STURGEON, CABLE AND CORBYN - AN UNHOLY TRINITY.

Now that the Christmas break is over, politicians have been getting back into the swing, reiterating the same tired old policies they've been promoting for what seems like ages.

From Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon witters on about keeping that part of the United Kingdom "at the heart of Europe" whatever the outcome of the Brexit process. Err, excuse me Ms Sturgeon, but when the UK leaves the EU, Scotland is part of the deal and there will be no separate treaty between Scotland and the European Union. Scotland will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the UK, that is, OUT of the European Union. Sturgeon also seems to think Scotland has an immigration policy that is separate from that of the rest of the UK - it doesn't. As usual, Ms Sturgeon has talked a load of old twaddle aimed specifically at her likeminded, independence-motivated supporters.

For the Liberal Democrats, septuagenarian waffler Vince Cable (remember him ?) reiterated his pet policy of stopping Brexit through the mechanism of a second referendum. Cable is, of course, one of those who really doesn't like the idea of Brexit at all believing that remaining under the control of the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels is far better than abiding by the wishes of the British electorate. While his party may style itself the 'Liberal Democrats', Cable is neither liberal nor a democrat when it comes to Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, though exactly he got the job is something that's still a bit of a mystery, has trotted out his usual platitudinous tripe. The system is wrong, the Conservatives have made a mess of things, Britain's got talent, millions are struggling, many receive low wages, the old are being neglected and so on. Corbyn's solution to all of this is that Labour will fix it through a "radical alternative"; Labour will "stand up to the wealthy few so that the wealth …. is shared fairly". They will "work to create a society where the talent of everyone is unleashed" and they will "rebuild and transform our country". Wow ! What high minded ideas, but without the slightest hint of how all this will be achieved. Anyone who remembers the Labour governments of the 1960s and 1970s will be well aware that a Corbyn-led government would result in grotesque rates of tax, rapidly rising prices and interest rates, a return to the days of union power, strikes and company failures and a general collapse in our economy. High ideals - maybe; realism - definitely not.

At the time of writing, Theresa May has yet to tell us of her thoughts about the next 12 months but one can imagine that it'll be the same tired old drivel from her too. Can no one rid us of these turbulent, egotistical, self-serving politicians ?

GEORGE OSBORNE - YESTERDAY'S MAN.

Hearing former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne on the radio this morning was like listening to an old cracked record that really has no more use.

Having given up his parliamentary seat as soon as things didn't go HIS way, Osborne now makes large sums of money from a variety of jobs; somehow, he manages to fit in being editor of the London Evening Standard, though whether he actually does this job or just makes use of the title in order to pillory the current government might be a moot point. Whatever he does, Osborne is a committed Europhile and wants the UK to stay within the shackles of the European Union.

This morning he gave us the benefit of the wisdom  of his 47 years, wisdom accrued from his highly privileged background of rich parents, public school and Oxford, where he was a member, along with David Cameron and others, of the infamous Bullingdon Club. Even with these advantages, Osborne was clearly not that bright, failing to gain employment at 'The Times' or 'Economist' before finding a lowly freelance role at the 'Daily Telegraph'. Undeterred, he changed course and moved into politics, finding employment with the Conservative Party and ultimately rising to a senior position, though not quite making it to the job, courtesy of David Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on the vexed subject of the UK's membership of the EU.

Since running away from parliament, Osborne has taken to sniping from the side lines, taking pot shots at Prime Minister May and her government whenever possible and continuing to promote the European Union and the UK's membership thereof. Today's interview was no different. According to Osborne, Mrs May has it all wrong, the government's approach is all wrong, the EU is wonderful and, basically, he knows best. Blah-blah.

Osborne is yesterday's man but in typical fashion the Europhile BBC happily looks for any like-minded bodies to spout their liberal-Europhile, anti-nationalistic views. Being proud of Britain and believing in its ability to compete independently is bad; kowtowing to a Europhile elite with its collective nose in the trough is good. The stifling bureaucracy of the EU and its adherence to evermore restrictive rules and regulations is good, being free of such burdens is bad.

Really ?? Osborne and the BBC deserve each other but I wish they'd keep their 'wisdom' to themselves.

JEREMY CORBYN - MISOGYNIST AND LIAR ?

As a break from the fuss and nonsense surrounding Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn decided to give us all something else to chew over during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday. After a response from Mrs May, Corbyn was seen to clearly mutter something, though exactly what is disputed.

From the video, Corbyn's lip movements certainly could be interpreted as mouthing "stupid woman", as some have claimed and as some experienced lip-readers have asserted. Corbyn says that he definitely did not say "stupid woman"; he says that he referred to some as "stupid people" but did not make any direct reference to any individual. Corbyn claims that he is "completely opposed to sexist or misogynist language".

To my mind, a practiced lip-reader would have very little difficulty in distinguishing between the words 'woman' and 'people', which require quite different formations of the mouth. Did Corbyn say "stupid woman" and then compound his offence by lying about it, or has he been sorely misrepresented.

In short, is he a misogynist and liar, or not ?

MOURINHO ON HIS BIKE - AGAIN.

Having made it clear for several months that he wasn't really interested in staying at Manchester United, Jose Mourinho has finally been sacked. It would seem that defeat at the hands of arch-rivals Liverpool last weekend was the last straw.

Mourinho is well known for having a short term approach to his appointments and this is not the first time that the third year has proved problematic, indeed he's only once stayed in a job for more than 3 years. Historically, Mourinho moves in to a club already either at the top or on the rise, has a successful first year and possibly 2nd, but then it all goes wrong. He tries to buy success but the players don't fulfil his ambition he leaves.

Many seem to believe that he's a great manager. I believe he's a conman. He has success on the back of others in his first year or 18 months but once his own purchases and methods take real hold, it's downhill all the way. He blames everyone else - the players, the clubs' management, the lack of funds and whatever else he can think of; the problem is never him.

Since he first became a manager, following a less than brilliant playing career, Mourinho has had a total of 8 managerial posts in 18 years. Yes, he's won numerous trophies but was he really responsible for these triumphs, or was it more to do with previous managers and the desire of players and club management ? At Manchester United, Mourinho has spent a small fortune, bringing in Paul Pogba and Romelu Lukaku, Alexis Sanchez and Fred, for huge fees, and yet the team has 'enjoyed' its worst start to a season for nearly 30 years. Mourinho doesn't develop players, he buys what he sees as talent and then tries to shoe-horn it into his style of play. When this approach doesn't work he simply turns his attention to getting sacked, inevitably with a large pay-off.

Why any team would ever want Mourinho as its manager mystifies me.

FANATICAL RANT FROM EUROPHILE PATTEN.

Having given Chuka Umunna the opportunity to make his pitch for the UK remaining in the EU, an aim to be achieved by any available means on this morning's 'Andrew Marr Show, another arch-Europhile was allowed to vent his spleen on Radio 4's 'The World This Weekend'. Interviewed by Mark Mardell, Chris Patten launched into those who want to see Brexit achieved, referring to them as 'Maoists' and 'fanatics'

Patten has always been on the left of the Conservative Party, one who would have been termed 'a Wet' in bygone days. He's also spent considerable time with his snout in the EU's trough and is an ardent Europhile, but his angry rant on today's news programme was extraordinary. He seemed quite oblivious to the fact that he was demonstrating a degree of fanaticism far in advance of anything shown by even the most strident of those whom he opposes.

As a new entry to the list of ways to prevent Brexit from even happening, Patten's latest proposal is for Prime Minister May to call on her predecessors for advice. Presumably, the Europhile leanings of David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major would be expected to turn May to the right path, that is, to find a way of keeping the UK in the EU. One wonders whether Patten would have made the same suggestion if Margaret Thatcher had still been with us.

Verbally abusing those to whom you object is never a very good strategy and it's usually a sign of desperation. Added to Patten's pretty insane idea of bringing past Prime Ministers, people with no official position, into the centre of the debate, desperation seems to be the name of the game. 

HOW MANY REFERENDUMS SHOULD WE HAVE ?

Listening just now to the rather supercilious Chuka Umunna arguing for a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, I'm driven to the conclusion that arch-Remainers such as him will use any and every spurious argument in pursuit of their objective. 

Umunna is very clear that he wants the UK to reverse its decision and remain within the EU. He is a firm supporter of calls for a second referendum, part of his reasoning being that there are many people who will be affected by the decision to leave who haven't had a chance to have their say, principally referring to those who were too young to be able to cast a vote in the 2016 referendum. For a supposedly highly intelligent man, Umunna appears to have a particularly blind spot when it comes to seeing the basic illogic of this position.

When the UK voted to stay in the forerunner of the EU, the Common Market, in 1975, there were just as many young people who were denied a vote and whose views were not taken into account. No one suggested that there should be another referendum a few years later in order to rectify this 'problem'. Indeed, had there been a second referendum at that time, surely logic would then have demanded that there should have been a third, fourth and fifth referendum, followed by an infinite series, so as to ensure that the views of those who were not even twinkles in their grandparents' eyes in 1975 were ultimately taken into account; after all, there will always be a new batch of 'young people' who should be allowed to 'have their say'. The UK could have done the 'Hokey-Cokey', joining, leaving, joining, and leaving, for ever and a day as the results of a never ending stream of referendums see-sawed.

Umunna's approach simply doesn't hold water. A referendum is a one-off way of determining the views of the populace at a point in time for the purposes of finding a path to follow. It is not a mechanism for allowing Parliament to avoid its responsibilities, nor to try to get an answer which the elite likes. Having held a referendum in 2016, our representatives were given a clear direction - the people of the United Kingdom had had enough of the European Union and wanted to leave. That should be the end of the matter.

Arguments about 'types' of Brexit, the vote not being fair as young people didn't have a say, the people who did vote not having 'all of the information' and the rest of the Remainers' armoury of nonsensical drivel are irrelevant and the sooner the likes of Chuka Umunna accept it, the better.

Leave means Leave.

MAY TOILS AND BLAIR STIRS.

Teresa May's latest pleas to the leaders of the European Union appear to have fallen on stony ground. Indeed, the likes of the high and mighty Jean Claude Juncker have simply refused to come down from their ivory tower, or is it climb out of their concrete bunker ?

While May toils away in Brussel in what seems a fruitless attempt to gain any meaningful concessions from the most pig headed bunch of bureaucrats to exist since Europe's leaders sent millions of men to their deaths in the trenches of World War One, arch egotist and Europhile Tony Blair has been hitting the airwaves.

Not a man to fail to promote his own image and importance at any and every opportunity, Blair has surfaced this morning to reiterate his calls for a second referendum although, in typical Blair fashion, he doesn't call it a referendum; he uses every word or phrase other than referendum. Unlike most, if not all past Prime Ministers, Blair refuses to fade into the background but instead has spent the last decade or so trotting around the world as some sort of Messiah, offering to resolve problems and deliver words of wisdom. Heaven alone knows what he was paid to sort out the difficulties of the Middle East when he was the representative for the so-called Quartet in that area, but his total lack of achievements speak for themselves. Blair is a man long on words and his own brand of wisdom but very short on achievement. Anyone who wants proof need only look at the end product of his tenure as Prime Minister, which was never ending conflict and near bankruptcy.

As an arch-Europhile, Blair held hopes of becoming the first President of a United States of Europe, a hope that was dashed by the UK's unexpected vote to leave the EU. Having had his ambition so bitterly interrupted, Blair turned his attention to trying to convince people of the error of their ways and has enthusiastically championed the cause of Remain ever since. By hook or by crook, Blair will somehow get that top European job, or so he still hopes.

How anyone can take this man seriously is a mystery. A rich, now super-rich, supposed socialist from a privileged background, Blair led a government that was so profligate that, when a crisis occurred, there was nothing left in the coffers with which to fight it; the result was the printing of vast quantities of paper money which had no assets to support it, and a consequent depression of economic growth for year after year. Even now, we are suffering from the effects of Blair's years in office. Additionally, Blair, who now talks about the lies and untruths told by Brexiteers, lied through his teeth about the situation in Iraq and misled Parliament and the nation over his determination to go to war with that country in support of his pal, another arch-egotist, George W Bush.

  

Blair is a man who puts his own interests and what he sees as his place in history far above any other considerations, That he is so ardent when it comes to the UK remaining in the European Union should serve as a warning to all of us. If Blair wants us in, the best place to be has to be OUT.

MAY SURVIVES BUT TO WHAT PURPOSE ?

So Teresa May has survived, temporarily at least. She managed to get 200 of her fellow MPs to support her favour in a confidence vote while 'only' 117 voted to remove her. What next ?

Perhaps significantly, around 140 of those who supported Mrs May are members of the extended government or are otherwise dependent upon her for their positions; in other words, only about 60 back bench members of the Party supported her. With more than a third of the parliamentary party openly opposed and another fifth offering dubious support, May's authority must now be all but gone. She is at the mercy of her Cabinet colleagues in the first instance and at the mercy of at least the 117 thereafter. Despite MPs being unable to call for another vote of confidence for a minimum of 12 months, matters could easily force her out of office within a much shorter period of time.

Regardless of all this turmoil, Mrs May has trotted off to Brussels to have more, probably pointless, talks with EU leaders. Suggestions of adding 'clarifications' to various elements of the withdrawal agreement seems little more than window dressing and would have no real effect; those in Parliament who simply find the agreement unacceptable will hardly find EU 'reassurances' of any value. 

Yesterday's events gave Mrs May a little more time though even that is now limited; in order to win the vote of confidence, she agreed to step down from the leadership of her party before the next general election, scheduled for 2022. What happens if the government falls and an election occurs earlier is an unknown quantity. Other than this concession on her part, nothing has really changed. The withdrawal agreement has no chance of being approved by Parliament as it is and the EU has made it clear that they will not change it any way. It seems highly unlikely that 'clarifications' or 'reassurances' from the EU will do anything to encourage opponents of the agreement to change their voting intentions and the House of Commons will almost certainly reject the agreement in a vote at some time in the next month or so. Once that happens, all bets are off.

Labour will surely then call for a vote of no confidence in the government which they might well win. If they do, a general election will be the result, quite possibly accompanied by a delay, at least, in the UK's exit from the EU. Exactly how the parties would line up and what their manifestoes would say, heaven knows.

A Labour government following such an election would, apparently, want to renegotiate all over again, something which the EU has already ruled out, or has it ? If the Conservatives were to win such an election, would our 'representatives', elected with new mandates, then vote for a deal which they despise or would they carry on ignoring the expressed Will of the People ? 

If Labour loses the no confidence vote we would be left with the situation as now, with Parliament paralysed and looking for a way out - a second referendum would then loom large. Would the result of a second referendum be accepted by all, or would those who don't like the answer, whichever way it goes, carry on the fight ? 

We really are in a terrible mess. Incompetence from Mrs May and her Brexit negotiators has brought us to an impossible position. The UK is effectively being held to ransom by the Republic of Ireland which is pursuing its own political ends and by the EU negotiators who want to make us pay for having the temerity to leave their little club. 

I see no way out. We are heading for a general election and the strong possibility of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, GOD HELP US.

MAY AND BREXIT ON THE BRINK

So, finally, 48 Conservative Members of Parliament have submitted their letters and there's to be a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Teresa May. At about 9pm tonight, we will discover the real level of support which she commands within her party.

There is much analysis, comment and general noise in the media with huge amounts of speculation and 'what if' discussion, but the simple fact is that it's all pointless drivel until the result of the vote is known. If Mrs May loses, the Conservative Party will immediately begin the process to elect a new leader; if she wins well, she will stay in office and survive for at least another 12 months. If she wins, but with substantial votes against her, she may be forced to resign in the coming days. What does all this mean for Brexit ?

Again, the simple answer is that no one knows until after the vote and even then it may be several weeks before anything happens. Mrs May's 'Deal' has no support in Parliament and is highly unlikely to be voted through whoever is Prime Minister; she has no stated 'Plan B', so chaos will ensue. A new Prime Minister may make noise about renegotiation but the reality is that the EU is holding firm; there will be no renegotiation. 

We are left with a 'Deal' that has no support, no 'Plan B' and no renegotiation - that seems to add up to only 2 options - 'No Deal' or 'No Brexit'.

WILL BREXIT EVER HAPPEN ?

It's reported that Teresa May has decided to 'delay' the proposed vote in the House of Commons regarding her Brexit deal due to there being no realistic chance that it will receive anything but a massive rejection. At the same time, the word from EU sources is that there is no room for, or intention to engage in, any renegotiation. It seems that Mrs May is now drinking in the last chance saloon.

With the European Court of Justice arriving at an unbelievably rapid decision on the question of whether or not an 'Article 50' notice can be revoked unilaterally and concluding that it can with no change in the submitter nation's membership status, is Brexit now also on its last legs ? There seems no chance whatsoever of Mrs May gaining approval for her 'deal' no matter how long it is delayed, and the question of where we go next must be the one that matters. 

Without any movement from the EU, Mrs May's time as Prime Minister must surely be coming to an end in the next few weeks but a change of Prime Minister will do little to change the dynamics of the situation. A second referendum would take months to organise and would undermine the democratic process by effectively ignoring the democratic decision of the first; if the result reinforced the decision of the first, it is surely likely that the arch-remainers would still refuse to accept it and if the result was a decision to remain there would be mayhem. It would be 1-1 and there'd surely be calls for a decider.

A general election would almost certainly result in another 'hung Parliament', although with Labour probably being the more likely party to be in a position to form a government; where that would lead is anyone's guess, though revocation, or extension, of 'Article 50' would probably be high on their list of things to do, again creating democratic and constitutional chaos.  

Having submitted the 'Article 50' notice, and passed an Act in Parliament which included the definite withdrawal date of 29th March 2019, the United Kingdom WILL leave the EU on that date, barring the passing of some emergency legislation which is unlikely to be proposed by a Conservative government, although  Labour one may do so. Will a different Conservative leader be able to wring any concessions out of the EU, or get a 'deal' through parliament ? Perhaps one solution might be for a new Prime Minister to propose 'No Deal' to parliament but to link it with adherence to Mrs May's 'deal' minus the Irish backstop. The EU wouldn't like it but it could be a way of getting something through the UK parliament; the EU would then be in a position of having to either reject 99% of what it has itself agreed or 'put up and shut up'.

As things currently stand, Brexit will happen without a formal deal which isn't as terrifying as some would have us believe. In fact, many of the horror stories are simply that, stories which lack any basis in fact. Without a deal, the UK would not pay its £39bn and would have to trade with EU countries on WTO terms - given that the trade balance is massively in the EU's favour anyway, that doesn't seem too bad as the incentive to come to a deal would then be firmly with them. From an EU perspective, surely accepting a very small compromise, as suggested above, would be beneficial and preferable.

However, the forces of Remain are unlikely to be quelled by any deal. Hiding behind calls for more referendums, elections and revocations, they simply want to impose their will on the 17.4 million of the population who, in their view, were too stupid to know what they were voting for. Might they yet succeed, one way or another ?

ANY OLD ARGUMENT IN A BREXIT STORM !

Until this morning, the Brexit options seem clear. Teresa May will lose the vote on her 'deal' on 11th December and that will prompt :

a) plan 'B', whatever that may be, and another vote on that, or

b) a vote for a second referendum, or

c) a vote for a general election, or

d) 'NO DEAL'

However, today some unaccountable legal eagle from the EU has given his view that the UK could simply revoke its 'Article 50' notice and stay in the Union. God help us, yet more for the pro-EU lobby to whine on about ! Of course, we also have the Speaker of the House of Commons lining up against the government with regard to its private legal advice and the start of a long debate on the vexed subject of Mrs May's 'Deal'. Aren't we in for a jolly time.

To my mind, matters are very simple. The people were offered a referendum in 2016 and they voted to leave the European Union; that is that. All the hot air expended since has been principally a consequence of the forces of 'Remain' refusing to  accept the democratic Will of the people, using every conceivable argument, most of them utterly spurious if not downright insulting, in their efforts to thwart Brexit. Sadly, even the government has been complicit in this, agreeing to a 'deal' which is hardly more than putting one foot on the threshold. Anyway, -------

Given that 'Plan B' is a total unknown to the vast majority of MPs, as well as to the general population, if it's any good, why isn't it 'Plan A' ?

Conservative MPs voting for a general election, with opinion polls indicating that they'd lose their parliamentary majority, would be akin to the old adage of turkeys voting for Christmas - it ain't going to happen.

There is no liking for a 'No Deal' scenario in Parliament and no likelihood of MPs doing anything to support it.

What this leaves is either 'Plan B' being sprung on us and finding surprising support in Parliament or there being a second referendum as a way of Parliament avoiding doing what it's there for, which is taking responsibility for running the country.

Will the Conservative forces opposed to Teresa May's deal make a point by voting against her once but then fall into line in a second vote ? What has happened to the prophesied legions who were sending letters to Graham Brady ? Will we find ourselves with a new Prime Minister who miraculously makes everything better ?

Are we headed for a huge Tory climb down, with acceptance of the deal or a second referendum ? It seems that one or the other must be the outcome.

The whole idea of a second referendum is an abdication of our democratic system. The people voted, clearly, to leave the EU, and yet many MPs are now asking for a second referendum to tell them what they should do' The simple fact is that they've already been told; the problem is that they don't like the direction they've been told to take. In essence, our representatives only like representing our views when they accord with their own; when they don't, they prefer to ignore us.

Far too many of those in power see the continuation of our membership of this bureaucratic club as their own backstop, an alternative route to power should their constituency decided to eject them. It can't have escaped notice that the Kinnochs, among others, have developed dynastic connections with the EU's parliament and other institutions. Numerous others have used the European Parliament as a stepping stone to the House of Commons or House of Lords, or vice versa. It's a gravy train that they don't want to be parted from.

I despair. When I voted to leave the European Union, I expected the government to fulfil its promise and act on whatever result the referendum produced. I expected our representatives to act according to the Will of the people, not as expressed in individual constituencies but as expressed by the nation as a whole. Instead, many of our representatives have proved to be disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest. 

There was a time that I believed in our democratic processes. How naïve I was. 

PROJECT FEAR REARS ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN.

And here we go again !

Today, both the UK Treasury and Bank of England have produced some new figures and predictions about the potential effects of Brexit. SURPRISE, SURPRISE ! Both august bodies have said that the UK will suffer potentially severe economic consequences from Brexit OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS !

When, if ever, has either the Treasury or Bank of England got forecasts for the next couple of years right, let alone over a period of 15 years. Before the referendum of 2016 both organisations made dire predictions should the population be stupid enough to vote to leave the European Union - the pound would collapse, the stock market would tumble, house prices would crash, inflation and interest rates would soar, etc. etc. Which of these was proved right ? NONE !

Now, the Bank is repeating its warnings of 2 years ago - why should they be any more right today than they were in 2016 ? In arriving at their predictions, both the Bank and the Treasury have made various assumptions but how can they possibly make any valid assumptions about the world 15 years from now ? How, indeed, can they make any valid assumptions about the world 3 or 4 years from now ?

With political uncertainty rife across Europe and in the US, with China increasingly challenging the economic domination of the West and Russia ploughing its own furrow of militaristic posturing, we cannot, with any certainty, even know what the world will be like in 2019, let alone in 2034. The one thing that is very clear is that 'Project Fear' remains in full swing and that the people of the UK are being readied for either another referendum or a general election, which those of the liberal elite who run things expect to result in a reversal of the decision taken in 2016. 

Don't let the men, and women, in grey suits who appear to be so knowledgeable and certain, fool you. They have one aim in mind and they will do and say anything to achieve it. They want the UK to be a good little servile nation, do as it's told and decide to stay in the EU. 

Don't let it happen.

WHAT PRICE BREXIT NOW ?

It seems that the UK's hopes of leaving the European Union any time soon are receding into the distance. No one likes Mrs May's deal and her chances of gaining Parliamentary approval for it appear remote. Indeed, her chances of remaining in office are shrinking by the day. Nonetheless, she pushes on to what looks like certain disaster.

From the very beginning the government's approach to Brexit was weak. Rather than take the initiative and tell the EU what it wanted, it allowed the EU to dictate terms from the outset. Inevitably,  the resulting 'deal' is heavily weighted against the UK and in favour of the EU. Not only will the UK remain tied to the EU during a transition period, which could be extended, but even after this ends it could still be locked into the farcical arrangement of 'the backstop', in which the UK would be out of the EU but wholly subservient to it.

Today, Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been talking about yet more economic analyses which apparently show that the UK will be poorer as a result of Brexit; given the shockingly poor history of such analyses and projections over a period of many years, their reliability must be in question and yet still they are produced. Although Mr Hammond claims to be a supporter of Mrs May's deal, he was and undoubtedly still is, a 'Remainer' and has a vested interest in letting us all know about the potentially dire economic consequences of Brexit, however debatable the forecasts may be. 

Mr Hammond's latest intervention is nothing more nor less than the latest brick in the wall of 'Project Fear'. No matter what his words appear to say, he is, in truth, arguing for staying in the EU, or, at least, remaining very closely tied to it. With there being very little chance of Mrs May's plan gaining approval, politicians have moved rapidly on to the next stage of the process; will it be another referendum or a General Election ? Either way, Mrs May is dead in the water and her 'colleagues' are circling, positioning themselves for the final strike and succession to the throne.

There can be no doubt that 'Project Fear' has won and that Mrs May, intentionally, as a result of incompetence or accidentally, will be the biggest political loser. However, the real losers will be the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU back in June 2016. There will be a second referendum which will be won for 'Remain' by the disenchantment, apathy and disgust of voters, exactly as the EU has wanted all along.

Democracy in the UK is dead and the EU will have its corrupt, bureaucratic way.

GIBRALTAR IS BRITISH, NOW AND FOREVER.

As an agreement on a deal for Brexit, fudged and unsatisfactory though it is, is just about ready for final approval, the Spanish government has come up with new demands about the British territory of Gibraltar. In short, the Spanish are threatening to withhold their approval unless the UK agrees to giving Spain a guarantee of a special say in any arrangements regarding Gibraltar and its future.

What a bloody cheek !!

Gibraltar has been a British territory for more than 300 years and, while Spain may not like it, its people have no desire to be Spanish. The Spanish stance is little different to that adopted by Argentina over the Falkland Islands or other similar disputes that arise from time to time. What the Spanish reaction be, for example, if Portugal laid claim to its former North African colony of Ceuta which was ceded to Spain in 1668 ?

Quite clearly, the Spanish government has seem an opportunity to use Brexit for its own nationalistic purposes, just as the government in Dublin has done. If Mrs May does anything other than tell the Spanish to get lost, she will have failed the UK, Gibraltar, and everyone who values democracy.

NOW EU GOES AFTER GIBRALTAR AND OUR FISH !

Despite all of the recent huffing and puffing over the terms of the proposed 'Brexit deal', not to mention Theresa May's assurances that the deal was effectively sealed in stone, it's now clear that it isn't.

After further talks today, it's being reported that questions still remain over fishing rights and the position of Gibraltar and it's now being said that there will be further last minute discussions on Saturday in an attempt to sign something off in time for the meeting of EU representatives on Sunday. The UK is being pressured to make further concessions while the EU insists that there can be no movement from there side.

As an independent nation, the UK will be sovereign over its territorial waters and for the EU to expect otherwise is unacceptable. If they want to include fishing rights in future trade\ discussions, fine, but to suddenly raise this an issue for the withdrawal agreement cannot be right. As for the position of Gibraltar, Spain is now trying to use this as a bargaining chip for its own nationalistic purposes and should be slapped down by the EU hierarchy; fat chance of that happening as the EU hierarchy appears to be quite happy to use anything that can be dredged up in its determination to force the UK to the brink.

Once again, Theresa May is to be put to the test. Will she have the gumption to tell the EU that enough is enough and there's no more to give, or will she just crumble, as she has done all along ? Brexiteers will be on the look out for any further weakness and this time their position may be rather stronger than it turned out to be last week. Giving way on fishing rights will not be well received and ceding any part of Gibraltar's sovereignty to Spain may well raise more than a few hackles at home.

It looks like being a fun weekend.

WHAT WOULD CHANGING PM ACHIEVE ?

While holding a vote of confidence in Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party may be increasingly likely, I wonder what it would achieve.

If Mrs May wins the vote, she will undoubtedly remain as party leader and Prime Minister, even if there is a substantial number of votes against her. If she loses such a vote, the party would then be left with the task of finding a new leader at a most difficult time; indeed, who would want the job, given that the scope for either amending Mrs May's draft Brexit agreement is infinitesimal and that the chances of getting the agreement approved by Parliament even less ?

Michael Gove's decision not to resign from the cabinet, following on from his reported rejection of the job of Brexit Secretary seems to suggest that he, at least, is biding his time. Remaining in the cabinet suggests a degree of loyalty to both party and leader, and avoids a charge of being a wrecker.  Gove's decision may also indicate that he does not believe that a confidence vote will produce a change of leader - yet - and, in the eyes of fellow party members, he may well have improved his chances of succeeding to the top job in due course. 

Changing the leader will not change the situation. Mrs May's representatives have agreed a draft plan with representatives of the European Union and it seems that the EU will not accept anything other than cosmetic changes to that plan. At the same time, the plan seems unlikely to prove acceptable to the UK Parliament. To say that the Prime Minister is 'between a rock and a hard place' is an extreme understatement, so why would anyone want to replace her ? Basically, those who hanker after her job would probably be far better off if they simply wait for things to develop further.

Deal or No Deal ? Perhaps we should ask Noel Edmonds to officiate !

IS BREXIT 'DEAL' HEADING FOR THE ROCKS ALREADY ?

-------  and it looks as though the end may be fast approaching.

The Northern Ireland minister, Shailesh Vara, had already resigned in protest at Mrs May's Brexit proposals and now the Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, has also walked away. In his resignation letter, Raab pointed at the potential for EU domination over the UK to continue indefinitely and also the threat to the integrity of the UK itself as critical issues. He also referred to the disparity between the proposed deal and what was promised in the last Conservative election manifesto.

Hot on the heels of Raab's resignation, Environment Secretary Michael Gove has cancelled a planned trip to a farming conference in Yorkshire - is he also on the point of quitting his post ? At the same time, arch-Europhile Anna Soubry, a sheep in wolf's clothing if ever there was one, has tweeted to say a) that Raab cynically planned his resignation to make the headlines, b) that the PM must now be considering her position and that we need a 'Government of National Unity' and c) there should be a 'people's vote. Can she really be serious ? This is a Conservative Member of Parliament calling for Jeremy Corbyn to be brought into government !!

There is no doubt that the pack is circling, in all directions, but apparently Mrs May still intends addressing Parliament later this morning. God Help Her !

BREXIT NOW IN THE LAP OF THE GODS !

Judging by the furore, Mrs May's Brexit deal is going to have a tough time getting through Parliament.

Although it was approved at a meeting of the lengthy Cabinet yesterday, the deal cobbled together between Mrs May's lieutenants and representatives of the European Union seems to be on very shaky ground. It's clear that some members of the Cabinet, perhaps as many as 9 or 10, were very unhappy and that the agreement was 'collective' rather than unanimous or even enthusiastic. Arlene Foster of the Democratic Unionists has indicated that her party is unlikely to find the deal acceptable, the Scottish Nationalists have always been clear that they will vote against anything that's put forward and the Labour Party is also plainly opposed for its own political reasons as well as anything else. Given that a significant number of Conservatives, both Brexiteers and Remainers, have indicated that they are likely to vote against the proposals, the chances of the Prime Minister's plan being approved by Parliament seem to be vanishingly small.

That said, politics is a pretty strange game and anything is still possible. The DUP may be cajoled into supporting the plan in order to avoid the spectre of a general election and a Jeremy Corbyn-led government; the Conservative opponents likewise, and there are still a few on the Labour benches who have independent minds and may well vote with Mrs May, also as much to avoid Corbyn gaining power as being in favour of Conservative proposals. All of this also ignores the possibility that any one of the remaining 27 member states of the European Union could decide to reject the deal when it's put to them at a meeting on 25th November.

Where will it all end ? 

ITALY CHALLENGES EU TOO !

While the European Union tries its best to destroy the United Kingdom for daring to leave, the Italians also seem to be embarking on a course designed to lead them into serious conflict with their masters in Brussels.

Defying the European Commission, the government in Rome has decided to stick to its published budget plans even though they've been threatened with punitive action by those who rule the EU. Italy has long had fiscal and monetary problems and has been the recipient of EU largesse in the past in return for cutting spending, but this time they seem to have had enough. The Italian government has determined, against instructions from Brussels, to go ahead with a plan which, according to the EU, threatens to lead to even higher national debt and, consequently, a further decline in financial stability. From the Italian side, the deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, has said that targets for the deficit at 2.4% and growth at 1.5% are necessary and will be pursued.

Once again, the EU is in conflict with one of its major economies. At the bottom of the issue is the irreconcilable imbalance between sovereign nations and a federalist Union which demands adherence to centrally determined policies which support a centralised financial system. Whether or not this current crisis leads to any changes within the European Union, those changes have to come eventually. Either there must be a single European super state or the bloc must take a step back and relax its control over its member. 

My money's on a break up though when it will come is another question.

ANY BREXIT RATHER THAN CORBYN.

As the rhetoric over a proposed Brexit deal hots up, the Labour party is continuing to look for ways of causing enough mayhem to warrant a general election. What a resulting Corbyn-led government would mean for the country hardly bears thinking about, but the prospect of the current largely invisible members of the shadow cabinet moving into Downing Street is frightening.

Corbyn himself and his right hand man, John McDonnell, are a pretty frightening pair on their own, with their hard line Marxist philosophy , but of the rest, how many of us can name more than 2 or 3 ? Former Director of Public Prosecutions turned politician, Keir Starmer, appears regularly as does the almost unbelievably arrogant Lady Nugee, otherwise known as Emily Thornberry; the softly spoken and often condescending Barry Gardiner and Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow Business Secretary whose invented double barrelled name says much about her pretentiousness, are 2 more, but here the well begins to run dry. Deputy party leader Tom Watson has almost disappeared from view over the last couple of years while even the normally pretentious Diane Abbot has been unusually absent. Of the rest, who can name even one ?

Could this bunch of nonentities really be put in charge of our country ? Wealthy and privileged, self serving and willing to do anything in pursuit of power, they profess one thing and do another. Even Corbyn and McDonnell would insulate themselves from the terrifying effects of their own policies, presiding in Stalinesque grandeur over the proletariat. This mob have hidden behind their highly subjective 'Six Tests' as a way of clearing the decks for a vote against almost any Brexit agreement that is cobbled together, irrespective of its content and simply in pursuit of office. The interests of the nation matter not a jot to them.

Whatever Mrs May comes up with, the one thing we cannot risk is a Corbyn-led dictatorship.

JOHNSON MINOR STIRS IT UP !

The resignation of Boris' little brother, Jo Johnson, from Theresa May's government looks to be another step in the ever-evolving campaign to stop Brexit. 

Johnson says that he can't accept Mrs May's proposals for Brexit and has resigned in order to be able to vote against them; this is before any proposals have actually been put forward. Perhaps quite rightly, he also says that what Mrs May is likely to put forward is not what the people actually voted for back in 2016 though his solution, another referendum, is nothing more nor less than part of the Remain campaign of which he was, and remains, a member.

Johnson dissembles in the way that all politicians do, that is, he distorts facts for his own purposes and muddies the water so as to make it virtually impossible to tell fact from fiction. He talks about Brexit as if it has different 'types' or is something tangible; it is not. Leaving the European Union is an intangible and non-negotiable act, decided by a vote of the British people and agreed to by Parliament. There are no 'types' of Brexit, there is simply Brexit.

Johnson says that the current situation and what is currently 'on the table' is a far cry from what was promised during the referendum campaign; on this point he is correct, but a second referendum will not put things right. A second referendum is simply an attempt by the Remain campaign to reverse the result of the first, hence the tidal wave of horror stories about shortages of food and drugs, motorways used as lorry parks, queues at ports, visas for European travel and all the rest. 

There is no doubt that Mrs May has made a terrible hash of negotiating with the European Union though whether this has been deliberate or a result of incompetence is an open question. Might she, and her fellow Europhiles, have deliberately messed things up precisely so as to arrive at today's debacle ? Or was she just not up to the job of negotiating with the miserable bureaucrats of the EU ? It matters not which is the case as the outcome is the same. The European Union has dominated proceedings while Mrs May has been servile.

It seems probable that Mrs May's proposals, almost whatever they are, will be rejected by Parliament, resulting in yet more demands for a second referendum. Thus far, the Prime Minister, from her bunker at 10 Downing Street, has resolutely rejected all such calls, but time is running out, both for any Brexit deal to be agreed and for her personally. Might she find herself in such a tight corner that another referendum becomes her way out ?

David Cameron offered a referendum and said that the government would stand by its outcome. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both stood on platforms of carrying through this promise in the 2017 general election and Parliament has voted, several times, to do so. For there to be a reversal of this policy, in any way, would be such a betrayal of the democratic process that democracy in our country would be, effectively, destroyed. I voted to leave the European Union as did more than 17 million others; we didn't vote for any particular 'type' of Brexit, we just voted to leave. We weren't bothered about the detail, we just wanted out of a moribund, hidebound, bureaucratic, unaccountable and corrupt organisation that is stifling its members. That's still what I want, irrespective of the scare-mongering of those who still refuse to accept the result of the referendum. 

If there is no deal, so what ? The UK will leave the EU with no obligations and with its £39 billion still in the bank; there will be consequences but so there will be for the EU, probably greater ones as it tries to plug the gap in its finances and deal with an open border in Ireland. Why should the UK be worried about such an outcome ? Why on earth should we have a second referendum ?

Should the government eventually renege on its promises, reverse its position and hold a second referendum, the betrayal of trust in politics and politicians would be such as to make all future voting pointless. The people would know that it matters not what they vote for, the political elite will find a way to obtain their own desired outcome, come what may. 

If there is a second referendum, I shall not vote, for what would be the point ? In fact, I would never vote in any election or referendum for the rest of my life as to do so would be utterly futile. 

ARRESTED FOR BURNING CARDBOARD !

Five men have been arrested for burning a cardboard model of a 'tower block', videoing the event and broadcasting the video on the internet. Apparently, what they did is considered to be a 'public order offence'.

It's reported that the tower block was meant to be a representation of Grenfell Tower and that the men could be heard laughing and joking as the model burned, but a criminal offence ? Really ??

This act may have been stupid, pathetic, puerile, moronic, offensive, uncaring, etc., etc,. etc., but have we really reached such a dictatorial stage in our affairs that being a moron is criminal ? If so, when are the police going to start rounding up the many other morons who surround us ? I have only to drive around for half and hour to find morons in cars, driving dangerously, carelessly and without regard for others - how many of these are ever arrested ? Their offences are almost always far more 'criminal' than is the burning of a cardboard model.

Theresa May has called the video "utterly unacceptable". What on earth has something so pathetic got to do with the Prime Minister ? Why does she feel the need to express an opinion of any sort on the matter ? Is this not another measure of the depths to which our society has sunk, when our political leader becomes involved in trivia and the minutiae of daily life ? In fact, by issuing a comment, she may even have damaged the prospects of these morons getting a fair trial, should things ever get that far.

Arresting people for stupid so-called offences is a waste of police resources that might well lead to a waste of yet more public resources. This stupid act should have been ignored by all and sundry, after all, it seems likely that publicity is what the idiots wanted so deny it to them. Instead, they have been awarded all of the publicity they craved and will be able to dine out on it for a long time to come, once they've had their wrists slapped. 

We really are becoming a pathetic laughing stock of a country.

CRUNCH TIME FOR BREXIT FAST APPROACHING

The anti-democracy movement really is getting into full swing.

Over the weekend, we've had stories of a gaggle of 'business leaders' signing a petition demanding a second Brexit referendum quickly followed by a similar story about a bunch of lawyers. Thrown in for good measure has been copious coverage of the totally unsubstantiated allegations being made against arch-Brexiteer Aaron Banks who was forced to endure the BBC's version of an impartial interview on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday. The jolly old Beeb has, inevitably, made much of these anti-Brexit issues, quite regardless of matters of relevance or fact; in their eyes it seems that anything anti-Brexit is news to be shouted from the roof tops.

The latest seems to be a suggestion that Theresa May has cobbled together some sort of proposal for ensuring a Brexit deal by offering to keep the whole United Kingdom inside of the EU's customs' union, a move which would lead to the most limited form of independence for the UK after Brexit - BRINO, or 'Brexit in name only'. Can she really be serious, or is this just more media tripe ? Surely there are far too many in her own party who would baulk at such an outcome and her chances of securing a deal on this basis must be remote, so what next ?

In Ireland, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, a man who seems to hate the UK with a vengeance, and his deputy Simon Coveney have both been making noises about the border issue and general relations between the UK and the Republic. In truth, this is no more than hot air and wind, though the rhetoric is being ramped up. Comments about threats to the Good Friday Agreement and, by implication, the relatively peaceful atmosphere that has existed for the last 20 years or so are a clear indication the Republic will use every weapon at its disposal in order to further its ultimate aim of reunifying the island of Ireland.

Something must give within days if there is to be a Brexit deal. The question is "will anyone do the giving and, if so, who will it be ?"

HATE CRIMES OR BURGLARIES ? WHICH TO POLICE.

A former police Chief Constable has finally talked some sense.

At a conference attended by senior police officers and police and crime commissioners, Sara Thornton has pointed out that, at a time of limited resources, police should concentrate on dealing with violent crimes and burglaries, rather than spending their time on pursuing allegations against the dead or filling in reports of incidents which are not even crimes, such as supposed misogyny. Ms Thornton, now Chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, spoke against the current move to provide bespoke services for a plethora of supposedly desirable or deserving causes, saying that there are simply too many of these. Citing pressure to turn misogynistic acts into 'hate crimes', Thornton referred to this as being "a concern for some well-organised campaigning organisations", but clearly doesn't share their zeal.

Sadly, it seems that Ms Thornton's views are not shared by the government and its advisors. Last month, the Law Commission began to look at whether offences supposedly motivated by dislike, contempt or prejudice between the sexes should be classified as 'hate crimes', and is also considering whether prejudice supposedly based on issues of age or dislike of groups such as 'goths' or 'punks' should also be so-classified. One dreads the outcome of such nonsensical considerations.

How long will it be before simply looking at someone a bit quizzically becomes a 'hate crime' ? How long before we are now longer allowed to express any opinion about anything that doesn't comply with the rigid strictures laid down by our Masters ? There are many things I don't like but to make the expression of my feelings a 'hate crime' would be to bring about the horrifying world envisaged by George Orwell in his then futuristic novel '1984'.

Just so that I can get a few 'dislikes' in while it's still legal, here's some to be going on with :

Football hooligans,
Lying, deceitful politicians
The BBC
Burkas and niqabs
Those who parade their sexuality
Communist agitators.
Self-aggrandising 'celebrities'
Pop culture
Drug dealers
Robert Peston
Wishy-washy liberals
Religious fanatics
Feminists
Misogynists
Paedophiles
Diane Abbot
Illegal immigrants
Immigrants who don't integrate
John Prescott
Michael Heseltine
Jenni Murray
The lazy and work shy.
-- and lots more.

To be clear, I dislike these things and people, I don't hate them, though to see some of them boiled in oil would probably be quite satisfying, not that I'd do it or encourage others to do so. !

IGNORE THE BEEB, IT WAS A GOOD BUDGET.

Yesterday's budget speech by UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond included tax cuts, freezing of duties and significant investment. One would think that this was good news for most of our population, but not if you listen to the BBC.

Coverage of the budget by 'Auntie' has been entirely negative, concentrating on 'what if ?' scenarios, the most important being 'what if there is no deal on Brexit ?' Despite the substantial tax cuts and additions to the budgets for universal credit and the NHS, those invited to comment have been overwhelmingly niggardly in their remarks. It smacks of a left wing organisation being very selective in order to ensure that its own views are very much to the forefront.

Assorted Labour and Liberal politicians seem to have been given carte blanche to criticise the Chancellor at length, while a mish-mash of single mothers, nurses, OAPs and others have been trotted out to witter on about how there is nothing like enough to meet their wants and desires. It seems that the vast extension of state support which has been introduced in recent years has caused many people to forget that they have a primary responsibility to look after themselves and that they should not rely on the state to pay for their profligate ways.

The NHS absorbs an ever-increasing amount of money while wasting much of it on useless or cosmetic treatments; it commits resources to IVF for women who have simply not bothered to have children until late in life - why ? Money is pumped into a black hole for mental health services, an area which is largely subjective in nature; why was there so little mental illness when I was a boy but so much now ? It seems to me that much of it is invented by those who profit, that is, the assorted 'professionals' who provide the services they claim are so urgently needed but without there being any real evidence for.

If their presence on the BBC, and in other media, is truly representative of their numbers in society, there must be more single mothers now than at any time in our history; why, when sex education is everywhere and contraception is so readily available ? Are these women simply too stupid to understand the basic biology or to take the simplest of precautions ? Rather than expecting the state to pay for the resulting offspring, where are the fathers ?

Rather than debating these and other issues, the BBC simply puts forward those who bleat for more, in the fashion of Oliver Twist but with far less reason. We are blessed with the wisdom of John McDonnell, would be Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would bankrupt our country but who is allowed to make the wildest of statements virtually unchallenged. Only a few days ago, he was allowed, by, I think, Nick Robinson to get away with saying that spending £90bn on assorted privatisations would be 'cost neutral'. Cost neutral, according to this Machiavellian of the Left, because the cash outlay would be matched in the government's accounts by the purchased assets; no mention was made of the source for the £90bn needed, nor of the need to finance and repay it, and Robinson made no effort to challenge McDonnell on this point, surely a major omission. In common with his Labour colleagues, McDonnell makes the most unsustainable claims and goes virtually unchallenged, while any and every Conservative statement on the economy is questioned, debated and criticised ad infinitum.

The budget was a decent one and the continuation of some small borrowing for a year or two more is of little consequence when set alongside the vast and ballooning deficit left by the previous Labour government and its financial wizard, Gordon Brown. Inevitably, it has taken a long time to bring the economy back into balance but there is now real light at the end of a very long tunnel; those who demand more public spending now, are the same as those who demanded it in the past and where did that lead ? Long before the financial crisis of 2007/8, the seeds had been sown by governments around the world, not least our own which had set upon a path of financial profligacy and state support the like of which had never before been seen. Allowing Corbyn, McDonnell and their friends to have the keys of Nos 10 & 11 would not just return us to those days, but to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s when the lights went out, rubbish and corpses piled up and Chancellor Healey was forced to go on bended knee to the International Monetary Fund for help.

Once the matter of Brexit has been settled, which it inevitably will be by some fudge or other, the economy will bloom, aided by Chancellor Hammond's relative generosity. At that time, the prospect of a Corbyn led Marxist government will begin to recede into the distance where, with luck, it will simply whither away. 

REMAINERS CARRY ON THE FIGHT.

There always are people who are more than happy to join in a demonstration about almost anything. It's an opportunity for a day out with lots of chanting and flag, or banner, waving for whatever the cause is. In truth, the cause is rarely the real reason for the demonstration, it's just an excuse.

Today, in London, it's reported that anything up to 500,000 people joined in a demonstration against Brexit. Apparently, these people all want there to be a second referendum, ostensibly to allow the electorate a say about whatever deal is, or is not, agreed between the United Kingdom and European Union; in fact, those who actually care simply want an opportunity to reverse the result of the referendum held in 2016 and which their side lost. They are anti-democrats of the type so beloved of the bureaucrats of the European Union.

In 2016, 17.4 million people voted for the UK to leave the EU. Today, 0.5 million demonstrated their opposition to the democratic result of a democratic vote, their leaders citing a raft of spurious reasons why a second referendum should be held, why it wouldn't actually be a referendum but a 'people's vote' and why such a vote wouldn't simply be an undemocratic rejection of a wholly democratic original process.

Had the 'remain' side won in 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron would have praised the sense of the electorate and charged on regardless, immersing the UK ever deeper in the mire that is the EU. The very notion of there being a second vote, whatever it might be called, would have been laughed out of court and the views of those, however many, who had voted to leave the EU would have been trampled underfoot. Had Cameron got the result he wanted, and expected, the voice of Brexit would have been silenced forever. So why is it so different now that 'Leave' won ?

Simply, the establishment didn't get its own way. The people didn't do what they were expected to do, told to do, even frightened into doing. Instead, they took the opportunity to have their voices heard and gave the establishment a good hard kick in its complacent, supercilious backside. Unfortunately, the establishment had no intention of letting this minor setback upset its longer term plans, and so it's kept up a campaign to get the result reversed, one way or another. A second referendum, delaying tactics, 'impossible' problems to resolve, any and every obstacle has been put in the way of a successful Brexit and, today, it was a demonstration in London backed by an assortment of dedicated Europhiles. 

However, in the end it's the balance of numbers which must win. 17.4 million voted to leave the EU, 0.5 million may have demonstrated to stay in. Seems pretty clear to me.

IRELAND CANNOT PULL THE UK'S STRINGS.

Theresa May has said that any 'backstop' agreement for the whole UK, or even just Northern Ireland, to stay within the European Union's customs' union beyond the 29th March 2019 must be time limited. Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists, who support Mrs May's government, have made it clear that they will not accept any Brexit deal which leaves either Northern Ireland inside the EU's customs' union or in any way separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. Simon Coveney, deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, has said that his government cannot accept the imposition of any time limit on the so-called 'backstop agreement'.

Clearly, the positions of the UK and Irish governments are diametrically opposed, while the position of the Democratic Unionists simply seeks to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Irish government sees Brexit, and particularly the ill-advised agreement on a 'backstop' that was arrived at last year, as an opportunity to advance its ambition of annexing Northern Ireland and will do everything in its power to frustrate all proposals for resolving the border issue in any other way.

Enough is enough. Ireland is a piddling little country which relies heavily on the UK for its economic wellbeing. That the UK's government should be required to satisfy its wholly unrealistic demands and political ambitions is ridiculous. That the European Union as a whole is happy to allow this situation to persist shows just how it will use anything it can find in its efforts to frustrate Brexit. 

The European Union is an abominable organisation, hell bent on turning itself into a socialist European 'super state'. It ignores all opposition and every reality in its pursuit of this goal and is an almost perfect parody of Oscar Wilde's description of fox hunting - "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". As the populations of various nations become ever more disenchanted with the EU - Italy and  Hungary leading the way - its principal adherents, Germany and France, become ever more belligerent in their attitudes to dissent. 

Having been founded as a means of avoiding further conflict in Europe, the EU has now become a club for unelected bureaucrats who happily plough their own furrow, regardless of the opposition that is growing amongst the common people. They take vast salaries and perks of all sorts while the people starve; they impose all manner of rules and regulations regardless of the impacts. They steal hundreds of billions of euros, pounds and whatever else they can lay their hands on, every year to spend on pet schemes with little or no real financial accountability. In truth, no one really knows where all the money goes.

That the UK joined this rabble in the first place was a mistake. That it allowed itself to be dragged along with developments such as the transmogrification from Common Market to European Union, the introduction of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism, and the Maastricht, Lisbon and assorted other treaties, defies belief. The difficulties now being thrown up in the face of Brexit show just how convoluted and tentacular are the ramifications of membership of this spider's web of bureaucracy.

Theresa May made a monumental error when she agreed to the lunacy of the 'Irish backstop' at the end of 2017 and the EU leaders must have heartily congratulated themselves on their success in getting her to agree to it. It was always intended to be an impossible sticking point to overcome and so it has proved. The only answer is for the United Kingdom to walk away and leave it for the European Union to see sense.

MRS MAY'S ETHNIC MINORITY PAY GAP.

I'm fairly sure that people who voted Conservative in the last election expected to get a Conservative Prime Minister but it seems that what they've got in Theresa May is a just another wishy-washy Liberal.

It's reported that Mrs May has launched a consultation on whether mandatory reporting will help to address a claimed disparity between the pay and career prospects of minority groups in our society, presumably when compared to their majority white Anglo-Saxon colleagues. This is a follow-on to the decision to make it mandatory for companies to 'reveal' their so-called gender pay gap, although when people can now 'self-identify' their gender regardless of actuality, one wonders how much use such knowledge will be.

This latest, and ludicrous, idea is so fraught with obstacles as to render it impossible to implement. In the first instance, what counts as an "ethnic minority" ? Will rules be introduced to define an "ethnic minority" in terms of numbers, colour or place of origin ? What if I look "white Anglo-Saxon" but have a "minority ethnic" name ? What if I'm only part "minority ethnic", say a half, quarter or eighth ? Given that most, if not all of the white population have some "minority ethnic" blood in our ancestry, can we not all claim to be "minority ethnic" to some degree ? 

Of my great grandparents, 2 were Swiss, 2 German, 3 were Irish and 1 was English - do I count as being a member of an "ethnic minority" ? I can be reasonably sure that that there aren't too many around who can claim a similar heritage and that, surely, makes me part of a minority. Should I make a claim for discrimination ?

In my working life I had colleagues of all sorts. Men, women, black, brown, yellow and white; there were some who had freckles, some were balding and some were disabled, Some were young and some were old; there were English, Irish, Scots and Welsh, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Polish, West Indian, Nigerian and Iranian, and that's only what I can immediately recall. There were Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and more than a few atheists, but we all rubbed along pretty well and there was no hint of any discrimination other than on the grounds of work performance.

If Mrs May's idiotic liberal-socialist  ideas take hold, what comes next ? Companies having to report on the pay gap between members of different religions, or of different 'sexual orientations' ? Perhaps the gap between those who went to state schools versus those who went to the local comprehensive, or those who attended nurseries or play groups compared with those who did not ? Maybe we could look at the comparative pay of those whose parents were married and those whose parents were not, those whose parents were in politics and those whose were not.

The almost endless opportunities for dividing our society up into smaller and smaller 'minorities' is mind boggling and utterly pointless. Perhaps that's why our political masters love doing it; it makes it look as though they care when, in reality, it's just about appearing to do important things and gaining votes.

Let's hope that this latest daft nonsense never sees the light of day. Given that Mrs May could well be gone within 6 months, that could well be the case.