George Maggs: Why we must stand fast against a soft Brexit

Although many Conservatives voted Remain in last year’s EU referendum (the vast majority for economic reasons), since the vote Conservative MPs and wider party supporters have largely accepted the result and are seeking to make the best of our new reality.

Continued opposition to Brexit comes almost entirely from those on the Left, including the BBC and sections of the press, which seem intent on attributing every piece of negative news to our decision to leave the EU, while concluding every good news headline with the phrase ‘despite Brexit’.

There are intuitive explanations for this. Unlike socialism, Conservative ideology seeks to preserve the best of Britain’s distinctive character. It reveres our institutions, recognising that while they may be easy to destroy, they are much harder to replace with satisfactory alternatives. It also looks fondly upon our history, seeing our culture and socio-economic system as something worth promoting and defending.

Leaving the EU hands sovereignty back to our domestic institutions and liberates us from European interference, allowing us to uphold our idiosyncratic British traditions. It is therefore natural that most Conservatives are able to envisage at least some benefits to our soon-to-be-conveyed freedoms.

Leftists, meanwhile, seek to undermine British institutions and history at every turn. Our constitutional settlement is seen as class-ridden and self-serving; our history viewed as repressive and imperialist. In every conflict since World War II, Corbyn and his ilk have supported Britain’s enemies. Every Middle Eastern conflict, they maintain, can be traced back to some ill-conceived ‘Western’ intervention. In their eyes, Britain and her allies lack any sort of moral authority whatsoever.

The more our history is portrayed by the Left as heartless and archaic, the more illegitimate and morally bankrupt they make our institutions and international dealings appear, the easier it is to convince people that our system should be replaced with ‘modern’, vacuous alternatives. EU membership has been used as a tool by the Left to dissociate ourselves from our past and to remould Britain into an unremarkable, cosmopolitan region of a single European super-state.



For many on the Left, the EU has become regarded as a proxy for progressivism and tolerance. Their preference for protectionism leads them to support membership of the Customs Union, and existential fears about appearing to be seen as any way ‘racist’ mean they daren’t oppose our membership of the Single Market, which would put an end to the free movement of people. Yet membership of these bodies directly contradicts their supposed concern for the poorest in society.

It is a fact that free trade helps the poorest most. It not only supports the least well-off in Britain by reducing the cost of food, clothes and other basic goods, it also allows producers in the Third World to export their wares to new markets and so work their way out of poverty. The Customs Union, however, prevents free trade by erecting tariffs against non-EU states, resulting in Third World farmers being priced out of EU markets, and food in British shops costing around 22 per cent more than it should.

EU free movement rules also hurt the poorest as they result in the incomes of low earners becoming suppressed due to a glut of low-skilled labour. The EU’s decision to allow in millions of undocumented migrants in violation of the Dublin Convention means this is only likely to get worse. Leftists are therefore in the curious position of wanting to make the lives of the least fortunate more difficult. Their hypocrisy should not go unchallenged.

The government should therefore remain steadfast in its rejection of the so-called ‘soft Brexit’ option. Leaving the EU, along with its institutional appendages, will allow Britain to maintain and strengthen its ancient constitutional settlement and cultural distinctiveness. It will enable us to construct an ethically robust and economically expedient free trading future, and permit us to implement a more advantageous and morally defensible immigration policy. Conservatives should therefore rejoice and embrace our future as a fully independent sovereign nation.

George Maggs

  • TheRightToArmBears

    ‘Conservative ideology seeks to preserve the best of Britain’s distinctive character.’
    Really, since when?
    Tory po

    • Leo Savantt

      You are conflating Conservative ideology with the Tory Party, whose desire to conserve is almost completely absent.

      • Colonel Mustard

        The article used a capital C for conservative, implying the party.

        • Leo Savantt

          Indeed.

      • TheRightToArmBears

        If I was then I would say I was confusing, and not this new word conflate which every little MP has been told by party HQ to use.has been

        • Leo Savantt

          I believe conflate comes from the latin conflat, meaning to melt together, making its first appearance in English in the mid 16th C. But I was only pulling your leg as well as making a point in respect of the lack of conservative guiding principles in today’s party.

  • Colkitto03

    85% voted for Brexit in the last general election. Labour and Tory manifestos both committed to leaving the single market.
    EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT VOTED FOR BREXIT !!!!!!
    That is the figure that matters today
    Yet the Remainers and the media still grasp onto the 52/48 figure like a drowning man to a life vest.
    .

    • Bik Byro

      And a recent YouGov survey (29 March this year) showed attitudes among the public were 69% “Brexit should go ahead” to 21% “Brexit should be stopped” (10% don’t know/undecided) The remoaners make up barely 1 in 5 of the population.

    • Vera

      Really? Surely it was much closer – 57% to 43% or thereabouts. How did you reach 85%?

      • Colkitto03

        Sorry, should have been clearer, by adding the labout and Conservative vote percentages together in the latest general election. The manifestos of both parties are committed to leaving the single market and customs union..

  • geordieboy

    Unless Barnier is reined in by Merkel and Juncker I can’t see an alternative to a hard Brexit which I think is the better option.

    • Vera

      Barnier does as he is told by Merkel. She is delaying because of coming elections in Germany though I’m sure her winning is already a done deal. The EU is only interested in their Marxist project and has no interest in even the wellbeing of EU member states or peoples. After all Merkel is part of the elite, while she remains in power nothing will affect her, the rest are useful idiots like Barnier, Juncker and Bliar or little people like you and me. Bliar may think he’s in with a chance at being the new super powerful President of the EU but he is totally deluded – Merkel would never agree to that. What steal her thunder? Never!

  • Jolly Radical

    How on earth do Canada and Switzerland survive outside the EU?

    They must be terribly impoverished countries with zero standing in the world . . .

    Oops.

  • Nockian

    Could care less about restoring sovereignty to preserve tradition and idiosyncrasies.

    I voted leave to restore sovereignty in order to have the ability to reduce the size of the state and to promote individual freedom over the ever greater suffocation of statism.

    If we are to have a future outside the EU we will be better if we are prepared to junk traditions and institutions. The British economy is in bad shape and we will require a reduction in the size of the state to facilitate entrepreneurial growth. We will need to end strangulating regulation and allow competition to flourish in order for everyone to have a crack at wealth creation who is prepared to take some risk. That means cutting back on workers rights and the over bearing mess of taxation, health and safety, employers paying for everything from holidays, sick pay and pregnancy. We need to roll back the green taxes and the subsidies making our energy too expensive and all the guff about electric vehicles ( which aren’t being made for their green credentials, but because the state wants to use electronics to collect more taxes and ration the road space because it’s USSR road system does not allow capacity increases or private pricing through private toll roads).

    We don’t want to go back to where we were, nor how it was, we want an economy that works for those prepared to produce things and wide open to those who want try.

    • Debs

      There is no Toryism at the moment only continued Blairism. There cannot be true conservatism until we rid ourselves of the drag of the EU with its corporations lobbyists and love of cheap labour. A race to the bottom has happened under the Blairites and I include Cameron and May as Blairites.
      Our institutions have been captured by the Blairites and welfarism including so called in work benefits which are de rigeur.
      We need to get the spirit of advancement and bettering oneself back from the dead hand of the state .Stop the oversupply of workers and business will be forced to up wages and offer decent training.

      • Nockian

        I don’t wish to stop the over supply of workers. I want the state to stop taking tax to redistribute to migrant workers and the rest of us. I want the state to start protecting rights and get the hell out of everywhere else it has no business being.

        Toryism is a dead end, just like socialism. I don’t think people get it, we have done with these old systems of democratic Government and the horrendous mixed economy. Socialism a big business crony fascism have had their time. The result is misery at one speed of another. Either the Tory party ends, or it gets replaced. Blairism and the thirdway are done and communism shown to be a violent mess.

        Tories talk of small state, but never do it. They talk of business friendly, but we don’t want a business friendly government, we want a business neutral Government. We don’t want welfare caring, cotton wool censorship or any of it. It’s too expensive, burdensome and restrictive. Let’s have laissez faire capitalism – full blooded and uncompromising. Let the state perform rights protection, law and defence.

