Well, P³ is right about this for a change

That, I think to be true. Have already culturally appropriated all that is British for the benefit of the European Union within his article, the willingness of Osborne to simply ignore the human rights of the people of Britain to determine their own future is nothing less than a suggestion that the deliberate enslavement of a country for the benefit of another should take place, facilitated by the denial of the expression of free will to the people of Britain.

In that context to describe the attitude as colonial was not enough. That would imply economic exploitation might continue, but Osborne has, I think, gone further. In his article he made clear that he knows a referendum would almost certainly be won now. So his argument was that Westminster should simply refuse one, ensuring as a consequence that the people of Britain will be held against their will, and with their rights ignored. What else is that but the attitude of a slaver?

It is, indeed, a very weak argument against a Brexit referendum, isn’t it?

9 thoughts on “Well, P³ is right about this for a change”

  1. “In his article he made clear that he knows a referendum would almost certainly be won now.”

    Not a prayer. They had Fury Road-level predictions of a post-Brexit wasteland without food and medicines, and it turns out to be an issue with a few seed potato growers and truckers taking a sandwich into Rotterdam. Odds of rejoining the EU anytime soon are about zero.

  2. That was my thought. Plus, if we wanted to go back in it would be on the shittiest terms imaginable, why would anybody vote for that?

  3. Tim

    An I right in thinking you have just rellaced all Murphy’s references to Scotland with “Britain” and all his references to the UK with “the EU”? In which case, brilliantly done Sir!

  4. it turns out to be an issue with a few seed potato growers and truckers taking a sandwich into Rotterdam

    Don’t forget the Scottish langoustine fishers (a key part of our manufacturing industry). Fond of spiny lobster, I’ve been keeping an eye on the shelves in our local Waitrose, expecting to see heavily discounted stock that can no longer be sold to the EU. But no luck, so far. 🙁

  5. “It has never been hard to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.”

    ― P.G. Wodehouse

  6. A couple of funnies in Spudland…..

    “Anton Mussert says:

    “are seen as aggressive international tax policy”

    Lots of aggression going on then. According to the OECD there are over 5,400 ‘Special Economic Zones’ world-wide in 147 countries. The EU allows them and there around 80 among EU member states.

    Who is it (other than you) who regards this as aggressive international tax policy?

    Richard Murphy says:

    The EU and the OECD, for starters”

    Anton Mussert was the founder of the Dutch Nazi party.

    Elsewhere, Spud misses the irony….

    “Terry Naylor says:

    “Proposals have been unveiled for a new model of green ports”

    I suppose they think that something rubbish and unworkable will be accepted by the public so long as the word ‘green’ is tacked on to it.”

  7. The last one was pretty ugly. The atmosphere was febrile and very few were brave enough to display “No” posters. Note particularly that it _did_ require bravery to display support for “No” in way that was not required for the “Yes” campaign. The underlying threat of violence came from only one side, yet “No” squeaked through.

    The only real message was trying to be polite: “No thank you” was the bumper sticker.

    This time it will be open warfare. I would sign up to “No means No” or “WE ALREADY SAID NO. FUCK OFF”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *