With Boris gone it will be back into the EU

A few days ago the Foreign Office was revealed as a corrupt and useless organisation. Senior officials were holidaying as people we have a moral duty towards were dying in Afghanistan, while civil servants refused to come in at weekends or work more than their normal hours. The revelations were so shocking that at one stage it looked as if a senior mandarin was about to get the chop. 

It was time to demonstrate who really governs Britain. Suddenly the newspapers were full of stories about continuous parties being held in Downing St during lockdown a year ago. In an instant Afghanistan and the Foreign Office vanished off the news. Refugees are still waiting and dying, but who cares about them when Senior Civil Service careers are at stake?

Today it is the Downing St Sofa Scandal and who paid for it. With a bit of luck and a corrupt wind, Boris may resign, and Whitehall having gained the field, the country can be turned back on course to rejoin the EU. Not on the same terms of course, we will be punished for leaving, the pound will have to go, and the Schengen Agreement. There will be regional parliaments and refugee quotas set by Brussels.

When will politicians ever learn not to defy the will of Whitehall ?

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

16 Comments on With Boris gone it will be back into the EU

  1. Among the various causes of the existence of the EU is the view that it stops yet another attempt by Germany to rule Europe, possibly by violent force.

    But Germany’s threat to Europe resides more in its anti-Europeanism than in its ability to dominate European economics and governance. And this is understood by pro-Western hard-heads.

    Look to France now, and look to Poland -as leading counties that have potential influence -for the Greater Good- on the rest of the Continent.

    The EU is quietly collapsing and is being replaced by clever trade agreements among like-minded entities whose principals understand that anti-Europeanist wokeism is destructive, even for mendicants who rely on European surpluses, generosity, and open borders.

    And these constructive pro-Europeanist forces know not to broadcast the existence of their campaign -having understood what it takes to defeat the vast armies of anti-Europeanism in the polity, in the administrative state, in the media, and in the academy.

    It would be a big help if more European civilians devoted some of their time to supporting this campaign in concrete ways.

  2. And what of Theodore Dalrymple? Are we all to pretend he didn’t go down with the ‘boat’?

    “For example, shortly after his arrival in Russia, Custine went to the annual festival at the palace of Peterhof, a festival of such magnificence that it took 1,800 servants to light 250,000 lamps for it. Visitors reached the palace by boat from Saint Petersburg, and one boat had sunk in a storm on the way to the festival with the loss of all its passengers and crew. But because “any mishap [in Russia] is treated as an affair of State” in Russia, and because “to lie is to protect the social order, to speak the truth is to destroy the State,” there followed “a silence more terrifying than the disaster itself.” In Russia, people of the highest social class—as were the boat’s passengers—could disappear not only without a trace but without comment. Who in such a country could ever feel safe?”

  3. The reach of “moral duty” is typically and rightfully limited by how much it costs the dutiful to feed, medicate, and house recipients of their moral generosity.

    And the full costs of this generosity must be assessed: including the costs to the generous hosts of accommodating the needs of mendicant groups which have extremely disproportionately high numbers of members prone to violent criminality and low/negative productivity.

      • One supposes you have impoverished yourself personally, aiding as many as you can less fortunate than yourself. Let’s face it, there is every opportunity to part with every scrap of one’s personal wealth in aiding others. Have you done that? If not, then you are drawing a line somewhere where you adjudge that cost exceeds your moral obligation, just as Mr Grimes is doing.

        • A typically specious argument. “One” can suppose whatever “one” wants. It’s absurd to suggest that it should be any individual’s responsibility to do this. Most are not in a position to be of practical help anyway, they don’t have “personal wealth”, they have enough to meet living expenses and support family, if they are lucky. The sensible way to do it is using central funding and existing institutions, in that way help is given fairly by the whole population. If you have “personal wealth” perhaps it’s you that should be doing more, but don’t worry, there’s no moral obligation to leave yourself penniless as a result.

          • So you won’t do a damn thing for them yourself (“ineffective”). But you will forced all the other Britons to do as you say whether they want to or not ( “the only fair way”).

            Why do leftists always think, like Louis XIV or Marie Antoinette, that the fact that some whim entered their head morally obligates *everybody else* to pay for it?

          • Well “skeptic”, it didn’t give me the option to reply directly to you. However, what a typical selfish attitude that I’ve come to expect from the entitled right wing. Yes, everybody contributing a small but fair amount is obviously the best way to do these things. And as for forcing people do do things whether they want to or not, that’s just the way democratic government works. Grow up, live with it. Some wealthy individuals do decide to help over and above this, others decide to keep all their money, offshore where it can’t be found. That’s just people isn’t it? I know where you stand.

            Fancy criticising a single individual for not saving the world singlehandedly. What an idiot.

  4. “people we have a moral duty towards were dying in Afghanistan”

    What moral duty do we have to anybody in Afghanistan? Those who collaborated with our government were well rewarded, and our duty to them ended with their last pay cheque. We never had any duty to the rest of them. Let them do as they please in their own nasty, barbarous, ultra-Islamic country, and let us sort out our own problems without sentimentalising about foreigners who hate us.

    • Actually there is a new case for European aka “white” unity vis-a-vis Chinese imperialism, Muslim fanaticism, African overpopulation. Divided we fall.

      • Division is one thing. Gutlessness another. The anti-Westernists, most of them home-grown, have persuaded the ordinary people that standing up for themselves is immoral, anti-ethical, and really selfish in very bad ways.