Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Vulture Capitalism - Josh 376 | Main | Spin this - Josh 375 »

EU in or out? Brexit: The Movie

Whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver the film by Martin Durkin, which came out last week, is well worth watching - it's funny, entertaining and challenging.

You can also watch on Vimeo.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (92)

Owen Morgan.
When I wrote "any politics", that's what I meant. It wasn't a statement about the EU. It applies to UN politics (over which I have no control), EU politics, British politics, and Local Government. Anyone seeking my vote will warn me about the perils of voting for the other guy (= the scares) and falsely promise me the Earth (= the lies). I get to exercise my vote, now usually once every five years. If I vote for a candidate of one of the bigger parties, then almost certainly I will be selecting someone with one or more of the following characteristics a lawyer, a person who has been in politics all their life, someone who has clawed their way to the top of their political pile, and who owes favours. I will be voting not only for a candidate but for a party manifesto which probably includes a whole raft of policies, only some of which I support. Yet if that candidate and their party are elected, that same party will assume they have a mandate to pursue those policies that I do not approve.

I sincerely believe that anyone who fails to treat politics without a healthy dose of nihilism is a mug.

May 17, 2016 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall

Agreed. I have never voted in a national election. They also invent new policies (like welfare 'reform')

I voted for my ex g/f (Green Party) in a local election for no good rational reason. She lost.

May 17, 2016 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

esmiff. Despite reservations about the politics of this country, I always exercise my vote. Commonly I have to pinch my nose while doing so. I vote in recognition of our ancestors who gave their all so that I might have it.

When I lived in the USA I resented the fact that I had no vote, even in local elections. I paid federal, state and local taxes, yet couldn't even vote for a dog-catcher (if there were that opportunity). This in a country proud of its early political slogan "no taxation without representation".

There are some British politicians who demand respect, but another of my gripes about British politics, is that I cannot vote for them, unless they just happen to be my local candidate.

May 17, 2016 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall

My name for the leader of Scotland is Wee Minnie Murdoch. She was photographed holding a copy of The Sun on the day of the election. The SNP are a 5 year and counting Murdoch project.

No I don't think he simply backs winners. The Labour Party bitterly claimed he won elections for the Tories before he backed Mandelson/Blair.

It's The Sun Wot Won It

Even some Tory MPs acknowledged that The Sun contributed to their
election triumph. Kinnock himself blamed The Sun for his failure
to win the election, though he also admitted that he had been
half-expecting to lose the election even before the article was

May 17, 2016 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Alan Kendall

It is only because of your insight that I spotted the truth, you are a troll and the title 'a pathetic, long-winded, execrable strumpet' does fit you like a glove.
You are constantly posting on a thread which you admit to detesting, either you are a troll or you need medical help.

May 17, 2016 at 6:56 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung. I am posting on a thread that I felt was superfluous, the topic already being dealt with on another thread. I have never intimated that I detest the topic (that's s your spin) and have exercised my option to post here.
Whatever else is in your mind.

May 17, 2016 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I see no discussion of the points made in the film. Did any of you actually see it? If not, I guarantee it is worth your time.

May 17, 2016 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterNiels

AK, did you watch the film? Or were you too busy with policing the forum for duplicate topics?

May 17, 2016 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda


For me ( as someone from outside the UK & EU) there were many points of interest. I knew quite a bit but seeing it all together it made more impact and sense.
One point that hit me was the comment that large UK companies like the EU because it has huge amounts of regulation , there by providing a huge barrier to entry for new comers to the market. I hadn't thought about it that way but it does fit the large company mentality. It also helps explain the split in the Conservative Party ranks

May 17, 2016 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Alan K:

Perhaps you should petition the Bish for you to take over the moderation of the content and comments on this site, as you obviously find the current situation beneath your own standards?

Or just troll off and set up your own blog. please.

May 17, 2016 at 10:14 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian


Yes I have watched the film

Why do you accuse me of "policing"? All I did was express regret that this current thread was duplicating what had already occurred and continued to be discussed on another thread. I did this for rather selfish reasons - I would prefer to discuss other more interesting matters than politics, something I consider to be a necessary evil. I never imposed my wishes on others here, I merely expressed them here once

I try to respond to anyone who addresses a post to me (as am doing now). With one exception all my posts on this thread have been responses to others.

I trust we might have more pleasant conversations in the future.

