Why I’m Backing Boris Johnson and Michael Gove

More people – 17,410,742 – voted Leave last Thursday than have voted for anything else in Britain, ever.

No party or leader or cause has ever been so popular: not Winston Churchill, not Tony Blair, not Clement Atlee not Margaret Thatcher.

So how, you might wonder, is the British political establishment responding to this never-clearer signal from the people about what it is they really want?

Why, of course, by trying to put every possible object in their way to stop them.

 

Worst of the bunch, in my book, are all those Conservative MPs who are agitating to replace David Cameron when he goes with a Remain candidate such as Teresa May, in preference to the clear winner of the referendum Boris Johnson (who is supported by Michael Gove).

How does that work then?

Half of these MPs – Business Secretary Sajid Javid, Home Secretary Theresa May among them – were natural Eurosceptics who only opted to support Remain for tactical reasons: because they thought, with the Prime Minister and Chancellor onside, it was going to win and that it would be better for their career prospects when it did.

Surely, the only right and proper thing for them to do now is to acknowledge their error, support the popular will and put their weight behind the two Conservatives who did most to make Brexit possible: Team Boris and Gove?

Some people, I know, are still stupid enough to buy into the BBC/Guardian/Labour/Cameroon spin that Boris Johnson is a joke candidate who cannot be trusted near the nuclear button.

I remember hearing similar things about a presidential candidate called Ronald Reagan.

The “Boris is a clown” trope is just dark arts propaganda and sour grapes.

Boris Johnson’s team won this referendum fair and square. The people very clearly voted for Britain to Leave the European Union and that is what they must get.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Brexit: David Cameron Has Salted the Land, Poisoned the Wells for Boris

This is the question being asked right now by all the disgruntled Remainers who can’t quite get over the fact that they didn’t win.

And my answer is: are you deluded, mentally ill, a bunch of bitter, vexatious, reality-denying tossers or what?

Which is to say that the answer is so bleeding obvious I find it an insult that you should feign to ask.

Just cast your mind back to that distant and half-forgotten era all of five days ago when David Cameron still appeared to be a vaguely credible Prime Minister and Jean-Claude Juncker was so confident of a Remain victory that already he was boasting about how extravagantly the EU planned to shit all over us once we’d handed back the prison warders the keys.

Remember? Good. Then what you’ll also recall – now that it has all come flooding back to you – is that at the time the prospect of Brexit was literally unthinkable.

It was, I suggested, about as likely as me going to a bar and picking up a supermodel; then taking her home; then discovering that, no, she wasn’t in fact a ladyboy or Bruce Jenner or anything like that, but she was a really hot chick who actually wanted rampant sex. With me.

What made it unthinkable was that all the experts had lined up to tell us it was. First came President Obama warning us that we’d be banished like naughty boys to the back of something called “the queue”; then came all the other bigwigs from the IMF’s Christine Lagarde and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, all variously confirming with the expertise and authority of their office that no actually it would be worse than that: markets would crash, property prices would plummet, businesses would hurry to relocate, the pound would become as worthless as the Zimbabwean dollar, men would say openly that Christ and his saints slept etc. Oh, and also, of course, World War III would break out.

That last contribution came from David Cameron, whom you probably won’t remember now, but he’s the Prime Minister whose main career achievement – indeed possibly whose only career achievement – was to change Britain’s laws on gay marriage.

Look, I like gays as much as the next red-blooded heterosexual Dad. Some of my best friends are gay, one of them, unfortunately, being Milo. Plus, I was an enthusiastic instigator of homosexual acts at my prep school – I virtually invented it – so I know what it’s all about. I like gay clubs, gay music, gay culture. At Glastonbury just now, I queued up to join the Meat Market gay club where a handsome youth in drag at the entrance patted me down and affectionately squeezed my testicles while my wife looked on. In fact, if I didn’t prefer girls I would DEFINITELY be gay myself.

