happened who ever had won in ’45. It became known as the “post war consensus”, extant until 1979.

    • Hmmm
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      So you think EU is unconnected to Third Reich? Hmmm.

      • hans chr iversen
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        yes, I totally do

        the Dane

        • mancunius
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

          Well, as the New Yorkers say: May God bless you.

        • stred
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

          Congratulations to the Danes for refusing to join Mogherinis Army. For this reason, I have exempted Denmark from my personal ban on EU produce and still buy Danish tinned ham. If only we could tell them where to stick your overpriced offshore wind turbines.

    • Lara
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      ( The Electorate ? )”notably founding the NHS”
      “…second world war brought many across Europe to the view that there must be another way and it is this noble ideal, and realisation that Europe must recover , that lead , ultimately to the E U .”
      The strength of your idea ordinary people “founding” and ” many across Europe” is lovely.
      It reminds me of the very formal dance in the film Dr Zhivago when Omar Sharif who was the Doctor, looking at a Bolshevik banner reading and demanding “Peace ,Land, Bread” thought such sentiments noble.
      Of course, ordinary people just did the marching. Ordinary people here can march too.
      In reality, the EU is not democratically constituted . It was not formed by anyone’s ordinary people. They do the blind marching for it as a kind of Momentum. Sad.

    • Hoof hearted
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

      There is no “excessive Nationalism” in the UK, that was and remains a German trait. Incidentally that is also the view of my wife, a German.

    • Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      ”There must be another way”. For whom? Another way for Germany to win the war rather than using overt force? Well, they almost did it this time. And no, it was NOT the EU that was the result, and neither was it the answer.

  6. Atlantic Span
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    Very clever Mr Redwood,and you didn’t have to mention the B word once.

  7. formula57
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Although of course in 1940 Churchill overcame the peace party (as that film shows very well), we should recall that they did not accept the outcome (despite witnessing further Nazi evil) and Churchill would have been deposed by them in 1941 had the Hess mission succeeded.

    Fortunately, there are no parallels that apply today, despite quislings and the remoaners they manipulate being given a clear run.

  8. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    So many of us have said on this diary that we need a Churchill now John. Instead we have a weak leader with a weak cabinet and no stomach for a fight. The people have more faith in our country than out politicians do and I sincerely hope Jacob RM is serious about dumping May. Many of us are at the end of our tether with the way May and Hammond and the likes of Soubry seem to want to give away our freedom and the chance to grow our country into something far better. They have to go. Let’s show some of that fighting spirit once more and leave the EU. The people want their country back again.

  9. Cheshire Girl
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    I saw the film too. We owe those who served, and suffered a debt that we shall never be able to repay. The lessons of the two World Wars should never be forgotten.

    I often yearn for a person who can inspire people like Churchill did, but alas, there is no one on the horizon.

  10. Lifelogic
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Churchill had a positive vision that was in tune with the people, a compass that actually worked (most of the time anyway) and an ability to inspire. Before the second World War we had government expenditure at about 30% (and not the circa 45% we have now) and it was only 15% before the first World War. This certainly helped a lot. We should be aiming for below 25% now if we want a sound economy again.

    Under Hammond we have circa 45% of GDP and it is largely wasted. Plus of course all the damage done to productivity & the private sector by countless totally misguided regulations, huge misdirection of the economy through green crap, farming and other subsidies.

    On cannot imaging we would have won the war had Churchill tried to fight by concentrating on electric tanks, electric ships and wind & solar power, army recruitment by gender quotas rather than ability, concentrating on the (actually non existent) gender pay gap, virtue signalling over charity dinners at the Dorchester or building on EU “workers rights” the work time directives and the likes.

    Such a massive contrast with our current government. As Churchill put it:-

    “Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is–the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.”

    One cannot imagine T May saying anything sensible like that.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:11 am | Permalink

      Hammond of course thinks private enterprise is an animal to be bled (and regulated) to death. With any (short term) proceeds largely chucked down the drain on green crap or other lunacies.

  11. Helen Taylor
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    Hope you took the Cabinet along with you to watch it

  12. Sakara Gold
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    We should never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice in both world wars to defend our freedom and way of life. Churchill was the man of the hour in WW2, for all his faults a strategic thinker who was instrumental in bringing the USA into the war and so achieved victory. We should also not forget that many in the Establishment of the day were sympathetic to Hitler and indeed Churchill had to take action against them early in his administration.

    The next major war that this country gets involved with will have to be fought with what we have got. Modern warfare is highly intensive, we will not have the luxury of a phoney war interval to mobilise our forces, get them in place and fight. One hopes that reason will prevail in the discussions between the treasury and the MoD and that in view of the increased Russian threat the target of 2% of GDP spent on defence will be increased to a level commensurate with the need to counter it.

    • Mitchel
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      The Russian “threat” is a threat to the globalist class and their mission,not to the people of this country.We do not need to spend more on defense ,we need to spend better.Just look how little we get for what we spend.

  13. StanleyW
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    What JR describes above is of another time..there are many other countries throughout europe and the world who have made similiar and even more difficult sacrifices to defend themselves and a lot of them in fact fought against a very superior British empire to gain their own independence so we are not the only ones to have suffeted hardship. One of the reasons the older british people are so despondent and feel let down by various govetnments is because of the pitiful way they are being treated in old age..some have state pensions in this country that match only half of what other EU countries are paying..and these are the very people that suffered so much during the war and through a time that JR is talking about.. It seems JR has been near the reins of power long enough now to know but with his colleagyes has done littke enough to help these old people out

    • mancunius
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

      Yes there are many other countries in the world who have fought blah-blah, but we happen to be living in this one, and it comes first, second, third, fourth and fifth in our sense of priorities. (Not yours, obviously.)
      As for the elderly being poor – that may have been so for some in the wildly inflationary 1970s, but it’s certainly not the case today, as those of us who are the averagely-off elderly can testify.
      Even for those who haven’t bothered to work much during their working lives, state benefits guarantee a decent basic pension income even where they’ve contributed nothing at all to the tax pot.
      The higher state pensions elsewhere in Europe are mainly contribution-based – and even so, they find themselves currently suffering deflationary measures. Many state pensions across Europe (‘what other EU countries are paying’) have had no proper inflation-linked increases for several years now. Our current index-linking state system is extremely generous in comparison – (probably unaffordably so in the long run).

  14. Michael
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    We need a leader.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      Indeed one who has a positive vision and is not a politically correct, virtue signalling, green crap pushing, tax borrow and regulate to death, anti the self employed, middle manager.

  15. zorro
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Great minds think alike. I decided to see it on Saturday too, and overall a good film if not a bit contrived in parts. The overall message resonates well in getting off our knees and standing up for our country’s interests and not acquiescing to a subordinate status under an EU regime (hint hint – Heywood/Robbins)…..