May 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I may have missed something here,but there are 28 countries in the EU,is this so?That being the case,what are the other 170 odd countries doing to survive?The way I see it,there is no real reason to stay in the EU.It costs(so I'm told)53 million dollars a day to remain in the EU and you get what?BREXIT and save those millions and put it in your pocket,not theirs.

May 17, 2016 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterdelcon2

Dear Salopian.

I very much appreciate your kind comments. However I very much doubt that Bish would approve of my politics (such as they are).

My standards are clearly not in your league, so why don't you apply for the job?

So you also are playing your troll card. What next, the passive-aggressive gambit? Good luck with that.

Why not stop wasting your time with me and get to the meat of this thread - Brexit the movie? I don't believe you've contributed to that yet.

May 18, 2016 at 6:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Here in the US, we have our own 'Brexit' to engineer. We need to rid ourselves of the same Fabian socialist bureaucrats that make up Brussels, and to cancel the structures that make the most odious pronouncements. We have the same impetus to create bureaucrats here as they do in Brussels, and the bureaucrats have the same incentives for growing their own power and permanence. We need to slice the Federal government, get rid of agencies, get rid of regulations, and then educate people that sharks exist, and they need to protect their own individual interests. Cutting out the EPA's "Endangerment Finding" document would be an excellent place to start. Cutting off the flow of American money to UN bureaucrats and their groups, and defunding the IPCC and UNFCCC would be a great thing. Cutting off NSF and NIH money to research universities would help put some competitive fires back into those decaying and corrupt institutions of elitism and leisure.

May 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterMickey Reno

@Alan Kendall

I never implied that the EU had deprived you of your vote. You appear to have done this voluntarily.

I was perplexed that you did not vote but would wish to brexit, presumably because he EU made decisions that you were not allowed to vote upon. I find this strange.

How strange that you find me strange for wanting me & my offspring, friends & family, to live in a country which governed itself, instead of relying on unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, bureaucrats, like most normal people would! If you don't wish live under such auspicies, try moving to North Korea, it may be more to your liking!

May 18, 2016 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

Alan the Brit.

Why so much hostility? I was asking you how you reconciled not voting in national elections with wanting to vote in the referendum to achieve an outcome that you believe will preserve the relevance of your British vote. That is all. You haven't told me and frankly by now I've lost interest.

I would point out that you already live in a country that has, to use your words, "unelected, undemocratic, [largely] unaccountable and unsackable bureaucrats. They are called senior civil servants and, as recently been revealed, the police.

As I wrote in an earlier post (2.51pm, May 17) any impression you might have that the political system we live under in the UK is accountable to the people (ie democratic) is mostly illusory.

May 18, 2016 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan K:

"Why not stop wasting your time with me and get to the meat of this thread - Brexit the movie? I don't believe you've contributed to that yet."

That is very rich coming from someone who has posted around 25% of the comments on this thread - none of which are about the movie, but why you think we shouldn't be discussing it on this thread.

May 18, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

I do not really get British rejection arguments of the euro banking union.
The last time I checked the UK banking union was also disastrous for mean living standards on these islands.
At most it's a rejection of the French style of capitalistic centralization (large civil servant apparatus etc etc)
This is fair enough but British style capitalism is perhaps even more of a centrifugal force using slightly different methods.

Again we are simply witnessing the capitalistic state usury system expanding yet again.
The same type of people created these systems.
Both banking unions are curiously inorganic thingies.
Such state apparatus structures do not flow around the nation.
They obliterate them as that is their function.

So we have a curiously hybrid centrifugal machine.
So what?
Parliament is a oligarchy.
The commission is a oligarchy.
What's the flipping difference?

May 19, 2016 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

In the so called "democratic" states the people are not allowed to reject taxation.
They are allowed to elect various mafia like figures who may or may not redistribute the tax bounty to their friends and constituents after it already has been concentrated.

But why concentrate the money in the first place?

In both the British and Euro system we have capitalism without most people having access to a sufficient amount of the stuff.
This is a basic characteristic of state usury.
The great masse of the people work inside and for the capitalist system but are not themselves capitalists.
Are we to lament the loss of democratic embroidery on this
crude euro canvass.
Is it not a good thing that the system is better exposed under a euro totalitarian light.

May 19, 2016 at 12:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

Dear Salopian if I have occupied 25% of this thread, it is because another c.25% consist of posts from other people that have addressed me (like your good self,, 3 posts at the last count) and I like to respond, or in a very few cases I have commented on what someone else has written.

As for not commenting on the film, well if you look really hard you will find that I have - one of only seven people to do so. Only two people (tiny CO2 and Ross) have made any substantial effort.

