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.