Brexit and the Value of Voting

I was once one of those folks who would berate anyone who didn’t vote.

“What’s wrong with you?” I’d say.

“How can you complain if you don’t vote? You don’t have a say if you don’t vote!”

Well. Times change.

For an individual voter the actual physical and financial value of voting is, and always has been, just about as near nil as you could get. 

Even at the parish council level, where the turnout is often just a couple of hundred voters, the number of elections where a single vote has changed the outcome is vanishingly small.

For an individual, voting as a process is valueless. The best you will ever get is a warm glow of satisfaction that you have done your democratic duty. But your one vote in many millions is all but irrelevant.

“But… If people don’t vote then democracy fails!” I hear you say. Which is true.

But democracy can sometimes fail (or be killed) even when people actually do vote. The “wrong” result can be either ignored or overturned by unscrupulous means.

A classic example is the current shambles surrounding the 2016 Brexit referendum vote where a clear (though highly unexpected) vote to leave the EU occurred. To date it has been systematically undermined, stone-walled and delayed.

So what happens when you vote for a particular outcome, find yourself on the winning side and then  the result is reneged on?

The only gain from your voting, that warm glow of democratic participation, evaporates. 

To be replaced by the feeling of being taken for a sucker.

There are many millions of people across the UK today who feel exactly that.

The losing side in the 2016 referendum have decided that the “wrong” answer should be cancelled.

The Liberal Democrats (what a parody of a name!) state that the 2016 referendum result should be ignored. Even though one former LibDem leader described it as a "Once in a Generation Vote" (Here) and another eulogised over how the result should be respected at all costs (Here) 

To be fair at the time they made these speeches they both thought remain would win. 

Others somewhat more squeamish about being so clearly identified as being anti-democratic, have another tactic.

  

They want what is laughably called a "Confirmatory" referendum.

If this enforced second referendum were to get successfully flushed through this cesspit of a parliament then I would hope Johnson and others would call for it to be boycotted.

But if the consensus among the Leave camp is to vote, I will grudgingly and reluctantly vote in what I would regard as little better than Hitlers enforced snap 1934 referendum.

Even so, I suspect that many people who voted leave in the 2016 referendum will not bother again.

Once bitten, twice shy. 

The turnout will fall and with it (I am sure this is the game plan) remain will sneak a win. Brexit will be cancelled.

Democracy in the UK will be not only dead but the corpse will be reeking with the stench of privilege and entitlement.

Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless and without tangible reward. It is something that those seeking office should be cherish and promote. Not cynically exploit.

If this Hitler style second referendum is forced through and then used to cancel Brexit then personally, I’ll be done with this cadaver of UK democracy.

I will never vote again.

Brexit Party & SDP. A Crazy Idea. But….

OK. Laugh this out of court if you like. It is (as it says on the tin) only a crazy idea. I’d love your comments (however derogatory) either here or on twitter.

This concerns the next General Election, which we all hope will not be long in coming.

It also concerns the Social Democratic Party (to whose members it is mainly aimed). So if you are not interested in the SDP or (say) the Brexit Party or even Brexit then stop reading now.

This post particularly concerns the vulnerability of the Brexit vote to splintering and how (this is the crazy bit) how to mobilise and maximise the Leave vote in staunchly Labour areas to ensure Brexit.

It also concerns (take a deep breath at this point – this is even crazier) also how we may yet get some SDP MPs.

So, here we go.

The Conservatives even though they are well ahead in the opinion polls, will struggle in many traditional Labour seats. However dismal Labours policies are, many will still vote for them rather than Conservative. The historic loyalties of honest Northern voters will be played like a fiddle by Momentum and their pals.

While the Brexit party may gain traction in these seats it may not be enough. The end result could well be that (thanks to our crap electoral system – FPTP) in many traditional Labour seats the Labour candidate sneaks in with 30-35% of the vote.

We could easily end up with another minority Leave government or even worse a minority/majority Remain government. Even though the electoral vote share for Leave may swamp the Remain vote.