However, I watched the film in small bits and so may not have appreciated its full flavour. I found it clever and parts of it really funny. I think it's a great piece of propaganda, not for what it says but for what it leaves out. I also gained the distinct impression that if the SNP had commissioned something similar two years ago, we wouldn't be discussing whether or not the UK should Brexit, because there wouldn't now be a UK.

Your turn.

May 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Here is Vernon Coleman on Britain's 'illegal' entry into the EU.

In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath’s Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.)

"Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people’.

However, when it came to it Heath didn’t have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972."

May 19, 2016 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff


When Indyref took place, we discovered every sweetie shop in Edinburgh was against independence as was every expert on every subject in Britain. We also discovered that Patagonia bunny rabbits would develop terrible diseases and die horrible deaths if Scotland became independent.

In my opinion, there was no serious referendum b/c the SNP didn't even try to do their homework on currency and EU membership.

Since ~ 2011, the SNP's main purpose in life has been to reduce the number of Labour MPs in the UK with the help of Rupert Murdoch and The Sun as well as other media outlets while bizarrely opposing their raison d'etre, independence.

Frankie Boyle was challenged in a BBC programme to accept the BBC's political neutrality on independence. With the BBC's cheque in his pocket, he said nothing. In other words, he effectively lied.

May 19, 2016 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

So much wrong with that film

Number 1: The UK was never NEVER a free trade type of jurisdiction.
This is a absurd statement given its real history.
It was a forced trade construct.

Pre 1914 Uk was not a nirvana, it was a pit of despair.
The breakdown of (forced) globalisation involved a bank holiday of many months dwarfing the American 1930s event.
So as to maintain the banks monopoly of credit a emergency renationalisation of claims was put into motion.

May 19, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

Interesting take on the movie from outside the UK - Luboš Motl at The Reference Frame

Gives his take both from a UK and a Czech point of view producing the following comment:-

".....My near certainty that I would vote "Leave" in the U.K. doesn't translate to a certainty about my vote in a hypothetical Czechzit referendum......"

Worth a read through. It sort of illustrates the different priorities that exist within member states and how they could be time dependent and influenced by political factors outwith the EU.

May 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Godwin's Law: the first to make reference to Hitler in an Internet-based debate loses the debate.

Shindig's Law: the first appearance of the Dork of Cork in an Internet-based debate renders that debate unreadable.

May 19, 2016 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterShindig

British free trade propaganda is the sicker joke.
It's laughable for a period then becomes unreadable.
Using the RN to blockade western Irish trade with Spain and causing local money shortages in the colonies and therefore forcing the export of real goods to England is I an afraid not free trade.

Just listened to Bernard Connelly interview on moneyweek by the ever sexy M.Sommerset Webb.
It's wonderfully elaborate and ever so believable on the surface.
However you must somehow try to believe the time value of money is real and not a human construct.

Even so its a must read interview to understand the inner workings of the glorious revolution type of people.

May 19, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

May 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

The only thing that really matters to Dork, and many others as well, is if the supply of high end single pot/single malt Irish and Scott whiskies will be adversely impacted by these machinations.

Selective reading and good humor are two excellent filters to apply to Dork.

May 19, 2016 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Perhaps but it cannot be historically denied that the British engaged in forced trade rather then free trade tactics.
There is simply no other mechanism to concentrate wealth.
British indoctrinated people like to sail up the Nile for some funny reason.
The Eu is simply following the instructions contained within a very old cookbook.
The creation of a new banking union pastry requires both predictable hothouse monetary temperatures and the correct ingredients.

Connelly attempts to mix English peasant revolt democracy with scarcity economics
This is farcical.
Those peasants were revolting against a earlier incarnation of capitalism.

I could go on and on and on but one of the most vital ingredients is a new puritanical plantation.
Muslims play this role today.

The UKs inception was a far more lawless period until the new oligarchy was settled into a comfortable position.
People tend to forget that.
There is little point in replacing one oligarchy with another. ( at least when looking from the bottom up)
It merely creates needless flux.

Roman rule became British rule, now we live inside the eurovision.
Soon Australia can compete....

Compitition is such a loaded word anyhow.
I cringe when I hear British sovereignists using such language.
In reality it means us competing for artificially scarce money.
International trade has been artificially pump primed by such dastardly methods.
Creating a woeful lack of local redundancy.

May 19, 2016 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

Dork: "I could go on and on and on..."

Bloody hell! What have you been doing thus far?

