Brexit Boat Baloney

Nikolay Kalinin

3 years ago

Nikolay Kalinin on Defence Secretary Ben Wallace’s laughable attempt to condemn those not backing the ‘Brexit boat’ as unpatriotic

It’s pretty clear to every rational person in Britain – even the ones who voted to “take back control” – that the government’s decision to invest £250 million into a “royal yacht” rather than give that money to, say, the NHS is plainly stupid. This fact, however, has not yet been grasped by the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace.

Following Labour’s criticism of the £250 million being wasted on a “royal yacht,” Wallace accused the party of being unpatriotic. He remarked: “That’s Labour’s problem. They’re not patriotic about these sort of things, they don’t understand the workforces,” before mentioning workers in Barrow-in-Furness and Lancashire responsible for creating nuclear submarines and fighter jets.

I am not sure if Wallace is aware of this, but there’s a difference between investing in jet fighters and submarines and investing in a massive £250 million ‘Brexit boat,’ and that difference is that one benefits the country and one is simply an unnecessary expense.

It’s hilarious that Wallace is trying to portray himself as a supporter of the workforce, despite the fact that he has voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity amongst other things.

Furthermore, Wallace has shown himself to be dismissive of the idea that helping vulnerable people means being a good politician; for example, he has voted against spending public money on the creation of guaranteed jobs for unemployed young people, and he has also voted for the utterly pointless and stupid ‘bedroom tax.’

It is then puzzling to see Mr. Wallace try to show himself as a patriot when all he has ever done for the working class is vote to impose more restrictions on them, and I advise him to stop prattling about patriotism and start actually doing things that will benefit the people.

The late Sir Donald Gosling left a sum of £50 million towards providing a new royal yacht in his will. Whether this money has now been put towards Boris Johnson’s proposed ‘Brexit gin palace’ is a question that remains unanswered.

In May, whilst discussing the proposed ‘Brexit boat’ on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Broadcasting House,’ Dame Esther Rantzen remarked: “This is to me a crazy idea at a time when our economy has been obviously dealt something of a death blow by COVID, when we have no plans for social care, when food banks are thriving. Do we really think that the taxpayer, let alone the royal family, want £200 million spent on a royal yacht? I think it’s an example of a newspaper starting a campaign which is so out of touch. However, perhaps, I have the solution: Sir Philip Green, do you remember him? He has a knighthood – which some people have questioned. He lives in Monaco, where there’s plenty of other people with yachts. Why doesn’t he donate his boat to the royal family? If he’s got monograms with the words ‘Philip’ on it, that would be suitable for those who feel that the yacht should be named after Philip, Duke of Edinburgh… Prince Philip, you could just add a few, a few, you know…”

Ben Wallace was deservedly slammed after he recently announced the UK royal yacht successor could cost the taxpayer £50 million more than initially suggested.

Former Tory Chancellor Ken – now Lord – Clarke remarked of the project: “[It] is silly populist nonsense… We have no money for that kind of thing… It’s a symptom; £200 million is not going to cause problems, but it shows there are people in No 10 who just think there’s free money and who think that waving a union jack and sending yachts and aircraft carriers around the world shows what a great power we are.”