    Of course, important to remember that in 1940 we were still independent and had our Empire, and something worth maintaining/defending so the pressure was on to make sure we didn’t lose what we eventually lost anyway after ‘winning’ WW2. How would it have turned out if we had negotiated a peace settlement? Would Hitler have been a more reasonable negotiating partner than the EU? Answers on a postcard please!

    zorro

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      That would have depended on what you would have negotiated. Unfortunately I’ve never met the man, but from the few reliable biographies I’ve read, he was incapable of honoring an obligation. Very hard to make a deal with a psychopath. So if the UK had surrendered (in Nazi view) or made an agreement (civilzed) it would have had to rely on the likely implosion of the Nazi regime. Whether that would have happened after the Soviet Union would have been defeated or during a war still going on is hard to say. It is unlikely Hitler could have kept his position in overall victory. The government was a total mess, but the war masked that for the population.

      • mancunius
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        So making an ‘agreement’ with Nazi Germany in 1940 would have been a ‘civilized’ point of view??

        Even making every possible allowance for linguistic lapses, that was such a huge freudian slip that it gave the game away. 🙂

  16. agricola
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    One of our problems as human beings is that we do not recognise greatness until it has long passed us by. At the moment , in the UK , we seem to be in a period of self guilt, every peccadillo , mistake,, error of judgement becomes terminal. Meanwhile the great unwashed parade themselves in critical judgement from their blameless lives. A basis on which Churchill would never have survived today. Me thinks the age of information allows us too much knowledge without balanced judgement.

    One of the great aspects of Churchill was his ability to communicate at all levels, a quality sadly lacking in our leaders at present. I can only think of one who achieves it through the written word. The rest are somewhat grey and uninspiring, but with one exception. You in power would cast him into the wilderness were he not so persistent.

  17. Bert Young
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    One has to remember that Churchill followed Chamberlain – an appeaser . This country responded to the determination Churchill displayed and , with the co-operation of the USA ultimately brought Germany down . Today we need that resolute leadership that will once again stir up the competitive spirit in our country .

    Compromise in any approach creates uncertainty ; it causes misunderstanding and confusion in the minds of the public and will never create any sort of atmosphere resembling confidence . We must not let this get any further today ; 48 signatures can start to turn the tide .

    • Man of Kent
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      I wrote to my MP yesterday urging her to do exactly that today !

      • Chris
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        M of K, I too have written to my MPs and other MPs today. I believe the situation is desperate not only for Brexit, but for the whole country (and also the Conservative party, but they are reaping the rewards of their own folly/weakness/timidity in my view).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Indeed the current (and at least last four Prime Ministers) were all dreadful appeasers. Who is to save us? T May clearly cannot lead us into the next election. She is nearly as unpopular as John Major when he buried the party.

    • Mark B
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Chamberlain was the PM that declared war. Hardly an act of an a appeaser.

      All he was doing at the time was reflecting public opinion not to go to war. He also presided over increased military spending and growth.

      A good man much maligned.

      • rose
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        He also presided over real preparations for war, including civil defence.

  18. Duncan
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Claire Perry playing the ‘white, old men’ card. Gender, skin colour and age are now tools of political slander. This tactic was used against the FA by the Tory sports minister

    This tactic is straight out of the liberal left toolbox of political assassination and no doubt organised and sanctioned by Theresa May

    I am amazed that this tactic as now been adopted by feminist Tory MP’s AGAINST their own side

    It is surely time that this ……….. Prime Minister is (dismissed ed). She’s become a liability and a disgrace to my party

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      As a white old man I do not feel discriminated against at all.

      • John
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        All that says is that you do not live in an area that has experienced mass immigration in the last 15 years.

        Bully for you in shutting off what is happening elsewhere in your country and continent. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

        • Rien Huizer
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

          As a matter of fact, I ve lived in a variety of countries and the two countries where I have residency at the moment both prospered enormously thanks to immigration.

    • Chris
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Well said, Duncan. There has to be, in my mind, a clean sweep of the so called Conservative Party by those who are truly Conservative. The left liberal types can join another Party with which they are ideologically in tune. The fact that this Claire Perry sentiment has not been reprimanded by May speaks volumes. I have no wish to be associated with a Party that not only houses but encourages the likes of Perry (and Soubry, and Morgan….).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      They often add rich and bigoted too:- As in “rich, white, bigoted old, men” but she is getting there. What a silly, childish, climate alarmist, dope she is!

      Another Oxford Geography lass.

  19. stred
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    It is reported that the Commission has suddenly given its negotiators permission to get on with their opposite numbers in the UK in the negotiations about the ‘transition’. Isn’t it wonderful how they get their finger out whenever their opposite numbers are under threat and a Leaver put in charge. They must be worried that the plot is going in the wrong direction and that playing for time will will be rumbled.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      Stred

      Problem is transition to what exactly, surely you can only talk about transition or implementation, when you know the result of trade talks and all of the other points have been settled, thinks its cart before the horse which will lead to further confusion and delay so we have to have transition for even longer, and we (Our Government) have swallowed it again, hook line and sinker.

      • stred
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Transition to more transition and a second referendum while altering the voting qualifications and hoping that older leavers die off.

  20. Prigger
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Normalcy Theory . I am informed it is also termed Normalcy Bias. We cannot stand having just one word or phrase for stuff. Given that, there must be more terms than two!

    Just think, even after 1914-1918, twenty years more, we found ourselves unable in thinking badly about the threat.

    People who drink too little often see others as drinking too much

  21. Tom
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Roger Bootle in the Telegraph today is spot on.:-

    The Government must raise its sights. It keeps banging on about the need to increase productivity. The best way to achieve this would be to unleash greater competition, a refashioned regulatory regime and freer trade as a result of Brexit.
    This cannot be achieved by seeking regulatory alignment with the EU and foregoing the right to forge our own trade policy.
    The Government also keeps banging on about the need to boost investment in the UK. It should heed its own advice by investing in a full Brexit.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      Nor can productivity be improved by “building on EU workers rights”, enforcing gender pay reporting, increasing taxes endlessly or attacking the gig economy.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Hear, hear.

      Moreover,we have now heard Mr Barnier give EU’s position on transition (essentially – ‘you will follow our rules and our people can enter your land whenever they like’). No-one could take this as the beginning of a negotiation position, it is occupation, it is not meant as negotiation. If the Govt does not immediately walk away from this there is clearly no future for the UK. The Govt has ignored it’s previous chances to walk, and this is where we find ourselves – a country that will fracture without a common identity, and a Govt intent on having no identity.

      • M. Davis
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

        My sentiments exactly!

  22. stred
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Claire Perry, our business and energy minister has just called JR and the other real Brexit enthusiasts ‘swivel eyed loons’. probably borrowing the remarks by ‘hug a husky’ and ‘windmill on his house’ ex PM. Mz Perry is in charge of getting rid of all coal generation, ensuring that we have no reserve electricity when the wind drops and the sun is out. We needed 20% at times recently. She thinks that offshore wind will make it OK and that burning American trees is sustainable and doesn’t produce CO2. She may not have heard about the coal product PFA, which we need to make insulating blocks.

    If you manage to put someone competent and interested in keeping the promises made in the referendum, could they find an energy minister who is not a swivel eyed innumerate.

    • Qubus
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Is that the same Claire Perry who didn’t know the difference between the deficit and debt on the TV recently?

    • Spark
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I have looked up “Claire Perry” on the internet and have found out who she is and has been for 50 odd years

    • A different Simon
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      It’s absurd to think of the UK attempting to import fly ash to make pozzolanic cement .

      The world has just had the worst 4 years in the history of oil and gas discoveries which is bound to cause a moonshot in prices .

      China is the first country to realise the new reality and take energy security seriously . The rumours are that the proposed flotation of a small proportion of Saudi Aramco will be replaced by a private placement to the Chinese .

      Meanwhile the U.S. continues to behave like a drunken sailor like the UK did with the North Sea pretending that that U.S. light-tight-oil is cheap and abundant when the Eagle Ford , Bakken and Permean basin only have about 13billion barrels of proven and probable reserves at anything like reasonable prices .

      Odds are that when the penny finally drops in the U.S. that they will panic and over-react .

      Where does Mz Perry think the energy surplus is going to come from to produce the concrete for these wind turbine pylons and other infrastructure ?

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

        What about mules?

  23. Christine
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    The Remainers keep telling us we didn’t vote to be poorer. They are so wrong. We did vote to be poorer in the short term in order to gain our long-term freedom. As far as I can see the people of this country haven’t wavered once since the vote and are willing to make their sacrifice for the good of the country and the future of their children and grandchildren. Every country in our Commonwealth took the bold and risky step towards independence. Why can’t our politicians have the vision to do the same? TM needs to make a statement as to her intentions and put down all these rumours. She either is with us or has to go but one thing is true this country can never be a vassal state. That’s not what our ancestors fought for. Where is our Churchill?

    Reply With Brexit we can follow policies that make us better off!

  24. A.Sedgwick
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Good coded analogy. I grew up in the 40s and 50s, what a different place.

    • Andy
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      Indeed. Thank God (most of) the world has moved on.

      • A.Sedgwick
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

        One example – as a five year old I walked to school alone and regularly caught a bus alone – that was regarded as totally safe and normal. Today it would very unusual and highly risky.

        • rose
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

          And everyone kept their doors open.

        • Rien Huizer
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

          And leaving the EU is going to make you safe again on your way to school?

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

        Andy, moved on, yes, but improved, I don’t think so.

  25. Mailman
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    I think human beings, fervent nationalists self-proclaimed, singing “Ode to Joy” in the
    Westminster Parliament instead of what should be from their own alleged perspective Flùr na h-Alba is an example of how people in times of perceived threat think beyond distraction into utter moral, political workaday confusion.
    A Leader who can see is always required. We have none.Certainly not in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not in post anyway.

  26. Bob
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    The govt need to put Parliament straight on the idea that you can have a vote on Brexit once the EU has agreed terms for a trade agreement.

    In such circumstances Brussels would make sure that the terms on offer would be wholly unacceptable and thus give them what they really want, a cancellation of Brexit.

    This needs to be made absolutely clear in order to expose the fraud that the Remainers in the civil service and Parliament are trying to perpetrate ably assisted by the BBC, Sky, Guardian, Times etc.

    • graham1946
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

      Correct. If they really do give us such a bad deal, the vote in Parliament must not be ‘accept or stay in’ but ‘accept or go straight to WTO’. There must be no question of not leaving fully or trying to renegotiate, thereby delaying yet further. The only vote is whether the deal is satisfactory or not, nothing should change the referendum result. The EU need to be told this as well so that they give us a decent deal or suffer the consequences.

  27. alan jutson
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    History has a habit of repeating itself because lessons are rarely learned, and when they are, they are often forgotten in time.

    The original Idea of a Common market which involved trade between Nation states certainly may have had its merits when first put forward, but it has now become a political nightmare. It even fooled Margaret Thatcher for a while, but she soon got wise to its ways and means.

    Sadly we have not had a Prime Minister since, who will stand up and put Britain first.

    The EU with our own money, has put its label, thoughts, ideas and influence into every aspect of every National Government, Education, Law, Regulation, News feeds and our lives, that few can now ever remember anything different.

    It will all end in tears eventually when the people realise that National States as part of membership, are no longer required to exist, and National elections are a waste of time, because their own politicians are without any real power.

    The time to get out is before this happens, whilst there is still an element of self Government in operation.

    The time is now, but we first need a leader whom we can follow and trust, is May that leader, could she be ?

    If not, who could it be, is there even an alternative ?

  28. Alan
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it is historically accurate to say that Churchill knew in 1940 that victory was ultimately possible. In 1940 nobody in their right minds would think that the UK could eventually win; the most it could do was continue to survive.

    Churchill, with his experience in WW1, must have been aware that even survival was doubtful, since submarines could cut our supply lines and the UK would have been starved into surrender.

    Not until the invasion of the Soviet Union began to go wrong and the USA entered the war was UK victory even considered as a possibility. Even then we could have been starved into surrender if it had not been for the Enigma decodes, and if the need to defend against the Soviet counter-attack meant that German resources were directed more towards making tanks rather than submarines.

    And the lesson for Brexit? Well, maybe we will be saved by the USA again. But this time we can avoid leaving Europe in the first place. This time there is no need for Dunkirk. We could stay and be one of the winners – with the rest of the EU as winners also.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      “We could stay and be one of the winners”

      An inanity which reminds me of that laughable EU propaganda Christmas card showing the eurozone countries celebrating inside in the warm while the poor old UK was shivering outside in the cold looking enviously through the window …

      Provide me with some evidence that the UK has ever become a “winner” thanks to its participation in the EEC/EC/EU/USE project.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

        Here’s an interesting article today:

        http://facts4eu.org/news_janc_2018.shtml#eb

        “WHO RUNS THE SINGLE MARKET?”

        Well, the official answer to that question is Elżbieta Bieńkowska, who took over from Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market, Industry and SME’s, and who seems singularly unqualified for the job …

        And a quick google search shows that only two weeks ago she was joining with MEPs to celebrate 25 years of the EU Single Market:

        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180115IPR91722/single-market-at-25-lead-mep-highlights-benefits-for-eu-citizens-and-companies

        which links through to this current official document:

        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20180116RES91806/20180116RES91806.pdf

        “25 years of the EU Single Market: Key achievements”

        “From its cradle to the Single Market of today (1993-2018)”

        Which tells us that from 1992 to 2006 …

        “… it increased EU GDP by 2.2 % …” , and with “… a 1.4 % increase in total employment …”

        Now I have argued before that if anything the EU Commission will usually try to put the best gloss on its precious EU Single Market, “this jewel that is all too often taken for granted” as Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska described it in a speech last year, and if they say that its overall economic benefits have been just 1% to 2% or thereabouts added to the collective GDP of the EU member states, and maybe a comparable increase in the total number of jobs across the EU, then it is unlikely that they are taking an unduly pessimistic view; and if some other sources, such as David Cameron and George Osborne and his Treasury and his friends in the CBI, and the euromaniac LSE, claim that on the contrary its benefits have been much larger than claimed by the Commission then it is likely that they are grossly exaggerating those benefits for their own political reasons .

        And that is before considering whether the benefit to the UK has been above or below the average 1% or 2% GDP gain for the EU as a whole.

        One German study suggested that the benefit to the UK has been only about half of the average, while another study from last year, which was actually endorsed by a Commissioner, Jyrki Katainen:

        http://www.amchameu.eu/sites/default/files/amcham_eu_single_market_web.pdf

        decided:

        “The resulting estimates show that EU GDP per capita is 1.0% higher than it would have been without an increase in integration since 1995.”

        and gave a slightly higher figure, 1.3%, for the UK.

        And that is before even trying to take into account the costs associated with the EU Single Market:

        http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/01/26/the-uk-needs-to-strengthen-its-negotiating-position/#comment-915158

        “In fact that works out as benefits of the EU Single Market = 1.5% of the collective GDP of the EU countries, while the costs = 5.5%.”

        This, I suppose, is how the UK has been a “winner” from its involvement with the EEC/EC/EU/USE project.

      • Alan
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        I would most easily point to our economy moving from one of the slowest growth in the EU to one of the highest over the period in which we were a member. But I’d also think of the potential of building a united peaceful influential prosperous continent.

        Now in exchange you provide me with some evidence that, since 1914, the UK has ever become a winner from being an independent nation. Or that Europe as a whole has benefited from being a collection of independent states.

        Reply The average UK growth rate fell inside the EU compared to before we joined

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

          Well, it’s a pity that JR has chosen not to publish my reply to you.

        • Alan
          Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

          But the growth rate before we joined the single market was lower than other leading EU countries,, and then became higher than them. I wouldn’t particularly argue how much of this was due to being in the single market, but it seems likely that at least some of it was.

          Almost all economists think that the UK’s economy will be harmed by leaving one of the richest markets in the world. Since most Eurosceptics seem to want to leave the EU for political reasons I can see that this doesn’t concern them, but I don’t understand why they keep on arguing that leaving will make us richer: it’s very unlikely to do so. Nor do I think we will gain much from trade agreements with non-EU countries. We would do almost as well, quite likely better, by having the EU negotiate deals for us.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

            Alan, for some reason I am not allowed to reply to you and so you will have to continue in your ignorance. In fact I can’t even be bothered to look out the link to the chart of the growth rate of the UK economy since 1956 which proves you wrong, that would be a waste of time when JR prefers to publish vile rubbish from trolls rather than factual content.

    • A different Simon
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      Surely in WWII we were saved by the breakdown of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the human sacrifice of 27 million Russians ?

      Gavin our new defence secretary , Matthew Rycroft and May would do well to remember that when trying to provoke a Russia into war .

      • Alan
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

        That was what I meant by the invasion of the Soviet Union going wrong. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.

        It was the Soviet Union that played the main role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The UK’s role was rather peripheral to that defeat, but it was noble and courageous, and our ancestors could be justifiably proud of what they did. They also helped the USA in preventing the Soviet Union from occupying all of Europe.

        • Mitchel
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 10:29 am | Permalink

          Nonsense.The Soviet Union was never going to occupy “all of Europe”.Stalin stuck by the agreements on the division of Europe as he demonstrated early on by not getting involved on the communist side in the Greek civil war.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      There was no UK victory. There was a US victory mainly using Russian troops with the UK in a cameo appearance. Just look at the troop numbers and resources used. Also, the Russians lost more lives than all WWII combatants (excl China, but that was also a civil war) combined.

      • Sir Joe Soap
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 3:50 am | Permalink

        So long as we can all agree on Allied victory against the aggressors led by Germany?

        • Rien Huizer
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

          Japan was not led by Germany and Germany had broad support in Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Ukraina. They do not advertise this but Finland was allied with Germany. The Allies (including the USSR) won in Europe, the US won in the Far East. Apart from Australia and the Indians the European allies contributed very little to the Pacific War.

      • stred
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

        My dad made a cameo appearance as a Desert Rat and managed to make a small dent in the Nazi war effort. So did his mates fro S.Africa, Rhodesia, India, N.Zealand, Canada and Aus. His crew were all killed in his British tank. Later they got Shermans. Then they cleared Italy, with American help.

        Luckily, he missed D Day when 10,000 lost their lives in that cameo performance, by the US, UK, Canada, Poland, France and just about every occupied country able to send troops to Britain. The Russians still honour the many merchant seamen who lost their lives shipping aircraft and supplies via the Arctic. Some cameo.

        Perhaps your teachers had a different view of history. You could start by reading this-

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings

        • stred
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

          By the way, sorry for the RAF flattening large areas of Germany by night using Lancasters and Wellingtons, while the US flew by day and both lost a high proportion of their cameo players.

          • Rien Huizer
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

            Unfortunately for you, I am not German and I have no sympathy for their peculiar form of WWII government. My family lost a fair number of people (ordinary citizens in an occupied country including some as a result of genocide) . My comments are from the point of view that time has passed and one should forget about the romance and nationalistiv propaganda. The real war was in the East, in China, between the US and Japan and between Indians led by brits against Japanese allied with Burmese. The casulaty list of the European conflict dwarfs everything else. The UK lost officially some 350K. (incl colonials) and of that less than 200K in Europe killing around the 400K German combatants (the number is controversial,) In Eastern Europe and China over 10 million lost their lives in uniform. Everyone in Western Europe was part of a photogenic cameo appearance. But not the real deal in terms of atrocity.

    • eeyore
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      In 1940, Churchill tells us, he knew we could not be defeated. If the US could be brought in on Britain’s side victory would be certain. He also knew from his long Admiralty experience that Britain is very difficult to invade by sea. Invasion was not his main worry.

      Alan is correct to highlight the U-boat menace. When merchant shipping losses were at their height, Churchill said, it was the only time he felt unsure we could hold out.

      A Different Simon’s point about Russia is specious. Had Britain concluded a peace with Hitler in 1940 Russia would still have been invaded, only a year earlier and with every chance of success. Lebensraum in the East was, after all, Hitler’s reason for fighting the war.

      But there is glory enough for all in the defeat of Hitler. Happily, Russians still delight to honour the men of the Arctic Convoys, and in doing so they do themselves much credit.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      Alan

      Have you actually read the Five Presidents Report of 2 years ago,(Published BEFORE the Referendum) which actually shows the future aims of the EU.

      Remain was not an option, simply because the EU is not going to Remain as is.

      Afraid remain and our Government were not telling you the truth. !

    • mancunius
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      ‘But this time we can avoid leaving Europe in the first place.’
      Nonsense! ‘This time’ – and ‘that time’ and at any other ‘time’ – we are not and have never been ‘in Europe’, which is a continent. Before the EU bumptiously began to call itself ‘Europe’, the word in English meant – and still means – the geographical landmass. From which Britain has been separated for more than 8,000 years.
      In the years before 1973, in a political context, ‘Europe’ meant the foreign countries of the European continent – never including the United Kingdom in their number.