All that said, I think Gay Marriagewas an utterly silly thing for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be wasting parliamentary time on – especially when it proved so divisive to the party Cameron professed to be so keen on uniting.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Better a Cocker Spaniel as Prime Minister than Theresa May…

But there’s one thing on which must agree. Better either of the above – or, frankly, a Cocker Spaniel – than the (current Home Secretary and lead rival contender) Theresa ruddy May.

Let me give you two reasons why.

First, May is fundamentally unsound. Earlier this year she claimed, without blushing, that “Sharia courts benefit Britain.” But there was an earlier indication she was a wrong ‘un in 2014 when she had a public spat with Michael Gove (who at the time was Education Secretary), over the best way to deal with Islamic extremism in Britain.

It began, you may remember, as a result of the Trojan Horse scandal when it emerged that a number of state schools in Birmingham had been hijacked by Islamists promoting an extremist agenda, with non-Muslim teachers marginalised, boys and girls segregated, teenage males taught that rape is legal within marriage, Islamic terrorists glorified and non-Muslims described as kuffar.

May – perhaps to duck responsibility and save her skin: as Home Secretary she’s supposed to be in charge of law and order and social cohesion – tried to pin the blame on Gove.

Gove struck back, as well he might. No one in the British government has been more keenly aware of the problems of Islamism than Michael Gove. He was on to it a decade ago when he wrote Celsius 7/7 – a book excoriating the cultural dhimmitude that had led to problems like the London bus and tube bombings.

Part of Gove’s argument has always been that it is simply not enough to combat Islamist terrorism. You also have tackle the root causes of the problem: madrassas teaching young British Muslims to despise the values of their own country; Wahabi and Deobandi imams, parachuted in from Pakistan and Saudi, preaching the most extreme form of Islam; inequality before the law endorsed by Sharia courts; sucking up to extremist “community leaders” and ignoring the peaceful majority; and so on – as well as more positive stuff, like encouraging Muslims to become better assimilated and more loyal to their host culture.

It’s known colloquially as the “drain the swamp” strategy. That is, it’s no good just bashing the crocodiles’ heads as they attack your canoe. If you want to sort out the problem long term, you have to neutralise the environment from which all those crocs are coming in to attack you.

May, on the other hand, is of the “don’t let’s make a fuss, let’s just deal with the crocodiles as and when they appear” school of thought.

Which of the two approaches, do you think, is most likely to secure long-term social cohesion and reduce the number of future terrorist attacks?

The row between the two got so heated that Gove was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise to May.

Gove, it should be noted, is now supporting Boris Johnson’s candidature in the elections to become new Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

The second reason why Theresa May doesn’t deserve to be Prime Minister is because she backed the wrong side in the referendum.

She didn’t need to do so. It has long been rumoured that she has Eurosceptic sympathies. But when push came to shove, she decided to put petty ambition before principle and take what she thought was going to be the easy option: back the Establishment position and reap the rewards.

Had Remain won, she would have benefited accordingly.

It would be a monstrous injustice – not to mention an insult to the electorate – if, having backed the wrong horse for the most cynical of reasons, May went on to be rewarded with the highest office in the land.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Cameron’s Elite Will Stop at Nothing to Win This EU Referendum: Here’s Why We Mustn’t Let Them

If you really love David Cameron then there’s only one thing you can possibly do on Thursday. You must vote Remain to save his skin.

Not that he’s literally going to die, quite. If you vote Leave he won’t shrivel up and turn to dust like Dracula does in sunlight. But Cameron will most certainly experience the metaphorical equivalent: everything he has achieved (such as it is) will become as nought; his life’s ambitions will lie in tatters all around him; he will go down in history as one of politics’s also-rans – not a statesman like Churchill and Thatcher, certainly not a conviction politician like Enoch Powell, but as a bit of a space-wasting time-server like Ted Heath or Gordon Brown or his former bromance partner Nick Clegg.

Do you think this is how David Cameron plans to crown his political career: with a wreath made of bitter ashes, dabbing his eyes in the back of a black official limo, as Margaret Thatcher did when she was finally pushed out of Number 10?