        • TheRightToArmBears

          We don’t need any migrants.
          If industry needs talent issue a work permit, not a passport.
          If the population declines then house prices will fall and young families will be able to get decently housed and will have more children and the population will rise.
          At the moment only Muslim and African families get housing and so are out-breeding us.

          • Nockian

            ‘Out breeding us’
            That’s a bizzare notion.

            A declining population isn’t a good thing, it depends on the ratio of welfare to productivity and the cost of administrating that tax and redistribution.

            Whilst it certainly sounds nice to have everybody getting cheap homes, it isn’t a right and shouldn’t be an aspiration created by the state-the cost of houses is dictated by supply and demand, but QE cheap money has caused malinvestment in property as assets in a London bubble economy – just like in demand sun loungers become undesirable once it starts to rain, so this will happen to the London bubble and the market will be awash with low cost housing and unemployment. Those immigrants that came here may discover there are neither jobs nor handouts and will simply migrate elsewhere.

            If people do wish to move here to produce things then we should welcome them. If they come here for free education/health/ handouts, or don’t want to fit in with our laws they shouldn’t be welcome. Work permits are often a disinsensitive for those who believe they can utilise their talents in a new country.

        • Ravenscar

          can’t fault you there, well said, very well said.

          • Nockian

            Yep, let them and the rest of us stand on our own feet with no descrimination in law, nor welfare.

            Thank you for your appreciation.

        • Bik Byro

          Totally agree. Unfortunately, many people that call for a “small state” are also the first in the queue to demand that the government should intervene when something happens that they don’t personally like.

          • Nockian

            They will have it regardless of their like, or dislike for it. They will have it or they will find themselves governed by dictators, or living in a society of chaos. Sooner or later, just like death, it will stare everyone in the face and they had better begin figuring out their response, beginning with the academics and think tanks. Those academics will have to begin spreading a new philosophy which is individualistic and self-reliant instead of altruistic and collective.

            Some things in the world can be understood from axiomatic truths to determine the course of action. We know that freedom under a system which protects the rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness creates increasing degrees of advancing civilisation, peace and rising prosperity. We know the laissez faire capitalism works. We know that tyranical athouritarianism, collectivism of all kinds, and lawless chaos without rights protection creates misery, poverty and death.

            The simple fact is that freedom and individualism is a net positive and big state control and collectivism is a net negative. Whilst a degree of capitalist freedom will remain boosting a compromised, mixed economy, inevitably that rocket boost will begin to weaken and then a sudden and very hard reversal takes place. I think we are at that turning point, not getting there, or near, but at the tipping point at which things will take a turn for the worse in short order. TPTB will be as helpless as the rest of us to prevent the collapse and will likely succumb to it in shorter order if they have been dependent on the state to feed their bellies. I think Atlas will shrug, not because of a conscious decision to do so, but because the ensuing chaos will be like a nuclear winter under which no entrepreneurs can flourish, or production occur.

            It’s a dire prediction, but I can only see that the philosophy and economics is set to reap the whirlwind it has created.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The majority of “institutions” leeching off the state have little to do with tradition being fairly recent constructs from the 1980s onwards.

      The real British tradition, corroded by successive governments, was for government by shoe string. Political influence and imposition on society is now top heavy and excessive. There are far too many politicians involved in Britain’s affairs and far too many unelected, taxpayer funded busybodies aiding and abetting them, inventing “ishoos” so that they can receive lucrative remuneration for pretending to resolve them whilst at the same time almost invariably making things worse.

      • And don’t forget free speech: “It’s a free country, he can say what he likes”. We MUST return to that or face dissolution.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Yes, the gradual whittling away of that particular English birthright by those entrusted with protecting it has been outrageous.

      • English Advocate

        A bonfire of the quangos perhaps? And rigorous vetting with regard to ‘charities’ which engage in political lobbying.

  • fred finger

    The subject that Gina Miller is taking another court action against the gov is getting VERY little airing.

    • Roanoake

      Would that there was some conservative lawfare firing the other way…

      • fred finger

        I am intrigued that the SNP and PC, etc are keeping so quiet. I wondered that as defence the stance that they get extra money via the Barnett formula means extra money to NI is not out of the ordinary. In other words if the issue got a lot of airing then to make it fair, all constituents get the same amount; i.e. the Barnett formula is ended. That would upset the SNP.

    • Vera

      Oh what now? Doesn’t this woman have anything else to do? And how is it her business anyway?

  • Marcus Agrippa

    Lets just go to the WTO, we are obviously wasting our time in Brussels. Barnier and Juncker have no intention of compromising, they only want to see the complete and utter humiliation of Britain.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Barnier appears to be continuing a long French tradition of negotiation with Britain in making it as difficult and exasperating as possible.

      We should have presented a huge bill to France for the blood and treasure expended in liberating them from Germany, their new best friends.

      • TheRightToArmBears

        And stopped paying money to Brussels.

  • lizmilton

    While I agree with much of what has been said in the article above…

    Let’s face some facts…if you search and read
    “Uk Parliament comes to an effective end”

    You will see we were much nearer to losing democracy, with the apparent agreed of the Conservative party and being ruled by the EU and Parliament of Mayors – see ukcolumndotorganisation- than we realised.

    If you look at the key objectives of UN Agenda 21on the above site, you will see
    “An end to national sovereignty
    An end to western democracy ” etc etc

    The ” harmonisation of incomes and redistribution of wealth across the globe ” explains MrsMay’s refusal to cut Foreigh Aid. ( If you look at the article on Chelsea Clinton’s wedding on bruceonpoliticsdotcom, you will see a breakdown of how the billions have been spent since 2011. I have no idea if it accurate, but it makes interesting reading.)

    My point is this…there is a much bigger picture than the UK leaving the EU…and we see their influence…

    Here are a couple of examples:

    1. Few people seem to be aware of the implications of the

    Barcelona Agreement 1995…(the balder listing makes interesting reading), or

    2. the EU and UN meeting in 2000, where the arrival of

    195 million migrants to Europe by 2025

    Was finalised…see “The moronification of western man: are we becoming more stupid?” And follow the links for the details.

    The UK was not meant to leave the EU…that is abundantly clear by the bias of past PM’s and politicians…

    And, if Junker did indeed order May to call the GE, ( see Michael Shrimpton QC on veteranstoday), why did she do so and then run such an appalling campaign?

    A soft Brexit is not Brexit at all…but I fear “events “will be engineered by those keen to keep to the UN Agenda, so that is what we end up with.

  • No, there are plenty of Remainers within the Conservatives, inside Westminster and outside. They are more dangerous than Corbyn’s lot.

    • xylophone

      There are also plenty of Remainers in the Civil Service who would love to sabotage Brexit if they could. They are also very dangerous, not least because they are largely invisible.

      • Plus education, media, every aspect of civil society. An army of people devoted – fanatically – to thwarting our democratic decision. A couple of hundred years ago they’d have been hanged, without question.

        • xylophone

          In the 16th century, Queen Mary would have burned them at the stake! Thankfully, we’ve moved on from such treatments, despite the threat to democracy.

        • TheRightToArmBears

          Eighty years ago most of them were secretly working either for the Germans or for Uncle Joe.

        • Vera

          Yes because for decades the EU has been doling out OUR money, called EU funding, in reality bribery, to all these institutions who know they will only keep on receiving it as long as they never criticise the EU

  • Dr Evil

    Why is it racist to control the flow of our fellow white Europeans, who are same race as most British, to our shores? Where is the racism? I cannot see it.

  • ethanedwards2002

    I’m sure that May (who was a Remainer) is finding a way to make it as soft and fluffy a Brexit as possible.

    Don’t trust her one inch. Yet another poor leader for the Tories – one of a series..

  • ale bro

    the author may take some time completing his phd, as original thinking is a requirement – his skill at this has clearly not been called upon when writing this article.

    Corbyn has supported Britain’s enemies in every conflict since World War 2? really? I don’t recall him ever backing the tories.

    Is the author a supporter of Pinochet perhaps?

    • TheRightToArmBears

      Well, he has got it right, since the Tories aren’t our friends.
      The Tories love the EU and that isn’t us.
      Corbyn is thus a closet Tory.

  • English Advocate

    A lot of people, on both left and right, are trying to shoe-horn their arguments into the traditional left v right dichotomy (as a topical example: the wrath which has descended on the head of that well-known capitalist running dog, Dennis Skinner). The real modern dichotomy is nationalist v internationalist.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      Keep it simple – us or them.

  • xylophone

    I do wish people would stop using the terms “Soft Brexit” and “Hard Brexit”. The correct terms are “Brexit” and “Remain”. Brexit means leaving the Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ jurisdiction. Anything else means remaining wholly or partially in the EU, and would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      Yes, like saying hard pregnancy and soft pregnancy.

  • TheRightToArmBears

    When will any alleged Brexiteer MP say we should just stop paying money to Brussels?
    That would introduce a new and alien element of reality into the EU hive.
    It would make for splendid television viewing.

  • The Sage

    Please don’t join with the BBC and euphemistically call these people undocumented migrants. They are illegal migrants plain and simple. Illegal means breaking the law.

    • AliQadoo1

      To be precise, they’re undocumented future Labour voters. We have Mr Blair to thank for that.

  • The Duke of Umberland, England

    Mr Maggs

    One of the reasons I voted to leave the EU was as you state:

    ‘It is a fact that free trade helps the poorest most. It not only supports the least well-off in Britain by reducing the cost of food, clothes and other basic goods, it also allows producers in the Third World to export their wares to new markets and so work their way out of poverty.’

    The principal reason why I voted Leave was that it is clear the EU is compelled to grow into a supra-National Socialist State.

    The EU can never be the United States of Europe except, in the end, by force of arms. State violence is all that it will have left to defend itself. For how else can such an artificial State defend itself?

    It can never have the ‘United’ as the United States of America has. The States of Europe have divergent histories and traditions. That is why it has large bureaucracies that are ever exapanding by law. There is no such thing as an EU people to check and confront the expansion of dictatorial powers.

    Its energies are absorbed and exercised by the eurocracy. That’s why it cannot check thousands of asylum seekers. Yet, witness east European States putting up razor wire and installing soldiers at their frontiers. Those are the actions of States who still see themselves as independent and sovereign.

    One thing I will concede is this: the British have no idea at the moment, how they are going to defend themselves against a mighty power a few miles off their coast.

    • Vera

      Mighty power? Hardly, they have no army and if it is made up of Belgians, French, Italians then what should we fear? All bugles and plumes. UK has with USA best intelligence which is only partly shared with the EU because they are not to be trusted. The EU only has power over us while we remain in it, and even then only because our politicians want to remain friends. If we just ignored them what can they do?

  • David Kane

    What is the point of a hard brexit (which I agree with) if we remain under the totalitarian grip of the Left? As western societies continue to try and attempt to square the circle of freedom and Islam the story of Robbie Travers, a third year law student at Edinburgh University shows how that effort will doom Britain and America to the rule of the gulag Left in alliance with Islam. On September 6, Robbie’s face appeared across the British media, after having been accused of “hate speech”,. that he could be accused in the first place is because of the totalitarian act introduced by the Labour government in 2003 where anyone can accuse anyone of hate speech without ANY evidence (read: “2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain” by David Vincent, Amazon and Kindle) and was being investigated by the university, who could well expel him. What sort of “hate speech” was it? Travers had referred to the jihadist fighters of Islamic State (ISIS), who burn or drowns people alive in cages, dissolve Yazidis in acid, who killed 250 non-Muslim children by feeding them into dough-kneaders, the sort of thing even Hitler would have baulked at, as “barbarians.” Get your head around this, under a supposedly “Conservative ” government, who refuse to repeal this pernicious Act, it is now “racist” and “Islamophobic” to insult or ridicule history’s most barbaric terrorists, who behead innocent men, women and children, rape innocent women and sell them as sex slaves to their fellow murderers and pedophiles. Where is the outrage, are we all prepared to lay down and surrender to this without the resistance even sheep would put up? This society is sick and does not deserve to survive much longer.