  29. William Long
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    I should suggest to anyone who enjoyed this film, that they read Churchill’s History of the Second World War. With seven volumes it may look imposing but once started, I found it impossible to put down. It is extremely exciting and the English is about the clearest and most vivid I have ever read. For much of the first part of the war, if I had not already known the outcome I would have been in grave doubt as to which side was going to win.
    Churchill was agiant figure but also a very human one.

    • eeyore
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Couldn’t agree more. Churchill the statesman belongs to history now, but Churchill the author is immortal. Those who haven’t made his acquaintance have a treat in store.

      My humble recommendation is to begin with his Great Contemporaries. Then My Early Life, then his masterpiece, Marlborough.

      The pleasure of an author’s company is one of the best reasons for reading him or her, and there’s no wiser, droller, richer company than Churchill’s. Let’s not forget his Nobel Prize was for literature. Never was it more deserved.

      • Cheshire Girl
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        My Husband has a set of books entitled ‘A History of the English speaking peoples’, which was published in the 1950s. I remember that he was enthralled and read them to the very end. They are now old and tatty, but he will not get rid of them. Says they are some of the greatest books ever written. Churchill was, without doubt, one of our greatest Authors.

  30. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Winston Churchill had to deal with his appeasers, Theresa May should deal with hers.

    • stred
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      ….should deal with herself. Surely.

    • Mark B
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Well the first one should be the reflection in the mirror.

    • Chris
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      Start with herself?

  31. Tom William
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    I saw the film yesterday.

    When Churchill said in the film, but apparently not in real life, “you can’t reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth” I immediately thought of Mrs May and the Brexit negotiations.

  32. Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    In those days, the majority of the people in this country would have considered themselves to be patriots and would have learnt at school that ever since the Norman Conquest, Britain has had to fight for its existence. They would have learnt about the Spanish Armada, about Napoleon and the first world war. They would have learnt about Drake, Nelson and Wellington and knew instinctively that a country has to continually defend its independence.

    Now, if you describe yourself as a Patriot, you would be howled down for being racist, far right, another Hitler, etc. This is partly because a large number of people living in Britain owe no allegiance to this country and the majority are wary of speaking out as almost anything you say these days can be construed as hate crime.

    As an example, today’s Mail reports about a Churchill themed “Blighty UK ” cafe being stormed by protesters who vandalised the mural of Churchill by painting “scum” across it. This is surely this generations “darkest hour” when protesters can do such things; I wouldn’t be surprised if the cafe owner was prosecuted for provocation.

    • Andy
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      You confuse patriotism and nationalism.

      Patriotism is a pride in your own country. Nationalism is a dislike of everyone else’s.

      Brexit is not patriotic. It is nationalistic – as we hear everyday in the ridiculous warmongering language of the Brexiteers.

      These people are stuck in the past. It’s really rather embarrassing.

      • Edward2
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 5:55 am | Permalink

        Currently young Andy, the biggest project of the nationalism you despise is being built by the EU as it quietly morphs into the United States of Europe.

      • stred
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        Patriotism and Nationalism have similar meanings. Only one version of Nationalism involves superiority over other countries. eg National Socialism. I just put this in in case any other euflakes read you revised definition.
        https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/patriotism

  33. Spark
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    It is getting a mental chore periodically listening to our Chancellor going round the streets and houses verbally and presumably in practice violating the Referendum vote. The fact he was an Remainer is no excuse for his behaviour. He has had time enough to lick his democratic wounds and respect that vote. He does not. Mrs May supports him in post as a main player who does not work constructively in the team. She herself should go if she does not dismiss him.

  34. Chris
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    This article in D Express:
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/911227/Theresa-May-leadership-challenge-brexit-news
    reports that apparently May is under notice that she will be challenged if there is not full Brexit. Also there is an interview with Theresa May, a Leaver, who states of course we have made compromises and there have to be compromises.

    I make two points: first, May has already ensured that we do not have full Brexit by the agreement that has already been reached with Brussels in the first round. Secondly, there is no automatic need for these compromises that Villiers refers to. We had a very strong position, which was not used by our (in my view) weak, ineffective, Remainer PM.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      You are wrong here. the agreement that you refer to deals with the situation where the UK and EU reach afurther agreement on the “future relationship” . The UK is entirely free to forego that future relationship ( or rather prefer to become a “third country” at once) . All it would have to do is to pay outstanding bills (or risk further damage to its credit rating), deal with the island of Ireland and construct an apparatus for customs control and immigration to carry out the new policies. Nothing the EU can do to prevent that. But they are not going to hand the UK the rope for doing the honorable thing.

    • hans chr iversen
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      Chris,

      Please, kindly explain what that strong position consisted of, because some of us cannot see it?

      • John
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        There is a saying you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

        Or as Liam Fox said the other day, something like I can explain it to you but I can’t make you understand it.

        I think by now you won’t understand no matter how many posts John Redwood and the others place. Maybe you should try and understand a different subject to this one?

        • hans chr iversen
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 7:06 am | Permalink

          John,

          that was a particular helpful contribution, thank you so much.

          • John
            Posted January 30, 2018 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

            I like your sense of humour if not your views.

  35. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately we have the equivalent of Lord Halifax conducting Brexit negotiations currently.

  36. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Of course I know that the present unelected legislators-for-life in the House of Lords are not the same lot of unelected legislators-for-life who voted so overwhelmingly in favour of the European Communities Bill in 1972 that it barely touched the sides as it went through – unlike its passage through the Commons, where Edward Heath had a bit of a struggle and had to connive with unpatriotic Labour MPs to win some of the votes – but I wonder why they did not reject that Bill as “constitutionally unacceptable”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/house-of-lords-brexit-bill-theresa-may-eu-withdrawal-law-peers-vote-uk-a8182136.html

    “May’s Brexit bill is ‘constitutionally unacceptable’ and gives too much power to ministers, Lords report warns”

    Unlike the present Bill which would grant ministers exceptional powers for just two years after the day we leave the EU that 1972 Bill stripped power from Parliament in perpetuity from the day that we joined the EEC, but they weren’t worried about that then; and unlike the present Bill which would still allow either House to intervene and block a government proposal the 1972 Bill allowed some new EU laws to by-pass Parliament altogether.

    What we are seeing here is yet another example of Remoaner hypocrisy and unscrupulous deceit and contempt for both democracy and the truth.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      I thought I’d just provide a link to the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and so I put it into google and this is in the second item to come up on that search:

      “The Withdrawal Bill raises profound constitutional concerns. It’s a blatant attempt to change the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. All being smuggled in under the pretense of being about Brexit”

      Utter twaddle etc ed.

      https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0079/18079en.pdf

      “123 Subsection (8) makes clear that the temporary power in this clause can only be used for up to two years after exit day, as it expires at that point”

      And the same in 128.

      “Schedule 7: Regulations”

      “241 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 set out the three parliamentary scrutiny procedures by which regulations can be made under the power to deal with deficiencies arising from withdrawal … ”

      “242 Draft affirmative resolution procedure (paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7): These instruments cannot be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by both Houses.”