If you do then you clearly have no understanding how viciously competitive this man is; nor indeed how viciously competitive most ambitious politicians are in a zero sum game like politics where there are no consolation prizes for the runners-up.

Cameron plays to win. I could tell you stories (but I won’t). Short of murder or selling his family to slave traders I suspect that there is very little that he would not do in order to achieve his Machiavellian political ends.

And I say this not because I think he’s an especially bad man (by political standards) and certainly not an evil man. Just because I’ve lived long enough and watched enough successful people up close and read Macbeth sufficiently often to see that this is what ambition does to you.

There comes a point – and Cameron has long since passed it – where you say to yourself:

“I am in blood/Stepp’d in so far that should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.

This is the context in which we need to view Cameron’s behaviour in this EU referendum campaign.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Remain: When ‘Kinder, Gentler Politics’ Really Means ‘Dirtier, Uglier’

Will Straw, director of the Remain campaign, has been caught red-handed advising his team how to exploit Cox’s death by playing up the message that Leave represent “division and resentment” while only Remain represents “decent, tolerant Britain.”

This is what the left means by “dog-whistle” politics.

Only this time, it’s the left which is blowing that whistle.

Here, as Guido reports, is what Will Straw said in a highly embarrassing leaked audio file.

“We need to recognise that people have been pulled up short by Jo Cox’s death and it is now time to make a very positive case for why we want to be in the European Union… to call out the other side for what they have done to stir division and resentment in the UK.

That is something we must all do… This is what we think is the closing argument of the campaign, reflecting all the arguments that we have been setting out for many months but also the new context that we’re in. What we want to say is people should vote Remain on Thursday for more jobs, lower prices, workers’ rights, stronger public services and a decent, tolerant United Kingdom.”

The language is cautious, mealy-mouthed but the message is clear. To paraphrase: ‘Never mind the issues – just focus on Jo Cox. They didn’t buy Project Fear; they didn’t buy Project Lies; but they might just be sold on Project Grief.’

And Straw may have a point for, since the murder of Jo Cox, there has been a dramatic shift in Remain’s fortunes. Where before they were trailing in the polls, now they have pulled ahead.

Yes, there’s a story doing the rounds that this is because the public are becoming increasingly concerned about economic issues and that these favour Remain. But I suspect that this is just Remain spin to cover their own embarrassment at the unseemly way they’ve been using Jo Cox’s death to their advantage.

Here’s Katie Hopkins, telling it like it is:

Ask yourself what would have happened had it been Nigel Farage not Jo Cox slain on a pavement, whether they would have called for kinder Politics?

I suspect in some quarters they would declare he brought it on himself. How they laughed when his family were attacked whilst trying to enjoy a family lunch in a pub.

As we move into the final few days of the campaign, the ugly ambition of Remain will be to keep the Jo Cox story alive – at least in print – until June 23.

There is no end to the stunts set up to ensure this story has legs and keeps running – when most of us just want the family left in peace to grieve and find some sleep.

Regrettably for the state of British politics, she’s probably right.

First came the pilgrimage by the two main party leaders David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn – both pro-Remain – to lay wreaths in Cox’s constituency in Birstall, West Yorkshire and preach the virtues of “tolerance” and “democracy”. (More dogwhistling: if you don’t believe in these virtues than you must be Vote Leave).

Then yesterday, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess for a special sitting. Ostensibly to celebrate the life and the “kinder, gentler politics” apparently embodied by Jo Cox; but also, unfortunately, to allow campaigners like MP Stephen Kinnock – son of two of the EU’s more voracious apparatchiks Neil and Glenys – yet more dogwhistling opportunities by talking about “hope not fear, respect not hate, unity not division”. (Unity: you mean, like, in a “not leaving the EU” kind of way, Stephen?)

After that will come the funeral which – let us pray – will remain a private affair.

If you think this is normal procedure for when a parliamentarian is killed while in office, you’d be mistaken.

It didn’t happen after Conservative MP Ian Gow was assassinated with an IRA bomb in 1990.

