EU SAYS "NON !" YET AGAIN.

Yesterday evening, Theresa May achieved what had seemed impossible just a couple of weeks ago - she won a vote in the House of Commons on the vexed subject of Brexit.

When the so-called 'Withdrawal Agreement' was put before Parliament on 15th January, it was rejected emphatically; Brexiteers and Remainers were united in dislike of it and threw it out unceremoniously. Mrs May was sent away to think again, talk to colleagues, other Parliamentarians and interested parties and representatives of the European Union, and to come back with something more acceptable. This she did and, yesterday, Parliament voted on a series of amendments to the Agreement; the government supported one of these, a proposal to accept the Agreement subject to there being an alternative mechanism to the 'Irish Backstop', and Mrs May is now about to set off on a new round of discussions with all and sundry in pursuit of this.

In a world populated by decent people, rather than by self-serving, egotistical, entrenched politicians, there would now be a genuine effort on all sides to come up with a revised plan. Sadly, we do not live in such a world. 

Shortly after the votes, Jeremy Corbyn magnanimously changed his position and agreed that he would, after all, converse with the Prime Minister; however,, it seemed clear to me that his real aim is to be able to walk out of such talks loudly proclaiming what a waste of time they'd been and thus trying to bolster his own political position.

The pronouncements from Europe have been even more problematic. Rather than welcoming what they'd asked for, a clear statement from the British Parliament as to their wishes, all and sundry have simply fallen back on the tired old European approach of saying "NON !", loudly and repeatedly. These bullies of the European Union have no interest in negotiating, all they want is for things to be done their way. From their viewpoint, they still have time to take advantage of the divisions in the UK Parliament and to try to force either a revocation of Brexit or, at least, another referendum which might produce the desired result of 'Remain'.

While the Eurocrats stand firm, our own Parliament wavers. Rather than meeting fire with fire, many of its members seek to undermine the Prime Minister and Brexit, regardless of the outcome of the 2016 referendum. These 'representatives' of the people continue to do what they can to keep the UK within, or very closely tied to, the EU and one of their principle tacks has been to try to "take no-deal off the table". This course of action effectively removes the UK's strongest bargaining chip and allows the EU to continue to be obstructive to any further discussion. While they are scared witless by the possibility of a 'no-deal' Brexit, they are convinced that the UK Parliament will force the Prime Minister to compromise, on their terms, before such a thing becomes a reality.

With the 'Irish Backstop' as it is currently framed, the Withdrawal Agreement has no chance of being ratified by the UK Parliament. The EU is, so far, emphatic in stating that the Agreement is not open for renegotiation and must stay as it is. The UK Parliament has made it clear that it wants this part of the Agreement renegotiated. Where is there room for manoeuvre ? 

The simple answer is that neither side wants 'no-deal' and, the closer we get to 29th March, the more likely the EU is to realise that its position is untenable. No Deal will do them great harm and will have huge repercussions for some of their own political leaders when they are next standing for re-election. If our own parliamentarians could actually grow some backbone and learn to play the game every bit as determinedly as their European counterparts, there'd be a deal, and a reasonable one, in plenty of time.

The trouble is that too many of our own 'representatives' remain of the view that Brexit is a mistake, the we, the ignorant people, simply didn't understand the issues and 'complexities'; we voted for the wrong reasons blah, blah. Our 'representatives' are determined to lead us back to the path of righteousness, kicking and screaming if necessary, and the EU knows this. It will happily wait, doing nothing but saying "NON !" until the UK does as it's told and effectively cancels Brexit.

We must not let this happen.

MORE TO WW2 THAN THE HOLOCAUST.

Apparently, today is 'Holocaust Memorial Day' and we all have to remember what the NAZIs did to the Jews. Unfortunately, a survey of UK adults has shown that 5% of them don't believe that the 'holocaust' happened, 8½% believe it's scale has been exaggerated and 66% either didn't know how many Jews were killed or, at least, thought it was many fewer than history tells us.

Does this really matter ? 

People believe lots of things. Some believe that God really exists, actually quite a lot do.  Is it a problem that others deny his (or her) existence ? Some will no doubt deny that, as well as the NAZIs, others also have indulged in forms of genocide - Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, various African tyrants, Pol Pot in Cambodia - the list goes on. Hundreds of thousands, millions, have been butchered by tyrants throughout history, all largely forgotten except for what the NAZIs did to the Jews.

In fact, while the 'Holocaust' is always spoken of with reference to Jews, Hitler's Germany wasn't too 'picky' when it came to identifying its victims. Coloureds, homosexuals, the disabled, in fact anyone who didn't fit with the Führer's notion of Aryan perfection, was in danger of being rounded up and shipped off to the death camps, always excepting anyone who had risen to the higher echelons of the NAZI Party before the real horrors took hold.

