HOPE FOR PUB LANDLORDS ?

Yesterday's employment tribunal ruling regarding the employment of 'Uber' cab drivers must surely impact upon those who have been working for Marston's, and others, in the pub trade.

Among other comments, the tribunal said that 'Uber' was guilty of "resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology" and went on to say that "The notion that 'Uber' in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common platform is to our mind faintly ridiculous".

While the situations may not be fully comparable, are not Marston's and other pub owning companies also using fictions and twisted language in order to justify the ridiculous notion that many pub landlords are self-employed when, in reality, they are employees ? 'Uber' drivers rely on the infrastructure of the company for their supply of customers and are bound by company rules and regulations. Many pub landlords are bound just as tightly, working in a building owned by a 'pubco', required to buy their supplies from the same 'pubco' and to sell everything at prices determined by them, and also required to use the 'pubco's' financial systems.

For me, this is a 'slam, dunk'.

WALLONIA RULES THE EUROPEAN UNION !

The inherent weakness of the European Union and its utter inability to achieve anything of real value has been clearly demonstrated by the problems it's now facing over a proposed trade agreement with Canada.

After 7 years of negotiation, agreement has been halted by the demands of a small part of Belgium, Wallonia. The Belgian constitution requires that its constituent provinces agree to such international deals before the national government can actually sign up to them. Unfortunately for the EU, the provincial government of Wallonia, a region of 3.6 million people, does not like the deal which has been negotiated with Canada and has withheld its approval. Consequently, 7 years of talks, negotiation, nit-picking and compromise may now be consigned to the dustbin of history as a total waste.

In a 'last ditch' attempt to save the deal, EU representatives are holding emergency talks involving the Canadian trade minister and the head of the Walloon government, though this unholy mess has already cast a huge shadow over the EU's ability to forge major international deals. If ever anyone needed proof of the bureaucratic nightmare which is the EU, this is it.

Clearly, there are implications for any future deals with the UK after it leaves the Union, however, there are also implications for the future of the EU itself. While its leaders seek 'More Europe', it is obvious that local priorities have ultimate precedence and the Union is ultimately ungovernable. Not only that, but the much vaunted notion of a united Europe as a major trading block, forging momentous deals around the world, is shown to be pure fantasy. With the proposed transatlantic 'TTIP' deal already looking dead in the water, the EU is looking less like an aid to trade and far more like an obstruction.

If the Walloons can halt a major deal like this, what price a successful negotiation over Brexit within the 2 year time frame set down in 'Article 50' ?

ABERFAN REMEMBERED

I was just 13 years old in October 1966, but I clearly remember the shock and horror that I felt when news of the tragedy which struck the Welsh village of Aberfan came over the airwaves.

It's almost impossible to imagine how terrifying this event was, how frightened the children must have been and the desperation of their parents. One hundred and sixteen children died in the village primary school that day, 21st October 1966, and the thought brings tears to my eyes even now. Twenty eight others died too, in what remains one of the worst disasters ever to affect this country.

That this tragedy was wholly avoidable makes it even more poignant. It must not be forgotten.

DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP ?

In the Western World, we have what we like to term 'Democracy' and some countries have moved to what can almost be called 'ultimate democracy', with a variety of proportional representation voting systems. We deride all other forms of Government.

At least in the UK we have yet to accept proportional representation for our principal parliament and still have a 'first past the post' system which allows for the election of a relatively strong government most of the time. Nonetheless, many major issues still take months and even years to decide. The recent never-ending debates about the expansion of airport capacity in the South East of the country, the construction of the HS2 rail link, the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point and so on, all demonstrate the difficulty which democratic governments have when it comes to making major decisions. The problem is that they have far too many interests to satisfy - their party members, their MPs, their voters, big business, foreign investors, special interest groups and, above all, their own desire to perpetuate their position at the top of the 'power tree'.

In countries which have embraced proportional representation, these problems are magnified. Administrations have to be constructed from several different political groups and the resulting governments are compelled to accept the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to their policy making, as nothing else can be agreed by the range of interests which share power. Consequently, the western nations are rapidly losing the ability to make quick and strong decisions on matters which are considered 'sensitive'. Possibly the ultimate exhibition of this failure is in the European Union and its utter inability to deal with the consequences of the vast influx of migrants in recent years

In contrast to democracies, dictatorships have no such problems. The Dictator simply needs to satisfy his principal supporters, often the country's military forces, and he or she can then do pretty much whatever they like. If the people don't like it, tough; they don't have a vote so what does it matter ? Some countries which do have voting, such as Russia or Zimbabwe, have systems effectively rigged in such a way as to ensure the desired outcome and that power remains vested in the hands of one leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a dictator. Regardless of the shortcomings of their political systems, such countries are able to make the rapid and forceful decisions denied to democracies.

It has been suggested that the British system is, in effect, an 'elective dictatorship' with power vested in a small number of individuals. While there may be some truth in this, at times when the government has only a small parliamentary majority, it certainly is not; such governments are even more 'in hock' to their coterie of backers than usual. Government is prevented from doing anything to which a sufficient number of its adherents object and this is the problem faced today by Theresa May's administration.

With a majority of only around dozen or so, dissident voices on her own back benches can effectively scupper any measures which they don't like. The re-introduction of grammar schools is one case in point and the issues surrounding the UK's separation from the European Union is another. It is quite clear that the likes of Ken Clarke have every intention of making life extremely difficult for the new Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to the matter of 'Brexit'. They will do everything in their power to prevent the UK from ever really leaving the EU by using every delaying tactic available and voting down anything but the most innocuous of measures.

Mrs May does have one card to play, that of calling a general election, though she could even have difficulty in doing this. She could try to amend the '5 Year Parliament Act' but might find herself defeated by a coalition of opposition parties and her own dissident MPs who would fear that a larger majority would make it easier for her to push forward with what they call a 'hard Brexit'. Such a defeat could be followed by a 'confidence' vote in the government but, this time, opposition and dissidents could ally themselves to keep the government in power, albeit by its slender and vulnerable majority. Conservative MPs would hardly vote against their own party and Labour Members are only too well aware of the danger of going to the polls at this time; it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mrs May is, therefore, between the proverbial 'rock and hard place'. She can be prevented from doing what the people want purely because of the system of democracy, parties, patronage and vested interests. Now, if we had a dictatorship .......................................................... .

SO WHAT DOES 'BREXIT' MEAN ?

Those moaning minnies who really don't want to accept the result of last June's referendum keep looking for anything that might put a spoke in the wheel of 'Brexit'. Anything and everything is being used including Nicola Sturgeon's barely veiled threats about a second independence referendum for Scotland, challenges in the courts and daily nit-picking in Parliament. One of the 'big questions' beloved of these 'Remoaners' relates to the precise nature of what 'Brexit' means, as if it can mean different things.

Frankly, this is straightforward bollocks. 'Brexit' can only mean one thing and that is that the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union; the obvious implication of this is that the UK's position vis-a-vis the EU should be restored to what it was prior to its accession in 1973, amended only by any effective international agreements in the interim period which relate to the UK and other current EU countries as individual and independent countries, and not as members of the EU.

The issues being raised daily by the 'Remoaners' are not relevant to 'Brexit' at all. Questions such as potential limits on migration between the UK and EU, the status of EU citizens currently resident in the UK and of UK citizens currently resident in the EU, access to the 'Single Market' and many others all relate to the nature of the relationship which will exist between the UK and EU after the UK has left the Union. None of these are matters which affect the fact of 'Brexit' itself, although the unreconstructed 'Remainers' are only too happy to muddy the waters by constantly referring to them as if they are actually key to whether or not 'Brexit' can even happen. Their barely hidden agenda, whatever they may say, is that unless the UK Government can leave the EU while effectively staying in, they will do everything in their power to stymie the 'Will of the People'.

Of course the Government will negotiate for the best possible relationship between an independent UK and the EU, but negotiation is a 2-way process and relies on goodwill and common sense from both parties. It also relies on keeping one's cards close to one's chest and not publicising one's negotiating position in advance, as the 'Remoaners' would love to see happen. The likes of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband (remember them ?), Ken Clarke and others should shut up and let the Government get on with things. There'll be plenty of opportunity for debate later.

BOB DYLAN - NOBEL LAUREATE !!?

Although the various Nobel committees usually make sensible decision about the main awards for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, the prizes for Literature, Peace and Economics often defy logic. Whereas the first 3 areas tend to be properly measurable in terms of their achievements, the final 3 rely almost entirely on the subjective views of the committee members. Consequently, these awards have given rise to some serious eyebrow raising over the years.