May 20, 2016 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterShindig

I have watched Brexit the Movie. Twice. All the way through. It was better at the second sitting. I intend to start a pop group called "Regulation Days".

There are two (well, more, but two will do) questions I would like the Remains to answer:
1. Why do you suppose that foreign politicians can run the UK better than UK politicians? (Please bear in mind that on my travels, natives of other countries have slagged off their own politicians to me quite as fully as we do to ours).
2. Why do you suppose that over 60 countries left the British Empire at their own desiring, preferring independence from being ruled by a distant (even though democratically elected) UK based government? (Please note that I am not contending that either UK democracy/government or a newly independent country's government is or was perfect).

May 20, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBudgie

Not a fan of Yanis V.
He is a classic leftist globalist egotist but in a recent New York talk with Chomsky he revealed that a unknown figure by the name of Thomas Weisner holds total power within Europe and not the respective finance ministers.
In this case I believe him. (I suspect his ego cannot prevent him from exposing the truth from time to time)
The lack of Parliamentary cover in Europe exposes the true nature of power.

It's a explosive revelation for those people who continue to believe in the fig leaf of democracy.

In truth the real power knows that ballot box democracy is a absurdity within a state usury system.
They merely wish to tidy up a historical mistake and curiosity made by their buddy Cromwell.

May 20, 2016 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

May 20, 2016 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

Thomas Wieser mentioned at 38 minutes and again some interesting questions at 1h 18 m

May 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

The Remains are getting desperate --I see on a Telegraph headline that Osbourne reckons UK house prices will drop by 20% , if Breixt succeeds. I wonder how he figures that out ? Something tells me there are quite a few lap dog politicians on the remain side.

May 21, 2016 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss


'Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US. The European Union always was an American project.

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project. 
As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency. 
The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement's funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA.

May 21, 2016 at 2:10 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

esmiff, American governments, bankers, big business leaders, most elites anywhere in the world would prefer us to remain in the EU because it's the easy option. It's not as if immigration or the EU rules affect them. What do they care if the rest of us struggle to get a school place or a doctor? They live in areas that only see a foregn face when they hand over their household chores to the staff. Share and currency markets will panic, but then they panic when someone breaks wind.

Traditionally governemts have sold stuff to keep the public quiet. Tony's left wing boom was built on borrowing and asset stripping. The Conservatives continued to do the same while pretending to balance the books. We are told one the one hand that immigration increases wealth and on the other the bottom 60-70% of the population are net receivers of taxation in the form of sevices as well as benefits. Just basic maths and a look at the growing borrowing, says that the figures don't add up. We maintain the illusion of prosperity because a lot of money moves about but ultimately it's running out. Does that matter to people who will just up sticks to another economy, should their own collapse or who don't live here anyway?

If we were transported back to pre WW1, would our current leaders decide that turning a blind eye to Hitler forming a super state be the option they'd take? I mean, the death of a million jews might have been worth the 50-100 years of recovery from the wars if you count all the people who died as a result. If you use just basic accounting and statistics, you could easily conclude that appeasement should have been the way to go.

May 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Apropos nothing in particular, but - drove through the small seaside town I now call home today (Saturday).

On one corner, a jolly crowd of people surrounding the 'Vote Leave' stall...

On the opposite corner, two dejected looking bods with their 'Con-In' stall....

Just sayin'......

May 21, 2016 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

UK politics is being turned on its head by this referendum and that is exactly what it needed. Corbin is unelectable, the Liberal Democrats are almost extinct, what a great time for the Conservative party to split and for real politics to be reborn.

May 21, 2016 at 10:47 PM | Registered CommenterDung

liked it but feel it needed to point out more of the many pols who rely on the career step to the EU/UN when out of office.

ps - why is Rhoda in Texas - is it a prisoner swop situation - how can we help Rhoda ?

May 23, 2016 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

There are only two things that can been considered facts in this debate: 1 – if we leave the EU, we will no longer be part of the EU, and will join the vast majority of other countries in the world who are not part of the EU, and 2 – if we remain, we will be ruled by a foreign-based power, the majority of whom are openly hostile to us.

All other claims are just suppositions, usually based upon prejudice; history has shown that attempts to predict the social, political or economic future usually fail – though it is often those who are generally decried who turn out to be correct (Cassandra and Churchill, to name but two).

May 23, 2016 at 12:04 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Durkin is losing it.

Why doesn't his frog caricature make Koax, Koax noises ?

May 25, 2016 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>