      “243 Negative resolution procedure … These instruments become law when they are made … and remain law unless there is an objection from either House … ”

      “244 Instruments to be made under the negative resolution procedure must … first be laid in draft before a committee of the House of Commons for sifting … ”

      “245 Made affirmative resolution procedure … These instruments can be made and come into force before they are debated, but cannot remain in force unless approved by both Houses within one month … ”

      There’s plenty of scope for either House to object to and block any regulation that the government may propose during the two years before the sunset clauses bring the powers to an end.

  37. VotedOut
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    That was a time when:

    (a) there was unity and a shared identity in the country, something mass immigration has eroded.

    (b) here were a few politicians with integrity and used a lot less economic baby-talk

    (c) people & politicians who acted for foreign powers were executed – not lauded as those that know better.

    The EU is another expression of German imperialism. It must be faced down.

  38. Peter
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    The cinema has little appeal these days. Poor films. Loud soundtracks for adolescents.

    On the rare occasions there is a film that appeals it often fails to live up to its reviews.

    You have to choose a cinema carefully, one that is not patronised by selfish, inconsiderate types who disturb others.

    A local Odeon rebranded to a ‘luxe’ cinema. This means reclining seats and a table for those who have to stuff their faces during a performance. Prices increased substantially. So even less reason to visit a cinema.

    Reply My local cinema is very comfortable and the other cinema goers go to enjoy the film.

    • Chris
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the one at Winnersh (which I think Mr Redwood might refer to) is so comfortable that you could also go to sleep, Peter.

    • stred
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      Take earplugs and cans of drink. It helps get through to the end.

    • zorro
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      The PM may well be likely to say (has said) that those ‘old, white men’ have a a habit of ‘patronising’ here and she doesn’t like it. That could be interpreted a number of ways.

      zorro

    • zorro
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      The showcase cinema at Loddon Valley is ver comfortable and even called ‘lux’ now….

      zorro

      • David L
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        Been there three times in recent months and fell asleep each time! Sorry, Showcase, but won’t be back.

    • Iain
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      Spot on. Most cinemas are charmless places these days.

      Improved technology has not made them more appealing.

  39. James Matthews
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Speaking of ” a small and insufficiently equipped army” one wonders what he would have thought of our present position. Much smaller than in 1940 and with next to no reserves. It would be stretched to support the state in the event of serious internal unrest of Northern Ireland troubles or (current) Swedish proportions.

    At least in 1940 we still had quite a formidable navy and a respectable air force available to buy us time in the face of an external threat. Now we have neither.

  40. Chris
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    It is indeed the darkest hour and unless the advice in this article is taken up, Brexit is destroyed.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/29/need-brexit-cabinet-not-one-dreadfulremainers-dooming-us-failure/
    We need a Brexit Cabinet, not this one with Remainers dooming us to failure
    By Marcus Fysh Conservative MP

    Incidentally one Nigel Farage said this right at the beginning. One of his strongest attributes is common sense, plus the boldness to speak out honestly on these matters. What did many in the Conservative Party higher ranks do? Smear and ridicule him.

  41. Beecee
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    On this blog, many moons ago, I suggested we needed a Donald Trump, i.e. a hard nosed business negotiator, to agree our departure from the EU.

    Mr Trump now says that we have not been hard enough and he would have been much tougher!

    Given most of the ‘slap-down news’ coming from N0. 10 is against Leavers ‘for going off message and undermining the PM’ whilst Hammond etc only receive mild rebukes, then the Brexit route being taken is becoming clearer by the day = a Brexit sell-out!

    Weakness is a debilitating disease in a CEO so Mrs May needs to take her Spinach and flex her ‘I am Boss muscles’; firing both Boris and Hammond should do for starters, followed by Hunt who really undermined her by refusing to move!

    Else she should go now, today!

  42. Brigham
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I watched the “battle of Britain” from Hampstead heath, and sheltered from the blitz after that. Even my dad, who was a socialist, was glad Churchill was in charge. His brand of ruthlessness was just what was needed at those times.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      Now we have Corbyn supporters invading a 1940’s themed restaurant, denigrating Churchill, as well as vandalising a statue of Churchill. I am getting pretty fed up of the totalitarian left trying to impose their views on us.

    • Iain
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      Yes, 70 years of peace have allowed some of us to forget the difference between the ideal wartime leader and the ideal peacetime leader. Not that we’ve had many of the latter.

    • Mark B
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      We had a wartime coalition government. I wonder who played Clement Atlee in the film ?

  43. Ian Wragg.
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Something that struck me reading the government borrowing last month. It said the deficit was low due to a higher EU rebate. So we do pay the gross figure which has always been denied by the remainiacs.

  44. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Off topic, I’ve just read this on another blog:

    “… EEA became the default in December’s Stage 1 agreement in order to maintain an open border in Ireland.”

    Rather than repeat it all I will just refer back to my comment yesterday:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/01/28/trade-again/#comment-915433

    pointing out the non-EU members of the EEA are not in the EU Customs Union or in any extraneous customs union with the EU Customs Union, and even if the UK was allowed to remain in the EEA after leaving the EU that would do nothing to help the problems with the Irish border which are being unnecessarily created by the Irish government.

    The same with a trade deal like that between the EU and Canada, that deal does not create any kind of customs union which would help us with the absurd, extreme and intransigent position now adopted by the Irish government.

  45. stred
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    The Voice of the EU Politics programme had another all Remainer episode today. They asked a Belgian EU MP M.Lamberts on the Brexit committee to advise us on the transition and talked about the single market and registration as parts of the deal. He mentioned that we might get ‘access’ to the single market, forgetting that non-EU countries already have access. The interviewer and M.Lamberts also did not mention that EU countries such as Holland already make new EU residents register and have always been allowed to. Are May and the Remainers interested in refuting this propaganda, or are they part of the team organizng it?

  46. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    A lack of logic here from the policy chairwoman of the City of London Corporation:

    http://www.cityam.com/279596/no-brexit-trade-deal-complete-without-immigration-policy

    “No Brexit trade deal is complete without an immigration policy to keep EU talent”

    Does she think that EU governments will forbid their citizens from coming to work in the UK unless we strike some kind of immigration deal with them as part of a trade deal – that indissoluble linkage of their “four freedoms”! – so we must give them something and then maybe they will allow her to recruit talented people from their own countries to work in the City of London? Perhaps she even thinks the EU will emulate the old Soviet Union and introduce exit visas for people who want to emigrate from its territory?

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 3:59 am | Permalink

      How did she get to this position? She seems to be behind the times. First, May is falling over herself to say all EU citizens working here are safe. Second, what kind of crazy situation would see us end up sending good bona fide workers from anywhere back home or denying them visas?

      This is a cry wolf article!

  47. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    https://news.sky.com/story/eu-takes-two-minutes-to-adopt-negotiating-guidelines-for-transition-11227785

    “Brussels’ deputy negotiator Sabine Weyand said the EU is offering a “status quo transition without institutional representation” from March 2019 until the end of 2020.

    In a draft of the orders, the EU insists that the UK should continue to abide by all of the bloc’s rules, including any new ones that are introduced during the implementation period.