This has happened before in UK General Elections. See these old posts of mine for dates and what happened. (Overview Here) (Example 1 - 1929 ) (Example 2 -1951) (Example 3 - 1974)

One of the obvious tactics that will be used by Labour to attack the Brexit Party will be that (as viewed by many on the left) they are closet Tories. Meanwhile many Tory voters in those same seats will see the Brexit Party as a one trick pony with few policies or direction.

The Brexit Party will get squeezed by both these ideas. Even though in fairness, it has gone some way to ensure it has candidates that are other than small Tories, and it also has policies beyond Brexit.

But voter perception is King. You can bet your bottom dollar the Brexit Party will get vilified by both sides.

So how does the SDP fit into this?

To answer that we need to look at the structure of the Labour Party. (Yes I told you this was crazy. Now it is going to get bizarre)

Or rather lets look at the structure of two separate partys. The Labour Party, and the Cooperative Party.

Most Labour MPs are just that. Labour MPs.

But 38 (who also take the Labour whip) are not. They represent two parties. they are elected on a joint ticket for the Labour & Cooperative Party

Although these days there is little difference between the two different parties, these 38 MPs in the House of Commons are actually from an alliance (dating back to 1927) between the Labour Party and the Cooperative Party. (See Here). 

Today they form the the fourth largest grouping in the House of Commons. They do NOT stand under the ticket of the Labour Party but under a joint ticket. On the ballot paper voters put their X in the box marked “The Labour & Cooperative Party”.

I expect you are way ahead of me by now. But if not, let me expand.

To ensure success in Labour Heartland seats, the Brexit Party needs to de-tory-fy itself. It has done this to the best of its ability by selecting candidates that are in the main clearly not Torys. But the stigma sticks. 

If it could form a public alliance with a Party with a strong working class history that Labour voters could easily identify with, it would greatly aid it electoral chances.

I would suspect too that many of the chosen Brexit Party candidates, while fully committed to delivering Brexit, are still somewhat unhappy about being on exactly the same ticket as Nigel Farage and would like some distance.

So for the Brexit Party it would make a lot of sense to stand candidates as “Brexit and SDP Party”. Just as some Labour candidates stand as “Labour & Cooperative Party”

I’d put money on it that Labour voters would much rather put an X in a box labelled Brexit & SDP Party than one marked Brexit Party. (let alone one marked Conservative)

It would also make a lot of sense for the SDP to adopt some of the finer centre-left candidates in the Brexit party as dual party members, and maybe negotiate to replace one or two of the weaker ones with real quality SDP candidates like Patrick O’Flynn.

Both partys would gain.

As Robert E. Heinlein once said

“Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.”

It is in the self interest of the Brexit Party to have an alliance. It is also in the self interest of the SDP to have an alliance.

It is in neither partys interest to squabble or ignore each other.

(Right. I’ll restart taking the medication now. Thank you)

Parliament, MPs and a Betrayal of Democracy.

When Boris Johnson attempted for a second time to trigger a General Election on the 10^th September he won the vote in parliament with a majority of 247. 

Of the votes cast 85% were for a General Election.

So why did the bill to trigger a General Election fail? 

It failed because according the Fixed Term Parliament Act he needed the backing of 66% of MPs. 

A 66%+ majority was inadequate. In fact only 52% of MPs voted.

Look at this and weep.

Thats right. Nearly half of all MPs elected to Parliament to vote on our behalf could not be bothered (or were too scared) to even register a vote. Yet this was one of the most important bills to come before Parliament this century. For these cowards no vote was recorded.

If in a General Election only 52% of the electorate turned up to vote then it would (quite rightly) be regarded as a crisis for democracy.

I am unsure as to the true motivation (or lack thereof) of those who failed to vote but I can make a few guesses. 

But the first and foremost aspect of all this is the type of example it sets to an electorate that is already pretty damn disillusioned with politics in the UK.

Dare I suggest that if you are elected to Parliament it is your DUTY to vote. 

No ifs buts or wherefores or Machiavellian subterfuges, you must vote.

There may be (very) rare occasions when you may feel inadequately qualified (or whatever) but the clue is in the word – rare. 

There was absolutely no excuse for any MP not to vote (either for or against) this bill.

Of course there are reasons why some MPs would oppose Johnsons bill. 

But instead of actually publicly displaying their preference they allowed a clearly flawed Fixed Term Parliament Act to do their dirty work for them.

Look at this.

Notice the block of 111 Labour MPs (for who no vote is recorded) happen to represent Leave majority constituencies. 

I don’t know whether they are stupid enough to think the little subterfuge of not voting will allow them to pretend they were not responsible for vetoing a General Election.

I do wonder whether they are hoping to say on the doorstep that they didn’t actually vote down Johnsons bill. 

Or maybe they just wanted to avoid any immediate unwanted publicity that their vote might attract in their home town.

We elect politicians for a purpose. 

They are there to represent our views and are handsomely paid to do so. In order to represent our views the very least they have to do is actually vote! 

Then we can see them publicly upholding (or for that matter – betraying) our mandate.

This shocking dereliction of duty for petty party political ends is simply obscene and a betrayal of the electorate.

If you are an MP at least have the guts to vote. You were not elected to sit on your hands.

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

In the recent Peterborough Parliamentary by-election there was a candidate whose experience and expertise placed him head and shoulders above the rest.

That candidate was Patrick O’Flynn of the SDP. Here he is on YouTube sticking it to the pompous Brussels elite in the EU Parliament when he was an MEP.

Impressive eh?

But Patrick didn’t win in Peterborough. In fact he lost his deposit.

Meanwhile in an election almost certainly sullied by voting fraud, the Brexit Party candidate, coming from nowhere also lost when the seat was stolen from him.

Arguably if the election had been fair and free from cheating, the Brexit Party candidate would have won and we would have our first Brexit Party MP.

But this is not about the Brexit Party.

This is about the SDP or Social Democratic Party to give it its full name.

I expect most folk reading this already know about the history of this party but here’s a two point resume. Skip it if you know this already.

• The SDP changed British Politics forever back in the 1980’s. Then it went through a near death experience. The party staggered along for years with a handful of members. Recently it has gone through a rapid expansion as the Brexit betrayal by both the Tories and Labour came to the fore. 

• The implosion of UKIP along with disillusionment with the anti-Brexit bias of both Conservative and Labour elites gave the SDP a ready supply of new members. I understand the membership now currently stands around 10,000. Which is a hell of a leap forward!

So why, with such an excellent candidate as Patrick O’Flynn, did the SDP do so badly in this by-election?

I believe the answer to that is simple. It is anonymity.

While Patrick (and others) have done stirling work on the MSM and social media to promote the party, it still  has no edge. No clear identity to the public.

Compare the SDP to the pompous odious identity of the Green Party. While nobody really knows the crack-pot policies the Greens expound people still know “who” they are.

The Green Party has achieved this because they have for years successfully ridden of the backs of drama laden romantic attention seekers who have courted publicity at every stage.

These people played the victim (or the victim proxy) even when they were actually the intimidators, going around ruining peoples lives, jobs and (ironically on many occasions) the environment itself with their antics.

But the Green Party shamelessly hooked up with these characters, rode the wave and now has one MP and many councillors.

The SDP  cannot do what the Green party has done. After-all the SDP is anything but an extremist party.

There is no publicity hungry enterprise that goes out of its way to promote social cohesion that the SDP can piggy-back off.

There is no pool of fanatics who will make lots of noise and disruption in the name of common sense.

There is no extremist driven ideology promoting the middle ground that the SDP can use to power it forward.

In essence the SDP is “The Sensible Party” and sadly in the real world this means it will fare even less well than its namesake in Monty Python.

Clearly, if the SDP cannot make a bigger impact on Parliamentary Elections than at Peterborough, especially when offering a truly superb candidate as Patrick O’Flynn, then it needs to re-think its strategy.

