"Interesting that most of the commentators here seem to think they know what is going on. They don't."

And, judging from your posts, that includes you.

"On the other hand, much of that corruption has to do with all the wheelings and dealings with European agents, public and private..."

And those [agents] would be ... who exactly?

I'm curious to learn why you think the UK nation is currently not "self-responsible"

Also, where in the EU literature is the word Empire?

Just asking.

Oh yes, I know that one. Vitriol means bitter, colloquially unpleasant, and perhaps vindictive.

Of course I am “literal minded.” Why would I not be? One has to take comments posted here at face value, as posters are effectively anonymous. To do otherwise renders this site useless. Which is perhaps why reasoned and evidenced posts are well received, whilst ad hominem comments are generally discouraged - including suggestions that poster are arrogant or dismissive.

Please do post your “lengthy response”. I will read it.

Re Redwood’s experience, I’ll declare a prejudice. I have long regarded investment banking as a socially useless activity. And in the interests of full disclosure, I very nearly married the director of an investment bank. In my opinion neither Redwood, nor Rees-Mogg understands how either the micro or macro economy works. As Redwood’s blog (11 oct) states “...the authorities are considering a further restriction on car loans which lies at the heart of part of the problem of insufficient demand for new vehicles...” Clearly he does not understand the economic drivers of vehicle demand.

Your “bulleted list” was not bulleted. But clearly you do like a “bulleted list” as the link you provided to Redwood’s blog goes to a bulleted list. The problem with a bulleted list is that is does not advance an argument. It is nothing more than list of assertions.

I have posted extensively on ConHome about the concept of sovereignty. Clearly you have not bothered to look.

"The dear old Beeb's coverage of the Queen's Speech showed all the political bias that it is capable of. Just one of the panel being for Brexit,.."

The panel had a representative from each of the 4 main parties in Parliament. Perhaps you would only be satisfied if all 650 MPs had been on the panel?

If you think Kuenssberg is biased, then feel free to raise a complaint with the BBC. As BBC Political Editor of course she is always around reporting in political issues!

Please quantify your assertion that "voter fraud is endemic" and explain what characteristics of "third-world attitudes to democracy" you think we have "imported".

"Not my point at all. Well, maybe it's bad for the EU, but I don't believe it will be bad for the UK - unless its a BRINO exit...."

I would love to hear why don't believe it would be bad for the UK,

You offered to provide the 6 page summary. I committed to read it. But you renaged. Yes, I did expect you to deliver on your promise. What you delivered instead is a load of incoherent ramblings,without context. Let me help you.

1) Redwood is an historian cum politician, not an economist, and has never had a proper job. His list that you reference is risible (and I’d be happy to give a line by line repudiation – just ask).

2) You say “… the UK benefits least out of the EU28 from membership of the EU Single Market”. So what? The important conclusion is that “the UK benefits”.

3) A legitimate question might be: “could the UK do better elsewhere”? Personally I think the answer is NO.

4) “92% of businesses don’t even sell to the EU” That is a canard. Tell me. How many of those companies only exist because they import from the EU?

5) The 1948-72 and 1993-2017 growth statistics are completely spurious (see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticprodu... )

6) “All this neglects, of course, the fact that it really isn't just about money: those with a smidgin of respect for England's history, culture, and standing in the world believe passionately that we must no longer surrender our sovereign independence to a foreign bureaucracy with an avowed intention of "ever closer (political and economic) union" – Ah yes!. And here is the real reason for your vitriol. btw You are misinformed.

Please read the late Dr David MacKay's excellent little tome "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air." You can download it here... http://www.withouthotair.com/cft.pdf

Chapter 1 explains the climate change CO2 argument (though it does not detail the CH4 methane argument)

Help us. Which " claims made ... have all proven false?"

(btw. Surely immigration increases human biodiversity?)

Elaine, I applaud your sentiments and agree wholeheartedly with the desirability of reducing transportation. Unfortunately the capitalist system relies on specialisation and the economies of scale. Companies focus on what they do best and buy in everything else. And this applies both to manufacturers and service industries.

The only way to change this system is to get the true costs in the right place and, so far, the long term climate cost of any activity has never been accounted for. This is because it can only be addressed internationally. The UK ‘appears’ to be doing quite well on reducing its emissions, but that has been achieved by offshoring our manufacturing.