    This stance has caused concern in Theresa May’s government, with Brexit Secretary David Davis demanding last week “a way of resolving concerns if laws are deemed to run contrary to our interests and we have not had our say.”

    “It’s very, very important,” he said, that “if there are new laws that affect us, we have the means to resolve any issues during that period.”

    But Irish European Affairs Minister Helen McEntee dismissed such a prospect, saying on Monday that “what we cannot have is a position where the integrity of the single market, the customs union, is in any way undermined.”

    That’s the same Helen McEntee who said before Christmas that the Irish government ruled out “anything that would imply a border on the island of Ireland”.

    As far as I’m concerned this is the EU abusing our goodwill and messing us about, and the time has come to stop grovelling and call a halt to it.

  48. Gordon Hetherington
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    True but not the whole truth.

    The overwhelming bulk of German forces were committed to combat on the Eastern Front. They were comprehensively defeated. The cost of doing so was enormous – including 27 million Soviet lives.

    Little wonder that Russia has a degree of paranoia about Western encroachment on their border – they have a living memory of what Western Europeans did when last they came calling.

    Putin has a “Russia first policy” and is criticised for it – would it not be better if we adopted a “UK first” policy?

    • Mitchel
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 10:40 am | Permalink

      It’s not paranoia-that,of course,is what those that covet Russia’s resources want you to think- but totally justified concern.

  49. J.White
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Oh how we need another Churchill. Someone who believes and stands up for this country. I am very afraid we have been lied too by our politicians yet again. We do not want a transition period and especially not having to accept ECJ rule and all laws with no say. If that happens we are done for. What would there be too stop the EU deciding to bring in laws on quotas of migrants for each country and guess where they would send the most! Even continuing free movement for 2 years will see the demise of the NHS and public services including schools; it unsustainable. It doesn’t take a genius to know if we have to accept laws with no say you can bet they will be to the detriment of the UK. Civil servants are making the running they are pro EU and they don’t care if the Conservatives loose the next GE as they still keep their jobs. The public were lied to take us into the EU our sovereignty given away without our permission and now it looks like we will be lied to yet again. Where is the British bull dog spirit! There will be repercussions if 17.4 million are let down with this non existent Bexit.

  50. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    I guess that Michel Barnier will be laughing up his sleeve at us.

    He knows perfectly well from his time as the EU Commissioner in charge of the EU Single Market that it has had very little economic benefit, here he is in 2012:

    https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c505dbb4-64f1-40a6-8062-ebdea6240bd4

    “20 years of the European Single Market”

    In that report he said that the collective GDP of the EU member states in 2008 was 2.13% higher than it would have been if the Single Market had not been launched in 1992, and it had produced a 1.3% increase in employment across the EU.

    And no doubt he was aware of official EU concerns that excessive regulation of the Single Market was costing several times as much as the benefits; so overall its economic effects might not just be marginal, they could easily be negative rather than positive.

    But at the same time he knows that the official Tory party line has always been to grossly exaggerate the economic benefits of the EU Single Market, in full knowledge that its real purpose was political rather than economic but in a way that would be unacceptable to the great majority of the UK electorate including Tory supporters, and it would now be very difficult for a Tory Prime Minister to start to tell the unvarnished truth about it.

  51. Tabulazero
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    EU ministers : UK gets no say on rules during Brexit transition

    Are you going to launch your coup or just wait in the sidelines, Mr Redwood ?

    • Andy
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

      Why would be launch a coup? It’s exactly what he voted for.

      This is Brexit. Are you only now beginning to realise the complete and utter ridiculousness of your vote?

      Shame.

      You voted for irrelevance. And you will get it.

      • Tabulazero
        Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        I am waiting for Mr Redwood to man up and stop leading from behind.

        My opinion is that he does not have the courage of his opinions and is secretly happy to let Theresa May handle this mess.

      • Sir Joe Soap
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 4:01 am | Permalink

        You’re correct. He voted Remain.

  52. Prigger
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    So, the EU has decided what its “stance” is on the Transition Period. It is to stay in the EU for another two years.
    We did vote to exit the EU after two years beginning on 24th June 2016, one day after the Referendum vote. Anything which deviates from this is treason in layman’s terms. Others may dress up the tart in any finery they wish.

  53. Roy Grainger
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    So John, now we know what the transition period will look like: continue to pay into the EU budget, accept all new laws, full freedom of movement, not allowed to sign trade deals with other countries, accept all ECJ rulings – ie. same as now except we have no say in any of this and are not even allowed to attend meetings where all this is determined.

    When are you actually going to DO something about this rather than just write about it ?

    • A different Simon
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

      That ghastly scenario would be intolerable to any self respecting Briton .

      How can it be that HM Govt seem to be broadly in agreement with it ?

      May , Davis and Hammond have got to go .

      How can those hypocrites recite our National Anthem which says Britons will never be slaves ?

    • Vernon
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 6:46 am | Permalink

      Roy, it is significantly worse than that. Once we are in a transition , we – as you note – obey all the rules and have no say in the making of them. So why should the EU ever change that? the EU will be in no rush to do a deal, it is in a great position, so you can expect transition will just keep getting extended. Mr Redwood is good at talking isn’t he. We need action not talk

  54. hans chr iversen
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    We in Europe wo fought with the British are proud and grateful to what Churchill and the British people did to enable us to live in a democratic Europe, where we can freely have these debates. Thank you

    • mancunius
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

      Hans, we’re having these debates in the free, democratic and above all tolerant nation of Britain.
      This will not be the case elsewhere in Eyurope, once the EU has pursued its plan to shut down free comment in the EU, with legislation that will ban any criticism of the Commission or the European Parliament, or of its representatives.

      • hans chr iversen
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        we would never support nor implement that sort of legislation in Denmark, either

        • mancunius
          Posted January 30, 2018 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

          You might not support it, but you’d be forced to implement it under the Treaty of Lisbon: you have no choice:
          “Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect.
          “The Commission will take steps if an EU country:
          – does not fully incorporate a directive into its national law by the set deadline
          – might not have applied EU law correctly
          “If national authorities fail to properly implement EU laws, the Commission may start formal infringement proceedings against the country in question. If the issue is still not settled, the Commission may eventually refer the case to the European Court of Justice.”
          see: European Commission: ‘Applying EU Law’.

          And if you glance at the latest QMV rules you’ll see that Denmark has no chance of objecting to such a measure.

  55. Mark B
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    I knew when I was writing this it would be moderated. Fair enough I thought. But Second World War and slaughter of millions made Churchill into the national figure we see today. But if you take the man’s political career as a whole and the fact that although we won a war, it turned out to be a pyric victory as we lost an Empire and our standing in the world.

    All for the sake of some very ungrateful Europeans.

  56. Martin
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Pity the film is inaccurate.

    There is no evidence Churchill ever caught the District Line.

    If it were true then it is just as well the anti-railway crowd who lurk on here had not closed it down !

    In those days we cared about how the Continent was run now some want to run away

    • formula57
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

      @ Martin – indeed “There is no evidence Churchill ever caught the District Line” and I found that whole “focus group on the tube” scene bizarre and cringeworthy.

      I worry that that scene may do great harm to the contemporary traveling public though should any of today’s politicians now take up quizzing fellow tube riders to makes themselves seem Churchillian.

  57. fedupsoutherner
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I see my comment is still awaiting moderation. I can’t think why. Sent in early this morning and nothing controversial. Agree with all you say in this post John.

    • Prigger
      Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      @fedupsoutherner
      Lots of my comments do not get posted. But I’ve read them. I should think only I am capable of appreciating them in the full.

  58. RupertP
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    On 29 March 2017, you wrote in your “Independence!” blog message:

    ———
    “Article 50 put in the two year exit provision to prevent a reluctant EU delaying a country’s departure by refusing to negotiate an exit agreement sensibly. The UK’s despatch of the letter now places the obligations on the rest of the EU to see what they can salvage from their departing member. They should have a long list of things they do not want to lose which is realistic, and another list of things they don’t want to lose which are unrealistic.”

    “The first list will encompass protecting their access our lucrative export market, ensuring the position of EU nationals in the UK, keeping access to the City for the money their companies and individuals need to raise, keeping their flying rights into the UK, keeping UK involvement in European defence, and preserving and developing many collaborations on research and joint investment. All of those the UK is willing to grant in return for a punishment free settlement.”

    “The second list may encompass an exit fee, continuing contributions to their budget, and continuing freedom of movement between the UK and the EU. Asking for those will show they still have not understood why we are leaving, nor the weakness of their legal and political position.”

    ———
    10 months on, it hasn’t turned out that way, has it!

    With the publishing of today’s EU transition guidelines, it is clear that the Government’s and the EU’s strategy is to BRINO. Furthermore, the EU will have every incentive to drag the talks out indefinitely, as keeping the UK in semi-permanent “vassal state” transition will be the new status quo and the EU would lose ongoing contributions to the EU budget by agreeing to end transition and sign a trade deal with the UK.

    Much like in the Churchill film, for the UK to get a better long term deal with the EU and the rest of the world, both Parliament and the country at large has to be persuaded to take the short term pain of leaving without a deal in 2019. Yes, the experts will tell us this will be painful, but it is clear that an orderly departure along the government’s and the EU’s lines will not permit any of the benefits of Brexit to be had anytime soon. Instead of eating cakes, the country will be sucking on sour grapes from the EU for years to come…

    • mancunius
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 12:05 am | Permalink

      Roger Bootle doesn’t think a No Deal brexit on WTO terms will be at all painful. Nor do other kindred economists. Change is a challenge. Most of us have faced it in our own private and professional lives.
      You only suffer if you pretend it isn’t a) happening or b) necessary.
      Surely it’s only the CBI that insist it’ll be ‘painful’. And however much they preen themselves, they are no experts at all.
      And the government of course, who are apparently doing nothing at all to prepare for No Deal and WTO.
      We should demand they do, and that they tell the EU so.

  59. Posted January 29, 2018 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    I’m not seeing any real information coming out on our future trade possibilities with the Commonwealth which will become the largest trading block in the world.

    I have tried to do some research into the Commonwealth countries and while there is some information of course on each country there is little about the UK connection with them.

    I’ve emailed The Commonwealth office in the UK to ask if they have anything on this but despite sending some 6 emails have never had a reply or even an acknowledgement.

    Trump.. whether you like him or not is a businessman and he’s clearly using his business skills to run his country but pretty well all commentators insist on using political measure to try and explain how he’s not doing well when in fact he’s done most of what he pledged to do in his campaign.

    And the BBC are simply doing nothing to explore the UK possibilites on leaving the EU.

    This means to my mind that the media need to up their game as well as politicians to explain our real options once outside the EU’s control.

  60. Andy
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Politically the EU has played a blinder.

    The Tory hard Brexit government has agreed to complete subservience until December 2020.

    That is less than two years – it is not enough time for business to prepare.

    Consequently towards the end of 2020 the Conservatives have a decision.

    Go back begging to Brussels – or crash the economy. Probably both.

    18 months before an election that is not a good look.

    Oh dear. 2022 Tory wipeout coming. Sweet irony: Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa Villiers are among those who’ll be retiring! And we’ll get plenty more of them too. Tee hee.

  61. Chris
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    This just about sums up the apparent contempt that MPs in the H of C today have for the electorate. Sir Bill Cash was asking serious questions, one of which was, in effect, would the government reject this latest ultimatum from the EU about the terms of the transition? His question was met with hoots of laughter/mockery/derision.
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/911548/Brexit-news-EU-transition-terms-Bill-Cash-House-of-Commons-Barnier-Theresa-May

  62. Miss Brandreth-Jones
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    I am so annoyed this evening. This is total tyranny .We have a group of 27 telling us what to do. It is even more important that at this time we say to them ‘we want out of prison’ you are behaving like blackmailing criminals and what is more encouraging black marketing. Two short words came to mind when I heard. DESPOTS!

    • Henry Spark
      Posted January 30, 2018 at 6:49 am | Permalink

      This, madam, is what you voted for. If you had listened to experts, instead of the fantasies of people like John Redwood, you would have grasped what a very weak position the UK is now in. You voted to leave and take back control – don’t blame anyone but yourself

      • Miss Brandreth-Jones
        Posted January 30, 2018 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        On the contrary,It only serves to elucidate the attitude of the collective EU and it’s inability to comprehend freedom of choice. In, they dictate and trying to get out they pull up the drawbridge and portcullis.

  63. Turboterrier.
    Posted January 29, 2018 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    John, like the lemon it is hard to suck and swallow. This is a EU version of their no deal and how to walk all over us? All those that voted for Mrs May should at long last wake up to the obvious, that she is not I repeat not the woman for the hour.

    Can we stop grovelling to the EU and just get out and deliver what the 17m odd voted for. have we lost everything including belief in our country?

    Lets get the 48 brave enough to bring about the vote of no confidence as soon as possible, this woman is destroying this country the way she keeps dancing to the tunes that the EU play.

    She will join the ranks of one of the worst PMs we ever had the misfortune to lead this once great country.

    We need a leader that will stand up to all this crap being thrown at us and the hour has commeth, Where is the man or woman that believes in getting us out and to make Great Britain great again? We need a Brexit Cabinet of totally dedicated leavers not those who for all intent and purposes have switched sides to keep their places in the pecking order.

    If they fail then there will be no one to blame but themselves, but the prize of success will make them immortal.

  64. Jack snell
    Posted January 30, 2018 at 3:02 am | Permalink

    So at last Barnier has turned the screw..we’re given a transition period until the end of 2020..meanwhile abide by all of the EU rules accept ECJ and pay in without any say at all..of course we could decline to accept and walk away..but walk away to whete?
    .

  65. Bryan Harris
    Posted January 30, 2018 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    #
    Situation then is somewhat like now, with us trying to get out of the EU’s clutches, in one piece – Damn The UK establishment

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • 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