The Second World War ended almost 75 years ago. It's hardly surprising that some of those who have been born in more recent times don't know its details. How many believe that the United Kingdom was little more than a bystander, supporting the United States in its fight against Germany and Japan ? How many believe that Russia was on the side of the Germans ? How many can't distinguish between the two World Wars or have any idea when they were ? Who knows, or cares, how many were systematically slaughtered by both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades (what? when was that ? I hear the unknowing cries of puzzlement from afar !), or 'believe' that the brave cowboys of film and television really existed ? How many believe that the 'Red Indians' of North America were the bad guys when, in truth, they were mostly peaceful but were all but eradicated by the invading 'white men' ? 

That millions were killed under the abhorrent rule of the NAZIs is a historic fact, though, if some want to deny it or simply don't know about it, does it matter ? What does matter is that there was far more to the Second World War than the 'Holocaust' and to concentrate to such a degree on this one issue, as well as relating it almost entirely to one group, the Jews, is fundamentally wrong. Rather than memorializing the 'Holocaust' we should be remembering the end of that horrible war, a war that spanned the globe for almost 6 years and cost tens of millions of lives, the vast majority of them having nothing to do with Judaism. 

In another 50 years, which will be almost 125 years after the end of that war, will anyone, other than historians and others with vested interests, care at all about it ? Who, today, knows anything about the Boer War of the late 1890s and the British concentration camps, or about the Russo-Japanese war of the early 1900s ? Inevitably, events fade from our consciousness as the years pass and perverting remembrance of the Second World War into a remembrance of one specific aspect of it will result in a distortion of the history being taught at that time. 

Let us remember all the horrors of past wars in the hope that current and future generations will learn from the memory, rather than remembering particular events which, themselves, are only selectively reported.

WINDIES EXPOSE ENGLAND'S FRAILTIES

One thing that the Europeans don't get involved in is cricket, which is just as well given the shocking performance of the English team in the first test match in the West Indies.

In the last couple of years, England have been lauded as one of the best sides, while the West Indies have been struggling to recapture their glory days. Well, if this England team thought they'd have it easy in the Caribbean, how wrong they were !

The first of three encounters has just ended with the third biggest victory by runs ever achieved by the West Indies - a little matter of 381 runs; having set England a victory target of 628, they bowled them out for 246, the last six England wickets falling for just 31 runs on a wicket that really appeared to show little venom. Astonishingly, a spinner, Roston Chase, ended up with figures of 8 wickets for 60 runs, once of the best ever performances by a spinner for the west Indies, and on a wicket which offered him little assistance.

What went wrong for England ?

In the first place, their first innings batting performance was abysmal, the top score being 17 and the team's total of 77 being one of the worst ever by an England team. Batsmen played without what might be called 'due care and attention' and simply gifted their wickets to the home side, leaving themselves over 200 runs behind at this stage. They followed this up with a pretty spiritless performance in the field as the West Indies, having subsided to 61 - 5 and 120 - 6, rallied to a remarkable 415 - 6 declared. Could this have been on the same wicket on which England made a combined total of 77 ? Yes, and it was a shocking indictment of England's batting, bowling and captaincy.

As a batsman, Joe Root is of the highest quality but as a captain he lacks authority and leadership. Watching the team's miserable performance in the West Indies second innings, Root showed no enthusiasm for the task in hand, he did nothing to galvanise his team, his bowling tactics were highly questionable and one felt he was just going through the motions. The measure of a captain is how he manages difficult situations and Root failed this one to an epic proportion. It might be the modern way of captaincy but the likes of Mike Brearley or Brian Close would have been far more involved and active; they wouldn't have let things drift the way that Root did.

The final ignominy was to see England's second innings fold up. From a good start, reaching 134 - 1, they surrendered without struggle, only one batsman passing 35. The West Indies bowled and caught well, but nothing like so well as to excuse this miserable collapse. England were exposed as a team with many frailties.

So what is the problem ? Firstly, the team seems to have been selected on the basis of having as many reasonably proficient batsmen as far down the order as is possible. Thus, only Jimmy Anderson, at number 11, was without a first class century. Secondly, players have been selected to play out of their normal positions in order to satisfy the first condition. This means that having truly international batsmen has been sacrificed for having lots of batsmen. Thirdly, the opening partnership was effectively untried and hoped that a player who had already failed would 'come good'. Fourthly, the bowling selection was wrong - Stuart Broad, a bowler who has proved himself over many years, was omitted in favour of playing a rather problematic 'second spinner', who was hardly used, although he's scored a few first class centuries ! Fifthly, the captain was the wrong captain.

To correct this list of problems, the selectors need to do various things, most of which they won't. The worst scenario will be if England rally to win the next 2 matches when, of course, they will feel totally vindicated in whatever they've done; the best scenario will be if England are blown away and change is enforced.

My solution, for what it is worth, is firstly to change the captain. Root may be a fine batsman and one of the first names on the team sheet, but he's no captain. Secondly, I'd look at picking a properly balanced team; we need 5 or 6 proper batmen, 3 or 4 proper bowlers, a wicketkeeper and an allrounder. If some can 'double up', that's fine but let's not have the number 5 batsman as the third seamer. Let's also find a genuine opening partnership and a genuine batman to be either number 3 or number 5 in the order. Root ought to be number 3, Bairstow might be a number 4 but is probably more like a number 5; this leaves a vacancy at number 4. Neither Stokes nor Butler is appropriate for this.

At number 6, Butler or Stokes could fill the role, and Stokes probably gets the vote, as did the great Gary Sobers for the West Indies in days passed. Butler could be number 7 if he doubles as wicket-keeper. At 8, it is then a choice  between Moeen Ali and Sam Curran dependant upon the conditions, while for  10 and 11 there can surely be no choices other than Stuart Broad and the ageless Jimmy Anderson.. This leaves number 9 which, depending on the conditions, could be filled by Curran, Mark Wood, Chris Woakes, Jack Leach or Adil Rashid.

In the way of this approach is that England's selectors appear to have given up on finding any real batsmen to fill the voids at opener and number 4. They've also surrendered the appointment of captain to the media, rather than picking the best man for the job. In truth, I don't really see a captain in the current team, so it may be that resolving the issues over opening and number 4 might also find us a true captain.

Captaincy is a very specific skill which few possess and finding the right man might prove galvanic to the team as a whole, even if he's not quite top class as a batsman, as was the case with Brearley. Interestingly, ever since captains have been appointed for their batting rather than their captaincy ability, their results have been shocking - Cook, Gooch, Atherton and Gower have the worst records of England captains who've survived for 30 or more matches; Root's record so far isn't bad, though it's far from the best, but is that more luck than judgement ? He often wins, but he also loses far too many.

Sadly, I'm not an England selector, so my notions will go unheeded and we'll continue to play unbalanced teams and to rely on the occasional brilliant performance to bail us out. It's an approach that certainly didn't work on its latest test.

SPACE : THE IMPOSSIBLE FRONTIER ?

Watching the film "2001 : A Space Odyssey", I marvel at the incredible and unattainable expectation of humanity in the late 1960s. When the film was made, we had nothing but the most primitive of space craft and had yet to even reach the moon, and yet it depicts vast space stations and space ships of huge complexity a mere 30 years in its future. Now, well beyond that imagined future, we know better - it would have been better to name the film, and the book, with a date much further into the future; I would suggest, at the vey least, 2501, though even further may be advisable.

Scientific advancement tends to go in fits and starts; rapid advance is followed by a period of review, reflection and retrenchment. New ideas and achievements are assessed and the next steps considered; we are currently in the middle of a phase of retrenchment as far as space exploration is concerned. Rather disappointingly, our progress since the heady days of the 1960's ' space race' has been nothing like what was expected; in fact, it's been extremely limited.

Yes, we have a permanent space station in orbit around the Earth but it's scarcely on the scale of that portrayed in the film. Regular travel from the Earth to a space station and on to the Moon remains a dream although the film suggests that it's almost a daily occurrence. The film depicts a ship of huge dimensions manned by an active crew of 2 and a psychotic computer, all of which seems vastly removed from any realistic attainment for a very long time indeed.

We rightly applaud, and are astounded by, pictures sent from space craft which have journeyed out beyond the most distant planet in our solar system; to actually be able to see pictures of Pluto, and even the tiny and strange planetoid Ultima Thule, is incredible but it doesn't even scratch the surface of interstellar travel. More than 40 years after their launch, the Voyager spacecraft have reached the edge of our solar system and are now into the void between the stars, but it will be centuries, in fact millennia, before they actually reach even the closest stars.

The truth is that we have reached a point at which we must either discover a new means of propulsion, a way to avoid having to travel in straight lines through normal space, or accept that travel beyond our solar system is effectively impossible. As well as issues about speed and time, questions of survivability in deep space have arisen; even if man can manage to travel beyond our Moon, will he be able to withstand the dangers presented by cosmic debris and radiation ? Will he be able to survive the long period of separation from his native world, to exist on processed food for many months, to maintain adequate physical health ? Will he be able to re-adapt to life on Earth on his return ? So many questions, so few answers.

Science fiction writers have circumvented all of these difficulties by 'inventing' concepts such as 'hyperspace', 'warp drive' and 'inertial damping' while completely ignoring many of the practicalities of day-to-day living while in space. "2001 : A Space Odyssey" did, at least, show astronauts having to maintain their fitness, while the space craft had artificially induced gravity; some of the human cargo was in a deep hibernation, a perennial idea for long space journeys but also fraught with problems.