In 2012, the Peace prize went to the European Union, surely one of the most undemocratic and divisive organisations in the world, despite the overt antagonism it had engendered in millions of its citizens. In 2009, when he'd only been in office for a few months and done absolutely nothing of note, Barack Obama was awarded the Peace prize, presumably in anticipation of what he 'might' do. Many previous awards were made to people who had done nothing to advance the cause of peace but had been involved in various social enterprises, approved of by the 'soft left'. Much worse have been the awards to largely ineffective 'peace campaigners' and those that included Yasser Arafat in 1994 and Menachem Begin in 1978, both men of terror and violence much more than of peace. Overall, the Peace prize has been a joke for many years.

The prize for Economics is a fairly recent invention, having been first awarded in 1969. Most intelligent people are well aware that, given any debatable question in economics, there'll be as many  'expert' opinions as there are available economists; more often than not, these expert opinions all turn out to be wrong anyway. How on earth anyone, Nobel Committee included, can possibly award a prize worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to any economist escapes me.

When it comes to Literature, the prize has often gone, particularly in more recent years, to writers from third world nations of whom almost no one in the west has ever heard; indeed, one might say that most recipients are pretty well unknown to any but the elite of world society. However, this year's award is different. Astonishingly, the 2016 Nobel prize for Literature has been awarded to Bob Dylan.

When I first heard this I assumed that there must be a writer of whom I had no knowledge who happened to share the name of an American singer, but no. The award has, indeed, gone to Bob Dylan the singer - songwriter. Really. Dylan is placed alongside the likes of Ernest Hemingway, Rudyard Kipling, Anatole France, George Bernard Shaw, J B Yeats, John Galsworthy, Eugene O'Neill and many other great writers.

Has the world, or at least the Nobel Committee, truly gone mad ?

WE STILL NEED UKIP.

The forces of fear and protectionism are gathering again.

Those same individuals, organisations, businesses and 'think tanks' that told us all that voting to leave the European Union would result in immediate and uncontrollable catastrophe are regrouping. Faced with the unthinkable, that is, a UK withdrawal from the EU, the Europhiles are beginning to mount a new campaign of terror designed to encourage voters to 'think again'; we're being told that prices will rise, industries will collapse, millions will lose their jobs, the NHS will crumble and so on.

Old fashioned Europhiles like the Liberal democrats (remember them ?) and Kenneth Clarke simply insist that they were right and the rest of us have got it wrong; they want various opportunities to be created for them to be able to vote down whatever the Government tries to implement in pursuit of the 'Will of the People'. They're calling for assorted votes in Parliament before, during and after the exit negotiations in order, so they say, to hold the Government to account or to ensure that the terms are right, or whatever else occurs to them as a slogan to use.

In truth, this is nothing other than the political and business elites trying to reverse the result of June's referendum. Anyone who thought that those who are wedded to the EU would give up the fight never was likely to be proven correct; the big guns will continue to fire their salvos of frightening scenarios and stories until the UK has actually left the Union and, even then, some will start arguing for us to re-join.

Theresa May and her Government, despite its obvious internal divisions, must hold its line and steer us out of the EU as rapidly as possible. They must ignore all the scaremongering and get on with it. Things will never be anything like as bad as the doom-mongers want us to fear, in fact, they'll probably end up far better than even the most optimistic of optimists can conceive. 

What we really need is for Ukip to pull itself together and finish the job it's started.

TRUMP, CLINTON OR 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' ?

The Presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have been torrid affairs. Each has slung mud, great dollops of it, at the other and neither has really emerged with any credit. In fact, American voters still seem to be faced with voting for either an egotistical, misogynistic old man or an egotistical, lying old woman. Personally, I find both of them pretty revolting and I'd be looking for someone else, anyone else actually.

Sadly, however, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates and Presidents have been found to have feet of clay. Richard 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon was forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal; Bill Clinton, husband of the egregious Hilary, was a philanderer who lied and twisted the truth about his affairs and was almost impeached; the 'sainted' John F Kennedy was a serial womaniser and adulterer, as were his brothers who both sought the highest office. Indeed, brother Edward was implicated in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, an event which effectively ended his Presidential aspirations. Even the 'great' Franklin D Roosevelt was a serial adulterer. Warren Harding's Presidency after the First World War has been marred by the subsequent  revelations of various scandals and adulterous affairs.  

Way back in 1804, a protracted and highly distasteful antagonism between Vice President Aaron Burr and his political opponent Alexander Hamilton ended in a duel in which Hamilton was mortally wounded; Burr fled to South Carolina in order to avoid charges, including murder, though these were later dropped. He subsequently found himself indicted for treason though again he escaped punishment; nonetheless, his political career had come to an ignominious end.

Trump and Clinton are no more and no less than 2 more seedy characters who have bought their way to prominence in the time-honoured American way. The shocking thing is that they have already been voted for by many thousands of people who seem to believe that they are fit candidates for the highest office. Whichever wins the election on November 8th, January will, in fact, see the inauguration of one of the least fit Presidents in American history, which really is saying something given the 'quality' of some of their predecessors.

IS 'UKIP' FINISHED ?

Sadly, the resignation of Nigel Farage from the leadership of UKIP seems to have been the precursor to the collapse of the party. Just 18 days after her election as Farage's replacement, Diane James has announced that she will not be taking over after all as she doesn't have 'enough authority in the party'.

It seems that Ms James may have wanted to make changes to the party's organisation or focus, but that she did not receive the support of other leading party figures. Consequently, UKIP is now in utter turmoil as Ms James had not yet appointed a deputy, meaning that there is now a void at the top, although apparently Nigel Farage is still technically the leader.

The real problem is that Nigel Farage and UKIP have been virtually synonymous ever since the creation of the party, and there are no other leading members who have anything like Farage's standing or public profile. Indeed, Farage seems to have failed completely in taking steps to develop a structure within the party that would ensure that future leaders would emerge naturally and with full support. Instead, the party appears to have degenerated rapidly into a squabbling mass, with no one of Farage's authority to bring members together..

Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly say that this was all just a ploy by Farage to hang on to the leadership but I suspect it's nothing other than a total balls-up. Unless someone with real leadership qualities emerges very quickly, UKIP may well now disappear altogether within a few months, to the detriment  of us all..

BREXIT MUST MEAN BREXIT.

Back in June the British people voted to leave the European Union; this was not conditional, it was unequivocal. Ever since then, those establishment figures who don't like the idea of leaving, indeed, see the Union as a safe haven and even a future meal ticket for themselves, have sought to derail 'Brexit' in every possible way.

Despite economic indicators and trends which continue to defy their dire predictions, 'Remainers' still try to convince the rest of us that leaving the Union will, eventually, lead to catastrophe. If they were wrong in their original predictions it was only because they misjudged the timescale; calamity will still befall us, it is just a little delayed. Why we should believe them now, when they were so wrong before isn't revealed.

Various political figures from what is basically the 'Remain' camp keep popping up with more news, stories, threats and so on designed to scare us into 'thinking again'.. Some, led by the Liberal Democrats, want a second referendum, ostensibly on the "terms of Brexit" but, in reality it's just an attempt to have another go at getting the 'right result. This is a time honoured tradition amongst EU nations and has been used in several countries in order to over-ride the initially stated 'Will of the People' in favour of the will of the establishment.

More insidious is the attempt to draw a semi-mystical distinction between "Hard Brexit" and "Soft Brexit". These essentially meaningless terms have been invented in order to bring as much chaos and confusion to the situation as can be managed, in order to bamboozle the public into believing that "Brexit" can mean different things; the now famous phrase "Brexit means Brexit" is thereby rendered highly malleable.

In truth, leaving the European Union is a straightforward matter of invoking 'Article 50' and then getting on with it. There is no need to complicate matters by talking of convoluted and long-winded negotiations - if the remaining nations of the Union want to make life awkward, fine. Let them do their worst as it's they who will suffer most in the long run. The United Kingdom can walk away and enter freely into deals with any nation in the world, unencumbered by the stifling bureaucracy of the EU; the member nations of the EU will soon come calling when they find our doors closed to them and their products.

The United Kingdom has, alone, one of the 5 or 6 largest economies in the world; ours is not Norway or Switzerland, it is on a par with Germany and bigger than France. There is no 'hard' or 'soft' to "Brexit" it is just " Brexit" Those who talk of 'soft' "Brexit" simply don't want us to leave the European Union at all; they are frightened little people who don't want to risk setting off into the outside world, but prefer the perceived safety and security of mummy's embrace. They need to realise that now is the time to 'fly the nest'.