I look forward to the Full Withdrawal of the UK from the EU or FWUKEU, as it will mean an end to these never-ending and pointless Leave / Remain polls that litter our political landscape.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW
So, according to a recent poll, Remain would win an EU referendum held now by 54% to 46%. And with over 20,000 people taking part it is hailed as a large poll. And my answer is – so what!
Sorry, but 20,000 is insignificant when compared to the well over 30 million that voted and the 17.4 million people that swung the vote in favour of Leaving the EU.
But that aside, we now need to be asking those Remainers some serious questions.
Like – what would staying in the EU actually look like going forward?
We voted to leave back in June 2016 and the EU has changed a lot in the intervening period.
For example, the power of Merkel and Germany is arguably on the wane – for now – with France and Macron coming more and more to the fore.
And the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has today called for the creation of a "true European Army", which he said Europeans could not defend themselves without.
The BBC reports that while on a visit to the former Western Front at Verdun, "….he said Russia had shown it could be a threat and Europe had to be able "to defend itself better alone"."
But, talking to the French radio station Europe 1, he said:
"We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America."
And I want all those Remainers out there, who keep pointing at Russia as being in collusion somehow with the Leave camp and with the Skripal affair still simmering away, to hear what Macron also said:
"Who is the main victim? Europe and its security. I want to build a real security dialogue with Russia, which is a country I respect, a European country – but we must have a Europe that can defend itself on its own without relying only on the United States."
That should tell you all you need to know about future European security with Macron anywhere near the levers of power, confusion over whether Russia is a a threat or a partner and a seeming preference in the end to Putin's approach rather than having a muscular US military machine on our side. It sounds to me like he wants to cosy up to Russia and distance Europe from the USA – and China by the sounds of it.
If the EU has its own army and dictates when we can use it, how does that affect our ability to defend the Falkland Islands for example?
And how about EU foreign policy as this all unfolds? Having control of defence gives the EU control over foreign policy too. What will that do to our already reduced relationship with the Commonwealth as the EU dictates more and more in this area?
Then there's the new EU finance minister that both Macron and Juncker want in place, where the aim is for all EU member state budgets, not just those in the eurozone, to be signed off by the EU before they can be enacted.
And that's without talking about the membership of the euro, the UK contributions rebate and joining the Schengen area.
If any of the above came about, apart from the obvious ardent Remainers, is that where the UK voters would want to see their country going in the years to come with respect to the UK economy, the defence of UK interests and how we deal with other countries around the world?
Not as far as I'm concerned, so the Remainers have to define exactly what they mean by Remain.
They go around saying Leavers must define what they mean by Leave, well I demand Remainers define exactly what they mean by Remain.
And given the above and what Günther Oettinger, the EU Commissioner in charge of the EU budget, has said about the UK losing its rebate should it ever want to go back in the EU, then you can see that the Remainers can't claim that we'd go back in as we were – that is no longer an option. It would probably be just about all-in or nothing!
And if Remainers do claim that we could just turn the clock back, I bet they can't get that in clear writing from the UK government, the EU parliament, the EU Commission and the EU council.
In the final analysis there is no 'Remain', that option is not there. It would be re-join on terms yet to be negotiated.
So if for the sake of argument, we had second referendum and Remain won (I don't believe they would though), we would have to negotiate with the EU to rescind Article 50, if we are legally able to do so (which I don't think we are). And that means once that negotiation over euro membership, wide open borders, defence union and no individual UK foreign and finance policy was complete and the terms agreed, we would have to put it to the people to decide in another referendum, wouldn't we? I mean, that would only be fair wouldn't it?
Anyway, before people get hot under the collar, it doesn't matter how much the Remain based press and Channel 4 try to milk this poll, the government has said there will be no second EU referendum.
And that's backed up by the response the government's Department for Exiting the EU has given to a recent petition on the UK parliament website against a second referendum that has gained well over 100,000 signatures:
"The Government is clear that we will respect the result of the 2016 referendum, and that we will not hold a second referendum."
"The people of the United Kingdom gave a clear instruction and the Government is committed to seeing that through. We will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019."
But although a second referendum is ruled out, it's a pity that actually staying in the EU via the PM's atrocious Chequers plan doesn't seem to have been completely ruled out.
According to reports, in today's lengthy cabinet meeting ministers did not receive a briefing on a deal between the EU and the UK that keeps the UK in a customs union, if Philip Hammond's response in the later Treasury Questions is to be believed.
So you have to wonder what they all spent two plus hours talking about don't you? And what happened to all that guff of facing down Theresa May over the Irish border?
But the interpretation of a thumbs up by Dominic Raab to the press after he left the cabinet meeting has been seen as a good sign by the markets as the pound spiked up in response.
Now Raab is the one that wants to limit the Irish border backstop, which is unacceptable in the eyes of both Brussels and Dublin. So you have to wonder what his message really was?
That the PM's deal is on track, which would please the markets, or that he'd won and that a no-deal was now more likely, which would not please the markets? Or was it his response to reports that the PM said during cabinet that she wanted a deal, but not at any cost to the UK?
Take your pick.
So, please let us all know what you think by leaving a comment below.
Thank you for watching.