Fifty years after the release of the film, we have yet to send a human being beyond our Moon, indeed, we haven't even ventured that far since Apollo 17 blasted off in December 1972. No 'Moon base', no settlements on Mars and no space ships flitting around the galaxy. The simple fact is that unless we can turn 'warp drive' or 'hyperspace' into realities, we are likely to be stuck here on Earth for ever with no way of having any meaningful contact with life elsewhere. 

So, come on you budding Einsteins, find me a 'worm hole' to Sirius, Rigel, Arcturus or, even just to Alpha Centauri. Without something of the sort, there'll be no "Space Odyssey", whatever year is ascribed to it.

WILL BREXIT EVER HAPPEN ?

While far too many of our political masters continue to either try to frustrate Brexit or to use it for their own purposes, Theresa May is supposedly working on a new plan to take to the House of Commons tomorrow. What she will propose is anyone's guess but, with the European Union continuing to be obstructive, it's unlikely to be something that will gain favour with those who simply want Brexit to happen.

While Brexiteers have a number of issues with Mrs May's original plan, the most critical 'sticking point' must surely be the so-called "Irish Backstop". My question is, "Why is it there at all ?"

Clearly the British government doesn't want this blatantly political arrangement to be included in the agreement and, reportedly, neither does the European Union. It's said that the EU has an assortment of concerns about it and sees it as being unwelcome and potentially damaging to its own best interests; and yet it was the EU which insisted on including it at the insistence, of course, of the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic is a tiny country in population as well as in economic terms and yet it is wagging the dog's tail to the benefit of no one but itself, and even that is debatable. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the Republic will almost suffer more than anyone else due to its close economic ties to the UK. Sadly, this seems to be of no relevance to the Irish leader, Leo Varadkar, who appears hell bent on using the border issue as a lever in the century old battle to reunite the 2 parts of the island of Ireland.

Potential solutions to the border issue have been put forward but none has found favour with the EU - why ? If the EU really doesn't want to ever have to implement the 'backstop', why are they not being far more willing to remove this impediment from the withdrawal agreement ? The only realistic answer is that they're using it as a means of frustrating the whole Brexit process.

Conservative Brexiteers will not agree to any deal which includes the 'backstop' and Conservative Remainers will not agree to any deal which sees the UK move more than the tiniest distance from the EU. Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon are also using Brexit for their own political purposes and gaining Parliamentary approval for any arrangement seems impossible.  

What on earth will happen next ?

MNANGAGWA - JUST ANOTHER THUG & TYRANT..

Back in November 2017, the world celebrated as the tyrant, Robert Mugabe, was removed from the Presidency of Zimbabwe and replaced by Emmerson Mnangagwa. It seems that the world was a little premature in its sense of relief.

Mugabe had presided over the total collapse of Zimbabwean economy as well as a reign of terror aimed at white residents and anyone who did not agree with him. Somehow, he survived in office for almost 30 years but, by the latter part of 2017 his time was up. He was ousted in a military coup and his erstwhile ally, Mnangagwa, took over; sadly, it seems that things have got no better under the new President and may even have become worse.

News reports from Zimbabwe now refer to riots and general chaos. There are apparently shortages of food, medicine, fuel and even money; inflation is again rampant. The internet has been shut down, reopened and shut down again in an attempt to prevent opponents of the regime from communicating, the armed forces have instituted a brutal assault on protesters and people have died on the streets. In the midst of this mayhem, President Mnangagwa has absented himself by touring Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan before heading off to the regular junket for the rich and powerful in Davos, Switzerland. He has indicated that he has no interest in returning home before he has finished his taking full advantage of his status as a 'world leader'.

It's clear that far from being any sort of saviour, Mnangagwa is simply yet another of the horde of ghastly, power hungry, corrupt, thieving and murderous thugs who have risen, scum-like, to the top of the cesspit that passes for politics across much of Africa. From Egypt and Libya in the north, via the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly known as Zaire) and the Central African Republic to Uganda, Zimbabwe and even South Africa today, Africa has been riven with tribal conflicts for decades, centuries and probably millennia. Dictators and tyrants have come and gone by the bus load, often departing with vast amounts of loot while their people have been brutalized and starved. The response of the western world has been, for the most part, to sit back and do nothing other than pour huge amounts of money into schemes ostensibly supposed to provide relief for those in need but, in effect, which have merely served to enrich the monsters.

How can it be that Mnangagwa is welcome at Davos ?

BREXIT & DEMOCRACY ON THE BRINK.

Well, the House of Commons has spoken and Theresa May's proposed Brexit deal has been roundly rejected. Rather than coming up with anything in the way of sensible alternatives, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour mob have simply tabled a motion of no confidence in the government in an attempt to force a general election, which would create even more turmoil.

Despite last night's defeat, Mrs May seems highly likely to win the confidence vote, meaning that the exercise foisted on Parliament by a wholly dysfunctional Labour Party will have been a waste of time and effort, time and effort that might have been more usefully employed in trying to find a way through the Brexit mire. Mrs May will apparently be spending much of her time over the next 2 or 3 days in having probably pointless discussions with politicians from various parties and with various points of view as she does attempt to reach some sort of consensus that would be acceptable to Parliament. For its part in the mess, the European Union seems hell bent on merely sticking to its stance, which appears to be very similar to that adopted by General de Gaulle throughout the 1960s when his recurrent answer to the UK's desire to join the then European Economic Community was a stern "Non".

Against this backdrop, Mrs May, assuming she does survive the vote of confidence tonight, will have to come back to the House of Commons on Monday to tell MPs how she plans to proceed. Clearly the EU is going to offer Mrs May no help, in fact, it may well see yesterday's events as being a step along a path to reversing the Brexit process altogether. Clearly Mr Corbyn is going to offer no assistance as his only ambition is to use Brexit as a mechanism by which he may be able to force his way into the Prime Minister's seat; for someone who is well known to have little love for the EU, his now expressed view that the UK should seek to remain within its customs' union is a contradiction and complete reversal. However, there may be some wriggle room with a few back bench Labour members who have little love for Corbyn and could be more amenable to supporting Mrs May if her deal can be tweaked a bit.

The Scottish Nationalists, Liberals and Greens (all 1 of them) are noisy and committed Europhiles, as would be Plaid Cymru if Wales as a whole hadn't voted for Brexit. At least a third of Conservative MPs have rejected Mrs May's deal and the only reliable ally the Conservatives have, the Democratic Unionists from Northern Ireland, have also turned it down. Where do we go next ?

To answer my own question "I have no idea". In order to get an agreement through Parliament, about 115 MPs have to be convinced to change their minds and vote in favour, net of any who decide to change their vote the other way. The DUP members will only do so if the infamous 'Irish Backstop' is removed or, at least, watered down to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. Ardent 'Brexiteers' are insistent that the current deal is simply a bad deal; they want the backstop removed and much more progress on moving to a free trade agreement to be included. Ardent 'Remainers' want the deal to include commitments to retain close ties to the EU, meaning that we might stay in the single market and customs' union.

To me, these competing objectives seem utterly irreconcilable. With a majority of MPs wanting us to stay in the EU, how can there possibly be an agreement about leaving unless that agreement leaves us so tightly bound to the union as to be no more nor less than a vassal state ? That the people voted to leave is rapidly becoming irrelevant; the liberal elite, the establishment, is determined to have its way and will grind its opponents into the dust, along with any remaining semblance of democracy that exists in our country.

TIME TO VOTE FOR THERESA.

Those who want the United Kingdom to remain within the European Union or, at the very least, to stay so closely tied to it as to make no difference, have yet to explain what are the over-riding benefits of taking this course of action.

When I voted to leave the EU, I did so in order to restore freedom of action to our country. I saw us gaining the freedom to make and apply our own laws and regulations and I saw us being freed from the arbitrary decisions of the European Court of Justice. I saw us gaining the freedom to control our own borders, the freedom to decide our own alliances, the freedom to control our own economy and to make our own trade deals. I saw us being freed of the need to make large financial contributions to an unaccountable organisation, the administration of which is mind-bogglingly bureaucratic and obscure as well as being self-serving and riddled with corruption. I saw us being freed from the grindingly slow processes of this elephantine and mismatched group of nations.

I voted in favour of all of this. Those who are now shouting their opposition from the rooftops have yet to say what they are actually in favour of, other than a continuation of the status quo. They want us to stay tied to the dead weight of a union which was conceived in the aftermath of World War 2 but which has no place in the world of today. Those who are working to prevent any form of meaningful Brexit are either frightened of change and scared to venture out of their Euro-bunker or are those who benefit directly from the coffers of the EU. They can point to nothing positive to keep us in, only to the imagined difficulties which they claim will arise from leaving.

This week, the House of Commons will vote on assorted Brexit-related issues and may well bring the country to a point of total confusion. They will vote against everything and for nothing; as a result, Brexit may well be threatened, delayed or, even, prevented altogether. The government may fall, leading to a general election and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition of Labour, SNP and Liberals; anyone who thinks that a 'No-Deal' Brexit would be catastrophic should give thought to just what that scenario would mean for us all.

Theresa May's deal is far from perfect, but if it's a choice between that and no Brexit, or between her in Downing Street and Jeremy Corbyn preening himself at the door, there's no choice. 

ARE REMAINERS BECOMING DESPERATE ?

As the voices of 'Remain' gather, Lord, former Roy, Hattersley has added his noisy intervention to the clamour for a second referendum. Hattersley is, of course, one of those socialists who decry the very notion of  elitism and yet find no difficulty in finding themselves promoted to the peerage.

Why anyone should care what this octogenarian Europhile says is a bit of a mystery but he has apparently said that he supports the idea of a second referendum "very strongly" and that he believes that those who voted to leave in the 2106 vote had "no idea" what that would mean. 

Really ? Hattersley is such a mind-bogglingly brilliant psychological intellect that he knows what all of those who voted to leave understood about the issue ? What utter cobblers. The main is an ardent Europhile and for him to defame those who voted to leave the undeniable bureaucracy and provable corruption of the European Union is scandalous. That he is also a former member of the government of the United Kingdom brings scorn about that body.

Clearly, the Remainers believe that now is the time for them to strike. Theresa May's position is incredibly weak and her chances of gaining approval for her 'deal' are virtually non-existent. The government, let alone the Conservative Party, is split and the chances of first delaying and then stopping Brexit altogether have never been higher.

But wait. Stopping Brexit is not a simple matter and also flies in the face of the result of the referendum. A second vote will either confirm the result of the first in which case the Remainers will seek other means to prevent Brexit, or it will contradict it, in which case there will be immediate shouts of "cheat" and "best of three". 

David Cameron, rightly or wrongly but with supreme arrogance derived from his position as one of the Etonian elite, gave the people the opportunity to choose between being a member of the European Union or leaving it. He expected that the people would simply follow his advice, lemming-like, and would vote to remain in the organisation; he never for a moment thought that his advice would be rejected. When it was, he ran away, unable to deal with the reality that the people didn't actually accept his point of view, and he even reneged on his promise to enact whatever the people decided.

Ever since, various voices have been raised in opposition to the outcome of the vote, almost exclusively from the liberal elite part of our society. These are the wealthy and privileged for whom politics is largely irrelevant; they sit on both sides of the Party divide and yet have no discernible views, either left or right. Those who are Members of Parliament draw their £80,000 salaries plus large expenses and look forward to their gold plated, inflation proofed pensions. Others are simply wealthy enough not to have to bother who is in charge because, whatever happens, they are protected by their occupations, connections, residence or simply their wealth. These are all people who are frightened of change or of the unknown, who prefer the comfort of their armchair to the thrill of an adventure or who prefer perceived safety and stagnation to risk and progress.

Of course, bringing on the venerable Hattersley could be a sign of desperation from the forces of Remain. He never was a major figure and hasn't really been in the public eye for several decades; even then he didn't make much of an impression. Let's hope that his intervention this time has as little impact.

MPs REPRESENT THEMSELVES, NOT THE ELECTORATE.

This evening, MPs have voted for an amendment to the Finance Bill which effectively allows Parliament to veto government expenditure aimed at coping with the effects of a 'No-Deal Brexit'. To me this seems like an abuse of both power and the system.

Parliament passed the 'Article 50' Bill some 2 years ago; this Bill, which then became a legally effective Act, preceded the EU Withdrawal Act which provided for the UK to leave the European Union on 29th March 2019. The Act contained no provisos regarding the completion of a deal of any sort with the EU and effectively gave power to the government to do whatever was necessary in pursuit of the principal objective; that must include expending resources on making provision for the possibility of there being no agreement between the UK and EU. In other words, the government has already been given the authority to spend whatever it deems necessary for whatever ends  it foresees.

For MPs to now try to withdraw this consent seems iniquitous. It is clearly a move designed to frustrate Brexit and to cause as much difficulty for the government as possible, rather than doing what they should and support the government in complying with the clear Will of the people. 

Our representatives ? What a joke !

80 DAYS AND COUNTING DOWN TO NO-DEAL.

Now that the Brexit debate is back in full swing, things are really hotting up. 

Apparently there will be a 'meaningful' vote in Parliament next week but where that will lead is anyone's guess. Theresa May shows no sign of backing away from her entrenched position and will almost certainly lose the vote. The European Union is showing no signs of being interested in any form of renegotiation or even of allowing any tweaks to what's already been agreed. Anti-Brexiteers continue to do everything they can to prevent Brexit from happening at all, in clear defiance of the result of the 2016 referendum, and, with just 80 days to go until the official leave date, we seem to be in a world of utter confusion.