Nor did it happen in 1979 when Airey Neave – a wartime hero (one of the few men to escape from Colditz) and also a personal friend of the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – was murdered in similar fashion by another Irish Republican terror group the INLA.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

What Does Switzerland Think about Brexit?

I visit a Swiss wrestling festival to find out.

What does Switzerland think about Brexit? I visit a Swiss wrestling festival to find out

Posted by James Delingpole on Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

VideoDelingpole: What Does Switzerland Think about Brexit?

What does Switzerland think about Brexit? I visit a Swiss wrestling festival to find out

Posted by James Delingpole on Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

New York Times Tries to Pin ‘Violence’ on Brexit Campaign

Let’s examine its argument in more detail, starting with the headline. I’ve put the New York Times’s words in bold; my comments appear below.

Britain Asks if Tone of ‘Brexit’ Campaign Made Violence Inevitable

New York Times Journalist States that Tone of ‘Brexit’ Campaign Made Violence Inevitable, taking lead from left-leaning Remain activists and commentators whose biased opinions he cherry-picks to support his threadbare thesis.

On the specific subject of ‘Tone’ see also: ‘Tone’ – the Liberal-Left’s codeword for ‘I hate free speech’

As the shock of the brutal murder of a young member of Parliament began to subside on Friday, there was a growing sense in Britain that something ominous had been unleashed in the country.

Whence grew this ‘growing sense’? The only people actually promulgating this line are left-leaning, pro-Remain activists who’ve seen a Rahm-Emanuel-style opportunity in the crisis of a mother-of-two’s senseless, brutal murder. Most normal people would much prefer it if Britain’s democratic future were debated on more relevant issues.

The increasingly ugly anti-immigrant tone to the campaign 

This is not a fact but a left-wing propaganda trope. Sure there have been odd lapses of taste, notably the somewhat crass Breaking Point poster. But for most of this referendum campaign the nastiness has been confined to the Remain side – whose Project Fear has been characterised by mendacity, ad hominems, snobbery and bullying. Leave, on the other hand, have sought to keep their tone as upbeat and positive as possible; as have UKIP and Nigel Farage. This is because they have been alive to the possibility that their respectable position on controlled immigration will inevitably be misrepresented by the left as xenophobia and racism. So what Erlanger is doing here isn’t journalism but propaganda: stating as fact something he might wish to be so but for which he can demonstrate little evidence other than hearsay from parti-pris commenters.

Coupled with the violence of English fans at the European soccer championships…

The high-water mark of English football violence was thirty years ago. Either Erlanger doesn’t know this – in which case why he is commenting on UK affairs? – or he is being deliberately misleading.

…has left many here feeling that the boundaries of acceptable behavior are breaking down.

“Many”? See above and below.

“What we are just seeing generally is a very disturbing shift in British politics,” said Simon Tilford, the deputy director of the Center for European Reform, which favors British membership. “It is quite upsetting to me what is happening.”

“As a pro-EU activist I will say anything to smear the other side.”

With next Thursday’s vote on the referendum only days away, campaigning was suspended as a gesture of mourning and respect for the victim, Jo Cox, 41, a rising star in the opposition Labour Party who, not coincidentally, was a strong backer of Britain’s remaining inside the bloc.

That “not coincidentally” is flat-out in contempt of court. You are ascribing motives to the killer which have yet to be established in a court of law. Also, you are trying to pin the murder on the entire Brexit cause. Low – really low.

While it is still too early to say how the attack will change the dynamics of the campaign, it has unquestionably shifted the focus from the growing momentum of those in favor of leaving to the anti-immigrant tactics they have employed as the vote has drawn closer.

No. The Leave campaign is not “anti-immigrant”: it has simply argued for controlled migration, which is something else entirely.

The suspect arrested in the killing, Thomas Mair, 52, has a history of mental illness.

Wow. An actual sentence stating the truth. But let’s wait for the inevitable “but”, shall we?