Especially as Parliamentary elections  are ruinously expensive in money, time and effort.

Even if there was a miracle pathway to parliamentary success it would be pretty much choked off today by the Brexit Party. Both partys are strongly pro-brexit but today all the electoral firepower is with the Brexit Party.

If anything, in this narrow point in time where Brexit will be the electoral priority of those who would potentially vote SDP then a vote for the  SDP will only be a counter-productive vote splitter in Parliamentary elections.

After Brexit though, things change.

Unlike the Brexit Party, the SDP is not seen (if it is seen at all!) as a single issue group. The Brexit Party is. Much as it tries to say otherwise it is seen as a single issue concern. The clue is in the name.

There are also avenues in other tiers of UK government that the Brexit Party appears to be simply not interested in. These offer fertile grounds for the SDP and some are in fact starved of any political input from just about anyone.

So could the SDP have a relationship with the Brexit party? And how can the SDP seek a pathway to influence and power in the near term other than through Westminster?

Here's the full set of posts on this topic.

The Social Democratic Party - Where Now?

The SDP and the Brexit Party

SDP: Local Politics and the Low Hanging Fruit

Arming the Parish Councillors

Parish Councillors: Party Aligned? or Independent?

Parish Councils are Dying: So What?

A Love Letter to Europe

I know some of our European friends are quite shocked to find out that we will be probably voting to leave the Eu. So I thought I'd write them an explanation why I'll vote Leave. 

My Dear European Friends,

So, how has it come to this?

In 1973 I voted to join the Common Market. I was (and still am) a passionate supporter of a European Free trade area. I love Europe and I love my European friends and work colleagues.

So it is with sadness that I have to tell you that on the 23rd July I will be voting to leave the Eu. This is not a snap decision. I have agonized over this decision for a long time.

I feel I owe you an explanation, so here's why.

The most precious gift possessed by the peoples of Europe is Democracy. It is almost trite to remind you that millions died from all around the world to preserve it and promote it. Now, at last, all European countries are (to a greater or lesser extent) democratic.

Perhaps though, we should not forget that many of the countries in the Eu were, until quite recently, dictatorships. Over half of the countries in the Eu had totalitarian governments within the last 70 years. Maybe that explains the lack of rigour in your demands for democracy within the Eu itself.

That to me, is a very big problem.

Above all else, for me, the lack of democratic accountablity with the Eu is the reason to leave.

Tony Benn was hardly my favorite politician, but he beautifully summarised it as follows:

He said:

"...one can ask five questions:" 

1. "What power do you have? "
2. "Where did you get it?" 
3. "In whose interests do you exercise it?"
4. "To whom are you accountable?"
5. "And, how can we get rid of you?" 

He then pointed out that

"Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."  

The Eu legislature is un-elected and unaccountable. Only the un-elected commission can propose legislation.

True - there is a fig-leaf of democracy in an elected Eu Parliament. But this is an emasculated talking shop. It cannot instigate legislation, which has to be the prime reason for any parliament. The Eu Parliaments powers are for all intents and purposes, little more than the UK House of Lords.

This is wrong.

But worse than this, is the way the Eu bends democracy to breaking point in order to get its way.

Several times treaties have been legitimately and democratically rejected by national referenda. On each occasion the Eu has instigated a fear campaign and forced another referendum within the country concerned to reverse the decision. (See earlier Post here)

Even worse they can (and have) deliberately overthrown democratic decisions. The worst and most flagrant example of this involved the defunct Eu Constitution and the subsequent affront to democracy called the Treaty of Lisbon.

I'll just remind you how this shocking anti-democratic coup took place.

The original Eu Constitution was vetoed by two referenda in France and Holland. Further referenda vetoes were certain.

Consequently the Eu Constitution (per-se) was dropped.

A victory for democracy?

Hardly.

By sleight of hand the Commission resurrected the constitution.

They replaced it with the (deliberately) unintelligible Treaty of Lisbon. It is unintelligible because it is in essence a set of line by line amendments to existing treaties. They are amended to reflect the content of the vetoed constitution.

As an amendment to existing treaties, the Treaty of Lisbon did not require countries to exercise a referendum. Only Ireland held a referendum. They vetoed the Treaty of  Lisbon. Undeterred, the Eu Oligarchy forced a re-run. After a scare campaign the result was reversed.

Democracy was defeated. The ruling Eu Oligarchy ignored the true wishes of the peoples of the Eu. They imposed their Eu Constitution.

Such actions demonstrate a total contempt for democratic rule.

So I simply cannot stand by while an already remote, elitist Oligarchy turns into a dictatorship. My country, my children and my grandchildren deserve better than that.

There is sadly far, far more.

The appalling treatment of African nations,
Debilitating uncontrolled immigration and emigration.
The advanced planning for an Eu "army"
The shocking underhand and undemocratic actions taken in the Ukraine.

Then there is the stinking cesspit of Eu wide cronyism and corruption.

For 40 years all political partys in the UK have tried to deal with these issues. But the unelected self serving Eu elite studiously stone-wall reform and ignore requests to change.

We can do no more.

So there it is my friends. We have to say good-bye.

Maybe the shock of the UK leaving the Eu will get things get sorted out. If the corrupt Eu Oligarchy is brought to heel maybe we can again have a closer relationship. But not with things as they are.

I do hope we can remain friends.

Love

Billothewisp

The Eu: What Happens When a Veto is Used

Mr Cameron keeps dripping on about how we have a "Cast Iron Veto" on Turkey joining the the Eu. So I thought I would have a look back through recent history to see how this veto has been used before in the Eu and what happened when is was used.

I have found six occasions where vetoes were issued by National governemnts. On each occasion the veto was either worked round,  ignored, or defeated.

Here's the story of six "Cast Iron Vetoes".

In theory each Eu member state has a veto over treaty change. Sometimes due to the type of treaty change, ratification will invoke the necessity of a referendum. Most of the time though (and not just in the UK) the change only requires Parliamentary approval. As I described recently (post is on this link) this parliamentary approval itself can, and has been in the past, subverted. This subversion avoids the necessity for a formal division and a recorded vote is avoided.

But this post is about six times where member states of the Eu have invoked the "Cast Iron Veto" and what subsequently happened.

Cast Iron Veto Number One 1993 Denmark. Treaty of Maastricht

Denmark held a referendum to approve the Treat of Maastricht. On a very large turn out the people rejected the treaty. So the Danes were the first to issue a "Cast Iron Veto".

The Eu was outraged. The Danish government was ordered to fix the problem.

Consequently the Danish government came up with four opt-outs that they hoped would swing the vote. Less than a year after the first,  another referendum was forced through. A massive ugly propaganda campaign swung the vote. The second referendum overturned the "Cast Iron Veto".

An final twist to this is that since then much effort has been expended by the Eu in trying to water down and remove the opt-outs obtained by Denmark. The Danes have been forced to hold two further referenda (2000 & 2015) to try and remove their opt-outs. The opt-outs remain. Like us, the Danes are getting wise to the mechinations of the Eu.

Cast Iron Veto Number 2 Ireland. Treaty of Nice 2001

In 2001 the Irish voted down the Treaty of Nice. The second "Cast Iron Veto" had been made. After the subsequent fudge to Irish concerns over the threat to their neutrality (the Seville Declaration) and the ritual massive propaganda campaign centering on scaring the electorate, a second referendum was held. The result was overturned.

Cast Iron Veto Number 3 France. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe 2005

The French looked at the Constitution, saw what it would do to their sovereignty and rejected it with a healthy majority. The French "Cast Iron Veto" had been served.
Wikipedia: Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe Link

Cast Iron Veto Number 4 Netherlands. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe 2005

The Dutch looked at the Constitution, liked it even less than the French and voted it down. The Dutch Cast Iron Veto had been served.

With two countries having rejected the new Constitution and with the UK lined up to deliver a third. The Constitution treaty was dropped.

So was this double veto a victory for the "Cast Iron Veto"?

Hardly.

The Eu had another plan. That plan was the Treaty of Lisbon.
(Wikipedia - Treaty of Lisbon Link)

The Treaty of Lisbon's first killer characteristic was that it was an amendment to existing treaties (not a new one like the Constitution). This was a stroke of malign genius. It meant that governmental approval avoided referenda. It was only, after all, an amendment.

Cleverly The Lisbon Treaty amended existing treaties so that at the end of the day they were to all intents and purposes the same as the defunct constitution.

The Lisbon Treaty was (and is) unintelligible. That of course was its second killer characteristic.

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing the former French President put it as so:

"The Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the rejected constitution. Only the format has been changed to avoid referendums" 
(See Telegraph Report LInk Here)

d'Estang is also quoted as so

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way ... What was [ already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained."
(Irish Times Report Here)


Karel de Gucht, Belgium's foreign minister, said:

"The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear... It is a success."
(Irish Times Report Link Here)

The "Cast Iron Vetoes" of France and Holland were circumvented.

As an amendment the Treat of Lisbon was pushed through National Parliaments without referenda. The promised UK referendum on the Constitution was now declared unnecessary and quietly abandoned.

But there was one exception. Ireland (again!).

In Ireland somebody, incensed by the proposed change to the Irish constitution without a referendum, took the government to court. He won. This forced the Irish government to hold a referendum on the unintelligible Treaty.

Gloriously the Irish Government (and the Eu ) lost the ensuing referendum.

Cast Iron Veto Number 5 Ireland. Treaty Of Lisbon.

The Eu were apoplectic with rage. It was insinuated that Ireland would be thrown out of the Eu. Various blackmail threats were issued concerning Irish neutrality and abortion laws.
(See Daily Mail Report Link Here)

Eventually the Irish government caved in.

They ran a "study" of Irish voting reasons. They came to the grand conclusion that the electorate had rejected the Treaty of Lisbon because of :  "lack of knowledge/information/ understanding".

To sweeten the pill the Eu threw in a few "promises".
(See Wikipedia Ratification Link Here)

A new referendum was called. This time the Eu spared no quarter in their propaganda onslaught. Like in Denmark, the intimidated electorate swung the other way and the "Cast Iron Veto" was overturned.

Cast Iron Veto Number 6 UK. Euro Accord 2011

Then we come to David Camerons 2011 veto of an amendment to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Eurocrats wanted to amend the Treaty of Lisbon (remember - the deliberately unintelligible document that is an amendment itself). The amendment was Euro centric and paid little or no thought to the affects it would have on the viability of the UK financial services industry. Cameron begged for an opt-out and was refused.

Amid huge abuse from the Eu, with threats of expulsion coming from both Germany and France, Cameron was forced to use the veto by his back benchers. It was either that or it was bye-bye Conservative Party and Coalition Government.
(See Guardian Story Link Here)

After the ritual Eu tantrums and hysterical threats, the Eu simply ignored Cameron's veto. They passed the legislation without Camerons signature. The only difference was that now instead of being called a Treaty it was called an Accord.

So, far from being a "Cast Iron Veto" on Eu policy, all it achieved (at best) was an unrecognised and undocumented UK opt-out (which I suppose is at least something). True to form then EU had circumvented the "Cast Iron Veto" again.

And that is where we are today. The concept of a "Cast Iron Veto" as eulogised by Cameron is an illusion. The timid will not use it. The devious avoid it. If it does get invoked, it is circumvented, ignored or defeated.

It is purely Smoke and Mirrors.

Nothing more.

Intimidate Us Mr Juncker? Really? I'll Raise you 5.

Quote: "If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences"

So Mr Junker, you say: "Deserters will be given no favours". You say the UK "Won't be "handled with kid gloves". (Telegraph Here) (Reuters Here)

I gather one of you avid French sychophants reckons we'll be "killed" if we leave the Eu.

Ooohhh ouch!

Maybe Mr Juncker, I detect a little of the arrogant bully here? You know, frighten the little people? Beat the dog down. Show the UK their place?

I have to tell you Mr Juncker, that bullies usually end up finding out (often the hard way) that victims can become energised by abuse.

So, Mr Juncker, you want to PUNISH the UK do you?

Dare I say that you'd better beware. Else we punish you back.

Laughing are you Mr Juncker?

Really? Like when the bully laughs at his victim who has finally clenched his fist?

You started the threats and terrorist rhetoric Mr Juncker. So now I'll raise you FIVE.

How about a few ideas for starters.

You remember those Typhoon fighter jets, currently protecting your Eastern flank in Lithuania?

Well sorry, we are SO FRIGHTENED by your threats we will simply have to withdraw them to save money.

Then there is all that expensive military assistance and co-operation that keeps much of your various sub-optimal military organisations afloat. Maybe that needs to go.

Costly Royal Navy ships in the Mediterranean? They'll have to go too. They'll be needed her to defend our new fishing limits.

I gather you are a little concerned about Isis and you are heavily reliant on our intelligence. Well, sorry. We can't afford the phone calls any more.

I expect at this point Mr Juncker, you'll be smirking.

Of course the UK wouldn't do such things!  Wouldn't it compromise UK security too?

Ah well. That's a good question.

Remember Mr Juncker here you are reading from one of the little people. I am not one of the Metropolitan elitist snobs who currently rule this ravaged little land.

So just for a moment, look at it from the position of the proles Mr Juncker. Rather than from the view point of your sycophants and toadies.

Is a faint and distant threat (for us) from Russia more destructive to the UK than being overwhelmed and ruled by you and your associated Oligachs?

Funnily we feel somewhat less insecure about Mr Putin than you do. After all there is 1600 Kilometers of Europe between the English Channel and Russia. Then, don't forget, there is another 30 kilometres of water between Europe and us.

As for intelligence on the threat from Isis we find the Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.) constitutes our defence (and yours too for that matter).

In reality, your shabby corrupt Eu intelligence doesn't really add much does it? Maybe we would get a little bit more conservative about what we share.

But anyway Mr Juncker, I can give you a comforting thought.

These are only my ideas of what UK retaliation could result from your "punishment".

The good news for you is that our current bunch of ruling Metropolitan snobs would probably NEVER contemplate such things.

But I have some bad news too.

You know those little people? The ones you deride, intimidate and sneer at?

Well, even after all the Eu bullying, lies, deceit and scare mongering, about half the UK electorate (at least) will vote to leave the Eu. Maybe many more.

Just think Mr Juncker and ask yourself this:

How many of those 30 million bullied, vilified and terrorised little people would now commit to defending your ugly monolithic anti-democratic Eu extravaganza?

Any? (I think maybe none.)

Maybe due to your threats and intimidation we will lose the referendum. Or maybe we will leave and you will "punish" us as described.

On a personal level, in either case, I will personally do my very best to oppose, subvert and dilute any support to your Oligarchy from then on.

So if either of these circumstances come about, I won't be marching to your defence Mr Juncker.

Much less my children.

Ever. Under any circumstance.

Furthermore I'd do my best oppose any UK support or commitment to the Eu. For any reason.

I would if necessary, lie in front of tank transporters, close runways and prevent ships sailing. Basically Mr Juncker, I will do my very best to ensure NO UK military or financial commitment is spent in defending or propping up any part of your Oligarchy.

Of course I'm just one of the little people.

Such statements from one of the proles may be regarded as trivial and simple bluster. But remember Mr Juncker, there are at least 30 million of us despised and derided little people who feel the same way in the UK. So beware.

But let us cool it down a little and end on a more conciliatory note. I'll condense the above into a few simple words.

Basically Mr Juncker, we can have friendly relations with the Eu.

Or not.

As is your choice.

But please, do not expect hostile Eu actions against the UK to go without consequence.