When I voted to leave the European Union, I did not vote for any 'type' of Brexit, nor did I vote for the 'Norway' option, the 'Canada option', or any other option. I voted to be rid of the stifling bureaucracy, rules and regulations, profligacy, corruption and sheer unaccountability of a monolithic, utterly self-serving organisation. I voted to give the UK back its freedom to act as it sees fit, institute the laws and systems that it needs in order to tackle the modern world, rather than being bound by the visions of those who invented the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950. This morphed into the European Economic Community which the UK eventually joined in 1973 and has subsequently become the European Union, with ambitions to become the United States of Europe. While the ambition may have seemed laudable in the aftermath of the second major war in 25 years, today's world is very different from that of 1950. 

In 1950, travelling to far off countries was difficult and time-consuming. Even communicating with them was far from easy as telephone links were problematic and, of course, the internet did not exist. International trade was a tiny fraction of what it is today and countries such as the United Kingdom, of necessity, had thriving manufacturing industries covering almost every area of commerce. In contrast, today international travel, communication and trade is simplicity itself. In 1950, the founder members of the ECSC were trying to protect themselves, both from each other and from the menace of the Soviet Union, by becoming a unified bloc and this is still its guiding principal, even though the world outside is so different. 

In 1950, trade with countries such as China, India, Brazil, and many others simply wasn't on the agenda. Today, these countries are the major engines of economic growth in the world but the European Union's ability to strike deals with them is severely restricted by its grindingly slow internal processes. In contrast, a United Kingdom freed from these strictures would be able to move much more quickly and profitably, and that's what I voted for.

Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, No-deal Brexit, WTO-Brexit, call it whatever you like. I voted to get out of the EU and out is what I want. If that means without an immediate deal, fine because, just like the buses, if we miss one deal, there'll be another along pretty soon.

FED UP !

I'm fed up. 

I'm fed up with the lies and dissembling of our politicians, most being egotistical and self-serving and paying no attention to their electorates. The higher they climb the 'greasy pole' they worse they become.

I'm fed up  with the utter rubbish on television and radio. So-called 'music' that is, at best, a cacophonous row, endless repeats, or programmes about 'social issues'. Dramas that are nothing but political comment or the pretentious adventures of some juvenile director. Modern 'edgy' comedy, meaning puerile and scatological humour.  

I am fed up with being told what I cannot say. I cannot say 'nigger' but 'fuck' is perfectly acceptable. I cannot say 'yid', but I can say 'arsehole'. I can't say 'queer' or 'shirt lifter' for fear of being accused of 'homophobia'. Since when were words the province of the State to say which we can or cannot use ? Since when could we no longer express personal opinions without fear of prosecution ?

I'm fed up with having to be careful about what I say in case I might offend someone, whether they're standing next to me or are miles away. I'm fed up with the 'snowflake generation' who can't bear to be upset, so refuse to allow opinions to be voiced or speakers to be heard.

I'm fed up with 'experts' who are trotted out to tell me how to live my life. Don't drink alcohol, don't smoke, don't eat red meat, eat less sugar, salt, processed food, become 'vegan', lose weight, wear a condom, ride a bicycle, produce less carbon dioxide, use less plastic. Whatever happened to freedom of action and individual responsibility ? Have we forgotten that 'experts' can get it wrong ?

I am fed up with being monitored for everything I do. State surveillance, street cameras, credit cards, the internet, you name it. How many jobs now require a police check, just in case you once did something wrong ? My local council might even check what I throw away, in case it's in the wrong bin.

I am fed up with being told that 'abnormal' is 'normal'. Look at any dictionary. 'Abnormal' is what the minority, usually a small minority, do. Work it out. Homosexuality is not 'normal', nor is the strange garb worn by some who follow odd religious codes. Abnormal but not wrong either; we don't need to distort the meanings of words to tell the truth.

I'm fed up with being told that we must 'support' those who are 'less fortunate'; drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, criminals of all sorts and the rest. They made their choice, they should live with it. Why should the rest of us be made to pay for their voluntary actions ?

I'm fed up with being hounded by beggars, whether on the street or the television; those who demand monthly amounts of a specific size annoy me most, but they all piss me off. Buy 'The Big Issue', give to a 'food bank', support a leopard, donkey, elephant or whatever, for 'only' so much a month. This isn't charity, it's big business.

I'm fed up with the way that 'celebrities', whom nobody older than 12 seems to know, are foisted upon us as if they are some sort of divine beings. I'm fed up with hearing of assorted honours and advantages being bestowed on 'celebrities' who have really done no more than their jobs, for which they've been handsomely paid already.

In fact, I'm fed up with 'celebrities'.

I'm fed up with being told that the latest 'noise' is really fantastic music and being expected to like it. 

I'm fed up with whatever the latest 'dance' is, the 'floss' or anything else.

I'm fed up with economics 'experts' who predict calamity, or fortune, without any semblance of realism but who express their forecasts as if delivered from the hand of God himself.

I'm fed up with hearing that tax avoidance is immoral and that I should not use legal means to reduce my tax bill. Avoidance is legal, evasion is not; to equate the two is morally and ethically wrong, and yet plenty of 'experts' tell us it's not.

I'm fed up with being told what hard lives our children have these days. Has everyone forgotten about children as chimney sweeps or that we all used to leave school, and go to work, at 12 ? No colleges and universities in those days; no 'gap years', just work.

I'm fed up hearing that so many are 'in poverty'. What ? Does no one have any notion of what 'poverty' is ? 8 to a room in back-to-back terraced houses, that's poverty. Having no food or water, no clothes other than the ones you're wearing, holes in your shoes, if you have shoes, that's poverty. Not being able to afford the latest mobile 'phone isn't poverty.

I'm fed up with finding the places of my youth now populated by people of alien cultures, to such an extent that I don't recognize them and feel like a foreigner in my own land. I'm fed up with being told that I have to adapt my ways to those of immigrants, rather than vice versa.

All-in-all, I'm pretty well FED UP !

ARE WE TRULY ALONE ?

The 'New Horizons' space craft has finally passed its latest target, the tiny rock that has been named 'Ultima Thule'. This rendezvous, which was only conceived in 2014 as 'Ultima Thule' was previously unknown, took place some 4 billion miles from Earth, after a journey that has so far lasted 13 years. Initial data was sent back to Earth over the ensuing hours but it will be many months before the full reports and pictures are received.

While this represents a tremendous achievement for the scientists and engineers who have been involved in the project, it also demonstrates how puny are the human efforts to explore the heavens. Having landed men on our nearest planetary body, the moon, some 50 years ago, we have yet to send a human being any further. While we have sent space craft out to visit all of the planets in our solar system and 2 have even passed beyond the boundary of that system, we have yet to scratch the service of interstellar space. Indeed, while light takes a mere few hours to traverse the distance between 'Ultima Thule' and our home planet, 'New Horizons' has taken 13 years to get there.

There is a vast gulf between aspiration and achievement. Science fiction writers make up stories about humans travelling the universe, and yet the reality is that we have yet to send a human further than our own moon, a mere 250,000 miles away. Ultima Thule is 4,000,000,000 miles distant and the nearest star some 25,000,000,000,000 miles away; the chances of finding life, or much else, there aren't exactly good.

Are we alone in the Universe ? Is it really possible that in a Universe of thousands of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, our sun is the only star which has a planet that supports life ? Is humanity the only developed, intelligent (I use the term loosely) species in this entire Universe ? It seems highly unlikely and yet the absence of any known contact from any other intelligence raises questions. Is it simply impossible to travel the vast distances between the stars quickly enough to make communication possible ?

The truth is that without some massive leap forward in our propulsion technology, the chances of humanity ever travelling to the stars are vanishingly small and the same problem may well prevent other civilisations from doing the same. Whether or not we are truly alone and unique may not matter; we may simply be too far away for it to be relevant.

ROMANCE OF THE F.A. CUP

I'm not a huge football fan although I do watch some games on television, mostly if they involve either England or Tottenham, 'my team'. However, over the last few days I've seen 2 great games, totally different but equally noteworthy.

First up was Manchester City entertaining Liverpool. These are certainly the 2 best teams in Britain (apologies to Tottenham) and 2 of the best half dozen in Europe. Between them they produced a terrific game of the highest quality, and a match that I watched from start to finish, never being quite sure which would come out on top. It was a brilliant game, decided by the tiniest of margins but totally absorbing.

The second match was just now. Lowly Newport County, who sit around the middle of what used to be called the English fourth division and have lost 4 of their last 5 league games, took on the might of Leicester City who are in the top half of the Premier, or First, division and actually won that league only a couple of years ago, in the third round of the FA Cup. The third round, when the bigger clubs first enter the competition is a traditional graveyard for some but no way did Newport really have any chance of winning this game.

Well, they won. What's more, they won deservedly. Over 90 minutes plus extras they ran, chased and harried; they put their all into a game and came out on top with a brilliant performance. It wasn't anywhere near as polished a match as the Manchester City-Liverpool affair, but it was exciting and a wonderful advertisement for the romance of the FA Cup. Last season, Newport actually gave Tottenham a run for their money in the 4th round and now they have the chance to do it again. 

This match showed that the gap between the divisions isn't all that great, particularly if the 'better' teams don't take their opposition seriously. It also showcased the talents of several players who may now find themselves attracting the attention of the 'big boys'. For them I say 'beware'; many a young prospect has vanished for ever after falling prey to such temptation but ultimately being found to be not quite as good as expected.

Nonetheless, huge congratulations to Newport and more power to their collective elbow, as long as they don't draw Tottenham in the 4th round !