But he was also reported to have been in contact with far-right groups in the United States and Britain, and to have said, “Britain first!” several times as he attacked Ms. Cox. Britain First, a far-right nationalist group, denied any links with Mr. Mair, but a United States civil rights group said he had been associated with an American neo-Nazi organization called the National Alliance.

As Peter Hitchens notes in this must-read Mail piece, “disturbed people do sometimes embrace the wilder political and religious creeds. But it is their mental illness, not these barely understood ‘opinions’, that makes them capable of the dreadful act of killing – an act which separates them from the rest of humanity.” Around 30 million people – half Britain’s population – want to vote Leave. The idea, as Erlanger and others are hinting, that they might have anything remotely in common with this mentally ill man or his warped political associations is disgusting.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

I’ve Seen Britain’s Post-Brexit Future – and It’s Beautiful

The man who kept Switzerland at arm’s length from the EU reckons we would get a much better deal.

Before we vote Brexit I thought I’d pop over to Switzerland — courtesy of Die Weltwoche, the nearest local equivalent to The Spectator — to see how life will be once we escape the EU. Can confirm: it’s going to be great. We’ll be richer, freer and the views are fantastic: lakes and mountains so stupidly gorgeous that each time you look at them you think: ‘This is ridiculous. Nowhere could possibly be this ludicrously pretty.’ Then you go under a tunnel to the next valley where it’s just as lovely. It’s like gorging on a giant bar of hazelnut Lindt.

And — in their understated Swiss way — they love us British. Partly it’s because we created their tourist industry, first by sending over the Shelleys, Byron and various Romantic painters to discover ‘the sublime’ and create Gothic horror, then by inventing winter sports and — thanks to Thomas Cook — devising the Swiss-based package tour.

Partly it’s because we have so much in common. Robert Conquest once said that there are only two European democracies — Switzerland and Britain. Which may be why we both feel so unsuited to membership of the anti-democratic EU. This, certainly, is the view of elder statesman Christoph Blocher, the Swiss former MP largely credited with having kept Switzerland out of the EU. When we met at the Swiss federal parliament in the (almost unfeasibly pleasant) capital Berne he enumerated our similarities.

‘One, England has always had a very big sense of sovereignty — “we are Britain and we are doing this”. Two, freedom is very important to England. You have an older tradition than countries like Germany which didn’t exist before 1871 and has only been a democracy since 1945. And three, you are an island and Switzerland is an island too. We are an island without a sea.’

Free-market, anti-immigration, anti-EU, Blocher has dragged Switzerland’s famously dull political system inexorably right. Few Swiss would admit how much they admire him in public — in the rural heartlands where his SVP has its power base, maybe, but definitely not in the liberal-left cities — like Nigel Farage, he is very much a Marmite figure.

‘There are only two groups — those who hate me and those who think I’m a hero. It doesn’t bother me. When you have a clear position it must be so,’ says Blocher, 75, a self-made billionaire whose personal hero is Winston Churchill. Though he lives in style in a lakeside mansion, his manner is warm and down-to-earth.

Read the rest at the Spectator.

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Sir Bob Geldof: Vote Remain If You’ve Got a Big Yacht and Hate Proles

Harsh words have been exchanged; collisions only narrowly averted; one fishing boat has drenched Geldof’s with a hose.

DSCF5251

Gosh: I wonder which group is more likely to enlist the sympathy of ordinary people still unsure which way to vote.

Will it be

a) the former – comprising boatloads of  fishermen whose livelihoods have been all but eradicated by Britain’s EU membership?

or

b) the latter – a gin palace commandeered by a multi-millionaire pillar of the global elite (who isn’t even a British subject and therefore not entitled to vote in this referendum) and packed to the gills with pro-EU reporters and members of the wankerati, blaring out noise from its extravagant sound system and pouring scorn on the smelly fisher proles nearby?

My personal guess is that it won’t be b).

In fact, if the Brexiteers do win this referendum, I suspect it will have less to do with anything they have said or done themselves than it has with the extraordinary arrogance of the Remainers.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations