Farrukh
@implausibleblog • 126,944 subscribers
Content Creator 🤓 Photo Video & Drone Pilot 🎥 Entrepreneur & Tech Geek 🤖 Food Judge 😋 And now news as frustrated 👀 [email protected]
Shorts
Videos
After Labour's Stephen Kinnock outlines why it is better for the UK to rejoin the EU, especially in our current geo-political climate, a lady in the audience insults his father saying, "It is a corrupt, old boys network, and his family have done well out of the European Union" Stephen Kinnock later responds, "That's a disgraceful personal slur, my father - Neil Kinnock - is a patriot and has dedicated his life to public service, always standing up for what he believes in, and what is best for this country" Kinnock then asks her to name a Brexit benefit. She responds criticising CAP, says we can create our own farming model - but then admits it hasn't worked out very well 🤷♂️ My view: The exchange gets to the heart of the Brexit argument: it is easy to list the flaws in the system Britain left. The Common Agricultural Policy was often criticised for rewarding land ownership, creating bureaucracy and directing large sums to those with the most land. But pointing out those problems is not evidence that leaving solved them. Brexit was supposed to let Britain design support around its own priorities: backing food production, improving the countryside and giving farmers a clearer, fairer system. In England, the replacement was built around paying farmers for environmental work and other public benefits. But the transition has been difficult: direct payments were phased out while the new schemes were still being developed, and the Sustainable Farming Incentive was paused to new applicants in 2025, adding to uncertainty for farmers. There is a real case for reforming agricultural subsidies. But “we can make our own policy” describes a power Brexit gave the UK; it does not prove that the power has been used well. When the promised alternative is acknowledged to have fallen short, that is the question the Brexit case still has to answer. A personal attack may derail the discussion, but it cannot answer it.
Farrukh174,102 views • 2 days ago
George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.
Farrukh171,793 views • 2 days ago
Mark Carney, "In the heart of Germany, above Weimar, there is a wooded ridge called Ettusberg. And for decades, Goethe walked, thought, and wrote there. An oak on that ridge came to bear his name, a living monument to the highest ideals of European culture" "As the 20th century turned dark, that same oak became trapped behind the barbed wire of Buchenwald. A silent witness to humanity's deepest moral failure. Goethe understood that ideals must be fought for, that values do not defend themselves." "Indeed, at the end of Faust, the old man's last vision is of a free people on free ground. Nödvg, Värdjän, Siegfreiheit. Wie das Leben, de taklik si eroban mus" "Freedom and life must be earned every single day" "Every day" "Every day, not once in 1945 or 1956 or 1989. Every day, including this one." My take: 1945, 1956 and 1989 are not distant history lessons: they mark Europe’s liberation from fascism, Hungary’s uprising against Soviet rule, and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Carney’s point is that freedom is never something Europe simply achieved and banked forever - it is a choice, a responsibility and, when necessary, a struggle renewed by every generation.
Farrukh2,707,800 views • 1 month ago
Left: Ed Sheeran on Instagram, "There is a reason I don't use my professional platform for politics" Right: Except that time Ed Sheeran shot a music video in Kyiv, then did a concert for Ukraine, because, "I just wanted to so something, rather than not do anything" My view follows.
Farrukh1,940,646 views • 1 month ago
Brexiter, "The politicians that delivered Brexit, did not deliver Brexit" My view: This is not the Brexit I voted for latest. There was never a clear definition of what “Leave” meant. That was part of the problem from the start: voters were offered a binary choice, but no agreed plan for what would replace EU membership. Some promised frictionless trade and close cooperation; others wanted a much cleaner break. Those were different versions of Brexit, and the campaign never settled which one the country was choosing. So when someone says politicians “didn’t deliver Brexit”, the obvious question is: which Brexit? The UK left the EU, the single market and the customs union, and ended free movement. But geography and practical realities did not disappear: Britain still needs trade, cooperation and workable arrangements with its closest neighbours. Northern Ireland made that especially clear. “Half in, half out” is a slogan, not a plan. A more complete break would mean spelling out the costs — more barriers to trade, less cooperation and difficult choices over Northern Ireland. Brexit’s failure was not simply that politicians failed to deliver an undefined promise. It was that the promise was never honest or specific enough for voters to judge what they were actually being asked to choose.
Farrukh96,722 views • 2 days ago
Lady in maroon, "It was a real disappointment for me and my family when we came out of the European Union" Fiona Bruce, "Would you welcome a conversation about going back in?" Lady in maroon, "100%" My view: The woman in maroon described a change she and her family had felt directly: before Brexit, she said, there were more services available; since leaving the EU, things had got worse. Asked whether she would welcome a conversation about going back in, she answered: “100%”. Her experience reflects a wider shift in public opinion. Recent polling found that 57% of Britons believe leaving the EU was the wrong decision, and 59% support rejoining. After years of promises, many people see Brexit as a loss in their everyday lives, and want an honest conversation about how to put it right.
Farrukh87,438 views • 2 days ago
Former Head of MI6 Sir John Sawers, "Russia was very keen that the Leave campaign should succeed and that Britain should leave the European Union" "Because that would marginalise Britain as a global player and weaken Europe in general" "That's the strategic opportunity the Russians spotted, and the leaders of the Leave campaign fell into it" My view: Former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says Russia saw Brexit as a way to weaken Britain and divide Europe, and that the Leave campaign’s leaders walked straight into the opportunity. So let’s remember who sold it: VOTE LEAVE • Boris Johnson — political figurehead • Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart — campaign committee co-convenors • Matthew Elliott — chief executive • Dominic Cummings — campaign director • Daniel Hannan — leading Brexit advocate • Priti Patel, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, John Whittingdale and Theresa Villiers — senior Conservative campaigners • David Davis, Liam Fox, Dominic Raab, Steve Baker and Douglas Carswell — prominent Leave campaigners LEAVE. EU • Nigel Farage — leading political figure • Arron Banks — co-chairman and major funder • Andy Wigmore — communications director GRASSROOTS OUT / LABOUR LEAVE • Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove — Grassroots Out co-founders • Kate Hoey — Grassroots Out co-founder and Labour Leave campaigner • Graham Stringer, Kelvin Hopkins and Roger Godsiff — Labour Leave campaigners • Sammy Wilson — prominent DUP Leave campaigner They promised Brexit would make Britain stronger. Sawers says Russia saw the opposite opportunity: a Britain marginalised and a Europe weakened.
Farrukh60,237 views • 1 day ago
Reform Councillor Dean Miller on ITV News's expose, "King Charles is a f*cking Muslim" Says that's "traitorous" And then says, "cut the c*nts head off, sorry" My view: The sheer extremism of this statement is staggering, words spoken so casually. A democratically elected councillor suggesting that the British monarch should be beheaded because he supposedly follows Islam is not simply offensive language. It is a chilling expression of religious hatred and violent extremism. And consider the underlying prejudice: even if King Charles were Muslim, why on earth would that make him a traitor? Since when has someone's religion determined their loyalty to Britain? Dean Miller has since resigned from Reform UK, but how is he still in public office in Bromley Council, or anywhere for that matter? How can a democratic system claim to uphold equality, tolerance and the rule of law when its institutions lack the powers to remove elected representatives for even the most serious misconduct? The issue goes far beyond Dean Miller or Reform UK. It raises fundamental questions about accountability across our entire political system. There should be an immediate police assessment of remarks advocating violence, alongside an independent investigation and a legally robust process for removing councillors found responsible for serious misconduct.
Farrukh79,999 views • 3 days ago
Gent in blue who moved to France with his family before Brexit said that if Brits living in the EU were allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum, it wouldn't have gone through and we would have remained in the EU #BBCQT My view: David Cameron’s government chose to base the referendum electorate on the existing general-election franchise, which excluded British citizens who had been abroad for more than 15 years. That was the government’s stated approach; it wasn’t a special rule for people in France or elsewhere in the EU. The 2015 Conservative manifesto had promised to scrap that limit and give British citizens “votes for life”. But Cameron’s government did not bring that change in before the referendum. So people could be told they were entitled to a vote in future, while being denied one on the decision that would directly reshape their lives. The Commons Library estimated that around 700,000 British residents in the EU may have been affected, and said most were thought likely to have voted Remain.
Farrukh65,250 views • 2 days ago
Emily Thornberry, "It's measurable that there were attempts by Russia to interfere in the Brexit referendum" Victoria Derbyshire, "Is it? Where's the evidence?" Emily Thornberry gives one example of many then adds, "The trouble is, how do you measure whether that has an affect or not.. It's difficult to prove ten years later" "And we have to remember its in the context of a huge amount of lies" "Its rich coming from some people - Nigel Farage - saying that Andy Burnham is lying, when there were 350,000,000 lies being told on the side of a bus; or Boris Johnson saying people's wives would have bigger breasts if we left the EU" "There were a lot of lies told and it's very difficult to know on what basis people made decisions" "It's difficult to know if Russians were making up additional lies, or simply amplifying the lies already there" Victoria Derbyshire, "You think they definitely did?" Emily Thornberry, "The Russians definitely tried to interfere" "And the truth is, that over the last ten years, the Russians have got a lot better at it" "How do we now protect our democracy, to ensure the Russians don't interfere in the future and are effective" "I think that the majority of people in Britain know that leaving the EU was a mistake" My view: The past, the present and the future all raise the same question: how do we protect democracy when people can’t tell who is speaking online? In 2016, there were attempts by Russian-linked accounts and media to influence the political debate. That is not, by itself, proof that Russia changed the referendum result. But the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 report found the government had neither sought nor seen evidence of successful interference. Ten years later, proving how many people saw particular posts—or whether those posts changed anyone’s vote—is extremely difficult. That difficulty is exactly why the government should have investigated properly when the evidence was fresh. We cannot use the absence of a proper investigation as proof that there was no effect. Today, fake accounts and bots can post, like and comment at scale, making a coordinated campaign look like a groundswell of ordinary public opinion. The UK has the Online Safety Act, and Ofcom is responsible for enforcing its duties. But that does not mean every political account is verified, or that every interaction is independently checked. We still need to know how platforms identify coordinated fake activity, how much reach it gets, and whether foreign-linked networks are influencing what people see. No one is suggesting civil servants should manually inspect every account or every like. The job is to require platforms to keep reliable records, detect coordinated bot networks, disclose what they find, and allow independent scrutiny—with Ofcom able to demand evidence and enforce the rules. We also need clear, regular reporting on foreign interference, so the public and Parliament can see what is being detected and what action is being taken. After two years in government, Lisa Nandy and her colleagues have failed to deliver the level of scrutiny and protection people were promised. Saying we need a safer online space is not enough. The government must make platforms show who is shaping the conversation, and make sure an independent regulator can hold them to account.
Farrukh127,595 views • 5 days ago
Alex Jones, "Reform UK have just completed their own investigation into the foreign donations scandal, what did they conclude?" #HIGNFY Paul Merton, "They're completely innocent. They have investigated themselves, there's nothing to see here, they're completely innocent" Alex Jones, "Yep, you're completely right. They can stop the inquiry now because its all fine because it's all sorted" Ian Hislop, "Luckily, no one is going to stop the inquiry, there's still a Parliamentary Standards Inquiry going on, a proper inquiry, with real people in it" My view: Reform’s “investigation” was not an independent external inquiry. It was commissioned by Reform itself and conducted by the party’s barrister and general secretary, using its own records and the accounts of the two men at the centre of the allegations: former head of policy James Orr and Farage aide Dan Jukes. The Channel 4/Verbatim investigation raised two central questions. First, whether three polls helpful to Reform had effectively been funded through an impermissible foreign source. Second, whether officials were willing to facilitate a proposed £500,000 donation from an American father via his British-resident son. Reform’s internal report says the polls were commissioned personally by Jukes, not the party, and that no £500,000 donation was ever made or accepted. It therefore clears Reform of breaking electoral law. But it is hardly a clean bill of health. The report itself says party figures made comments that were “wrong, careless and in one instance untrue”, and identifies governance failures serious enough to require seven changes to how Reform handles donors, contractors, polling and compliance. Orr and Jukes stood down after the sting. Crucially, Reform does not get the final word on whether its conduct was lawful. The Metropolitan Police investigation is continuing, and the British Polling Council is examining the failure to disclose who commissioned the polls. Those bodies—not the party’s own lawyer—will decide whether any rules were broken. Hislop’s reference to the Parliamentary Standards inquiry is a separate but potentially serious matter: it concerns Nigel Farage’s disputed £5m gift from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. Farage says it was a personal gift for security; the commissioner is considering whether it should have been declared. If the process ultimately led to a Commons suspension of at least 10 sitting days, it could trigger a recall petition in Clacton, and potentially a by-election.
Farrukh164,862 views • 8 days ago
President Trump, "Today, most of Britain's former colonies have no idea what they truly owe to this towering legacy of law, liberty and British custom that they were given" "We were given that. And it was a great, great gift" "Tonight, on the eve of our 250th year of cherished independence, we turn to the sovereign embodiment of our British heritage and say sincerely, thank you to our friends, the United Kingdom, for the richest inheritance that any nation has ever given to another" "May our two countries stand together forever" "For liberty, for justice and for the glory of God. Ladies and gentlemen, I offer a toast to 250 years of American freedom" "And very importantly, to a great man, His Majesty, King Charles iii. Thank you very much"
Farrukh4,880,563 views • 5 months ago
Andrew Neil, "The big problem we face is 6.7 million adults of working, who aren't working, and living on out of work benefits" #BBCQT My view: Andrew Neil’s 6.7 million figure is real, but it does not mean 6.7 million people are able to work and choosing benefits. Of those 6.7 million, 4.6 million, 68%, are not required to look for work, mainly because they are ill, disabled or caring for young children. Of the remaining 2.2 million, many have health conditions that limit what work they can do. Only 71,000 are on Jobseeker’s Allowance. So using the 6.7 million total to imply Britain is full of workshy people is simply wrong.
Farrukh427,291 views • 23 days ago
Woody Harrelson, "We have a guy running this country who has unearthed a lot of bigotry, a lot of racism" "And it seems to be more virulent than ever" "It seems like we're going backwards" "I wish there was a way to get rid of that son of a b*tch and get in a great president" "It doesn't seem like that's going to happen" "And I don't know how he's going to continue to ferment hate"
Farrukh5,413,939 views • 8 months ago
Journalist, "Had Brexit been good for London?" Kemi Badenoch, "Not interested in having a row we had ten years ago" Journalist, "But do you think Brexit has been good for London?" Kemi Badenoch, "I don't think Labour has been good for London. People of London are voting Conservative or Labour, not on Brexit" My view: Kemi Badenoch is asked twice whether Brexit has been good for London, and twice refuses to answer. Instead, she reaches for Labour. But that is not an answer; it is an evasion. If Brexit had delivered greater prosperity, opportunity and influence for London, she could simply say so and explain why. She cannot, because the record is too clear: Brexit has created new barriers for a global city built on trade, talent, investment and close ties with Europe. Pretending the question is an old argument does not make its consequences disappear.
Farrukh194,274 views • 12 days ago
0:30
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Helen Whateley, daughter of a surgeon (father) and physician (mother), who attended private schools and then Oxford university, "When I was younger, I worked as a waitress, I worked as a cleaner, I did all sorts, being a receptionist, they were not my dream job, but they were a way of earning some money" My view: Whately’s work mattered, but presenting it as a moral lesson for young people is deeply disingenuous. She was the daughter of two doctors, privately educated and Oxford-educated: a young person with a considerable safety net and exceptional access to opportunity. Her experience of taking temporary jobs cannot be used to accuse today’s young people, facing scarce entry-level vacancies, insecure hours, unaffordable rents, ill health and far fewer routes into Europe, of laziness. Anecdotes from a privileged starting point are no substitute for a serious plan to create decent opportunities.
Farrukh361,353 views • 23 days ago
Rosie O'Donnell on Donald Trump, "If you grew up in New York you knew he was an assh*le and a liar from day one" "I am 64 years and spent my whole life here" "I remember when his were repossessed at the runways at LaGuardia Airport "I remember when he was broke" "I remember when he would call up places and pretend to be his own publicist" "He is a conman, he is a narcissist, and he is a psychopath if you ask me"
Farrukh2,181,516 views • 4 months ago
Pam Bondi, "There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime" Ted Lieu, "You just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein files" Pam Bondi, "Don't you ever accuse me of a crime" Ted Lieu, "You just lied under oath, and this is on video tape" Ted Lieu then reads an extract from the Epstein files about a girl who says she was raped by Trump and Epstein and had her head blown off, with officer saying it couldn't have been a suicide Ted Lieu, "You have not held a single man accountable" "Shame on you" "if you had any decency, you would resign after this hearing concludes"
Farrukh3,773,083 views • 8 months ago
President Macron scolds the US and Israel for attacking Iran, "The day you say I don't like your regime, I consider you threatening your neighbour so I will intervene and bomb you, you open a Pandora's box" "Iran is a very bad regime, no discussion about that. I disagree with on a lot of topics" "But I don't agree we will fix the situation just by bombings or military operations" "Look at what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - we never delivered. Never" "You have to respect the sovereignty of people, if people want to change a regime, they can do so" "Having an agenda shared by Korea, France, the other Europeans, Canada, Japan, India, Brazil, Australia, you start having a third way" "Those who don't want to be dependent on China, or aligned by definition, on the US"
Farrukh2,814,198 views • 6 months ago