BRITISH DEMOCRACY IN ITS DEATH THROES,.

Now that the Supreme Court has determined that it can pass judgement on matters of parliamentary procedure and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, who actually governs our country ?

Under the British Constitution, the elected government determines most of what is discussed in parliament. It puts forward the matters set out in its election manifesto as Bills for parliament to consider, propose amendments or even reject, although in most circumstances the government's proposed legislation is passed into law. Sadly, Brexit legislation has, with the connivance of a biased House of Commons Speaker, been subverted and taken over by parliament; the government has been rendered impotent and can no longer even negotiate effectively with the European Union.

Parliament has already had well over 3 years to make its views on Brexit known and to amend proposed legislation. In that time, it has failed to agree to anything which satisfies either the government or the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU. The Prime Minister's attempt to bring matters to a conclusion by ending the already excessively long parliamentary session may have been an unorthodox measure but it was undoubtedly a necessary and long overdue one. That the Court has now ruled his action illegal is ludicrous.

The Court's has effectively made a judgement about things of which it knows nothing. The conversations between the Prime Minister and the Queen which led to prorogation are entirely private, and yet the court has effectively determined that Boris Johnson must have lied to, and misled, the monarch. The court has opened up the door to future legal challenges whenever any government does anything which is unpopular with powerful interests. In essence, the court has appointed itself as the ultimate governmental authority, far exceeding its justifiable remit.

Those who have brought the appeals to the Supreme Court have argued that they are only interested in ensuring that the government acts in a legal manner, although we all know that their true purpose is to prevent Brexit from ever happening. If the government is now compelled to seek a further extension of Article 50, where will that lead ? Further negotiations with the EU are largely pointless as the government has been hogtied; it has no cards to play and would be forced to accept whatever the EU proposes. A further extension without further negotiations would also be pointless, simply postponing matters while resolving nothing. It seems that the Remoaners' have won and British Democracy, as exercised through the 2016 referendum and 2017 general election, has been finally set aside in favour of an arrogant liberal elite who have never accepted that the people 'got it right'.

For myself, if the UK does not leave the EU on 31st October, I have cast my last vote for any of the major parties and will now only ever vote for a party committed to a proper Brexit, one which properly restores British sovereignty. I will never again vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour for what is the point ? These organisations that claim to represent us, the electorate, do nothing of the sort - they represent themselves, their friends and their own self interests. I urge other likeminded voters to do the same.

Democracy in the United Kingdom is about to breath its last, unless Prime Minister Johnson can perform some sort of miracle.

LANSMAN POINTS THE WAY TO AUTOCRACY.

Anyone who is naïve enough to believe that a Corbyn-led Labour government would offer anything approximating to democracy must surely be having second thoughts after yesterday's events.

John Lansman, a Corbyn supporter and leader of the 'Momentum' group of left wing extremists, has proposed that the post of Deputy Leader of the labour party should be abolished. The problem, as Lansman and his mates see it, is that the current post holder, Tom Watson, is not left wing enough and has voiced opinions which are sometimes contrary to those of some other party apparatchiks. However, Watson was elected by the party membership and cannot be dismissed by the national executive; the answer, according to Lansman, is simply to abolish the post altogether.

This is the left wing's version of democracy; what would they do should they actually gain national office through a general election ? It may sound like a giant step from abolishing a party post to changing governmental arrangements, but why shouldn't they ? Perhaps they might set their sights on ridding us of chief constables and handing all power to the Home Secretary; perhaps they might abolish elected police and crime commissioners and replace them with party appointees. Would we actually need elected Members of Parliament, or perhaps they could simply be appointed by the all-powerful party. Ultimately, would the Monarchy be safe ?

Much is made of the dangers of the right wing, the left usually characterising any right wing activity as being 'extreme', but little is said of the dangers of the left. The left characterises itself as being on the side of the people, progress and liberalism; in truth, the likes of Lansman, Corbyn and their friends have no interest in anything other than gaining power for their own ends, their own ends being the establishment of an autocratic state along the lines of the old Soviet Union.

We are in dangerous times.

LIBERAL UNDEMOCRATS PLAN TO CANCEL BREXIT.

It's official. The so-called Liberal Democrats have no interest in democracy or the votes of 17.4 million people.

The party's conference has decided that, in spite of the 2016 referendum result, if they gained power they would not even go to the trouble of holding a second referendum. Under new leader, Jo Swinson, they would simply "cancel Brexit". 

Clearly these people care nothing for the promises made prior to the 2016 referendum, nor everything that has happened since, including parliament's vote to invoke Article 50. As far as the Liberal un-Democrats are concerned all that matters is their own point of view which is, of course, that the United Kingdom should remain a vassal state, subservient to the bureaucrats of Brussels, for ever.

This policy is akin to those adopted by totalitarian states. It is not dissimilar to the way in which Vladimir Putin governs Russia or Robert Mugabe governed Zimbabwe. Opposition is ignored and, if it becomes too rowdy, is silenced. Thankfully, we haven't yet reached the silencing stage but how far away are we ? 52% of voters opted to leave the European Union and their voice is to be set aside, ignored despite assurances previously given. 

Would that 52% sit quietly or make a fuss ? If it decides to make a fuss, as it almost certainly would, what would Ms Swinson then do ? 

EUROZONE CLOSE TO COLLAPSE - WHY FIGHT BREXIT ?

While the band of anti-Brexiteers continue to shout loudly about what they claim are the inevitable horrors of leaving the European Union. the EU itself is continuing to suffer economic woes. For some reason, the hysterical rantings of the likes of Carney, Grieve, Major, McDonnell, Corbyn, Swinson and the rest have received huge media coverage while the problems of the Eurozone have been largely ignored.

Recent reports tell us, very quietly, that the Eurozone is close to recession, despite the European Central Bank having taken extraordinary measures in its efforts to stimulate growth. Yesterday, I read that they now plan still more draconian measures although this news was not exactly top of the headlines.

Already, savers have to pay the bank, I'll repeat that' "pay the bank" for the privilege of depositing money with it. In other words, savers do not get interest on their deposits, it costs them money to save and now the ECB is going to increase this negative interest rate from -0.4% to -0.5%; at the same time, it's going to resurrect its program of so-called quantitative easing by creating more money out of thin air and buying up previously issued government bonds. The rationale is that the plan will put more free cash into the European economies that people will then go out and spend, thus stimulating economic activity. 

The ECB has previously undertaken this money making activity though, it seems, to little effect; it may have staved off full scale economic collapse but it hasn't solved the real deep seated and intrinsic problems of the Eurozone. A further round of creating money out of nothing will simply delay the inevitable by pushing the problems further into the future. Creating money that has no assets to back it up, such as gold as used to be the asset of choice, creates unsecured debt and, as most will know, unsecured debt carries inherent risks. The ECB would no doubt say that the debt is secured against future economic growth but, as any half competent accountant knows, while you count expected costs, you never anticipate income for that is the route to bankruptcy.

The Eurozone, which makes up the vast bulk of the European Union, not only is failing it has failed. Countries such as Greece and Italy are virtual basket cases, their room for independent economic action completely gone and replaced by rules imposed from Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The EU may be a large economic area, but in real terms it is an economic disaster.

Why would anyone want to tie themselves to this failing edifice ? Why would anyone want to prevent Brexit ?

MINNOWS OF KOSOVO TEST ENGLAND.

Yesterday I watched England's footballing supermen take on the might of Kosovo. However, after reading and hearing some of the reviews in this morning's media, I wonder if I was actually watching the same match as others.

England were sloppy throughout. From the appalling strat, when Barkley and Keane combined to give goalkeeper Jordan Pickford no chance, to the end, England's defence looked shaky and their passing was frequently awful. In particular, I lost count of the number of times that Ross Barkley played the ball straight to an opponent and that Raheem Sterling failed to pass when that was clearly the best option.

Sterling has been hailed as some sort of superman, one of Sky's reporters even suggesting that he's the best player in the world, but to me he is far from that. Tricky and quick, yes, getting in good positions to score himself, yes, but when it comes to that final pass to a teammate, he's way off. He's very good at running with the ball but frequently finds himself running into a brick wall, at which point he seems to be devoid of ideas. Play stops abruptly while he tries to think of what to do next, and passing is furthest from his mind. He hangs on, looking for a way through for himself and is frequently oblivious to others in better positions. In contrast, Harry Kane always seems to be looking for the best placed player, even if that means that he misses opportunities for himself. 

England scored 5 times against this team of minnows who, to their immense credit, played an open and attacking game that brought them 3 goals in reply; England even lost the second half 0 - 2. In truth, England will not come up against many sides that will play in this way making the 5 goals in the 'for' column extreme flattery. As for the 3 against, if I was Gareth Southgate, I'd be more than a little concerned. When England find themselves taking on less naïve sides - Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, assorted South Americans et al - they won't be so fortunate. 

England have some good players. Kane, Maguire, Sancho, Henderson all did well, while Sterling was impressive up to that final decision-making moment. Chilwell and Alexander-Arnold did little wrong and neither did Rice or Pickford. Keane looked flaky and Barkley was pretty terrible. While the first 5 deserve to keep their places, is 'doing little wrong' enough ? As for Keane and Barkley, they should be toast.

Southgate has some decisions to make.

WHAT WILL HAMSTRUNG PM DO NEXT ?

After more than 3 years of debating, arguing and procrastinating, twisting, turning and prevaricating, Members of Parliament have been sent to the sin bin. Not before time, some may well say, but it's not before they've hamstrung the Prime Minister. 

Our so-called representatives, having promised to abide by the referendum result and voted to implement it, have then worked tirelessly to frustrate it. They have now departed for a few weeks after voting 'for' nothing, but against everything. They rejected Theresa May's withdrawal agreement 3 times, voted against 'No Deal' and against holding a general election. Their votes have left the Prime Minister compelled to try to negotiate a deal with the European Union by 19th October or otherwise to ask for a further extension of the UK's Article 50 notice; given that he is committed to leaving the EU by 31st October, that is unacceptable. The actions of the House of Commons, aided in no small way by the behaviour of the departing Speaker, John Bercow, have effectively forced the Prime Minister to accept whatever the EU offers, having taken away his only real negotiating tool, that of leaving without a deal.

With parliament now prorogued until 14th October, MPs will be wondering what will await them when they return. A Queen's speech, followed by the Prime Minister reporting on his 'negotiations' with the EU will take centre stage. The first is fairly predictable as all parties ready themselves for a general election before too long; the second couldn't be less so. Will there be a deal of some sort ? Will we be confronted by a Prime Ministerial resignation ? Will there be a further extension of Article 50 ? Is another referendum to be called ? Are we to have a November, or December, general election ?

Whatever the outcome, our 'representatives' have successfully thrown more spanners in the works in their efforts to prevent the United Kingdom from leaving the European Union, and further damaged the democracy we're supposed to live in. 

Shame on them.

ROBERT MUGABE IS DEAD.

Robert Mugabe is dead, at last.

For the best part of 35 years, Mugabe ran his country into the ground. After waging a guerrilla war against the government of Ian Smith in the 1960s and 1970s, Mugabe finally gained power in 1980, initially as Prime Minister and then as President. Under Smith, Southern Rhodesia had been a prosperous, if badly flawed nation, but under Mugabe, the renamed Zimbabwe became one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. Almost the worst part of the story, and one which is largely glossed over, is that the international community, in a misguided pursuit of supporting supposed 'racial equality' over all else, strongly supported this evil man for many years, despite being well aware of his actions. 

Mugabe stole whatever he could, leaving his people housed in appalling conditions, uneducated, without healthcare and starving. He used shocking violence against his opponents whether they were black or white; he authorised the illegal confiscation of the farms of white owners, having them murdered if they resisted. Political opponents were terrorised, beaten up and worse.

Robert Mugabe was, without doubt, one of the most heinous and vicious national leaders of modern times. He was utterly corrupt and was prepared to do anything in order to retain power. Sadly, he was not alone, being but one of many similar leaders to emerge in Africa over recent years; even the once prosperous and successful South Africa has suffered a similar decline since it came under the control of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, with the western world once again supporting supposed 'equality' over common sense.

Mugabe wasn't the first and won't be the last evil dictator to emerge in the world, but are there not lessons to be learnt from his time in office and the imbecilic approach of the supposedly civilised world towards the less advanced, in pursuit of the ambitions of western liberal policies ?  

THE DAY WAR BROKE OUT - BREXIT OR NO BREXIT ?

September the third.

In 1939, this was the day when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made one of the most famous speeches in British history, announcing that a state of war existed between the United Kingdom and Germany. Chamberlain was a man with Victorian and Edwardian ideals who had been completely out manoeuvred and fooled by the far more politically adept wiles of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. 

Exactly eighty years on and war is threatening to break out again, this time between those in the parliament of the United Kingdom who favour continued membership of a European Union dominated by Germany and those who believe that the UK should be free of such outside control. Notwithstanding that the British people voted in 2016 to free themselves from the EU's shackles, nor that both major political parties made manifesto pledges in 2017 to honour that vote, today there is every likelihood that moves in parliament will succeed in bringing about yet another delay to Brexit, one that will signal to those in Brussels and Berlin that they have almost won this particular war. Their stance will harden still further and the UK will never leave the stifling clutches of the European Union in any meaningful way. 

In 1939, Chamberlain had tried to appease Germany, being ever so gentlemanly in his dealings with 'Herr Hitler' until it was far too late to stop him from plunging Europe, and eventually the whole world, into catastrophic war. In 2019, the boot is on the other foot and the European Union is showing no sign of wanting to appease the demands of the United Kingdom; they have learnt from history that appeasement does not work. Instead they are sitting on the side lines, refusing to budge, while the British parliament does its best to castrate its own government and hand victory to the bureaucrats of Europe.

Should they succeed in this venture it will be time to think of the words, appropriately amended, of another British Prime Minister, the one who followed Chamberlain :

"Never in the field of British history has so much damage been done to so many by so few."

POPULISM & NATIONALISM - THE LEFT'S BOGEYMAN WORDS.

Those who dislike policies such as controlling immigration, punishing criminals, opposing multi-culturalism or, the big one, leaving the European Union, refer to such policies as pandering to nationalism and populism. I have been asking myself just what these words mean.

For left wingers and others of a so-called liberal bent, nationalism is an evil which they equate with Nazism; for the liberal left, there is no distinction between refusing entry to illegal immigrants and shooting them. Anyone who supports what are referred to as right wing policies is automatically a 

nationalist, therefore akin to a Nazi and hence unspeakably evil. This is, of course, utter rubbish but with the support of much of the media, it is a point of view that has gained traction. 

Populism is the other great scourge, at least as far as the liberal left is concerned. For them, a mass call for the return of capital punishment, harsher penalties for criminals generally, strict controls on immigration and particularly leaving the European Union represents nothing but a populist uprising; by populist, they mean the baying of the uneducated, ill-informed and fanatical masses who, in the minds of the liberal left, are also right wing nationalists and, therefore, evil anyway.

In response to these assaults on their own view of the world, the liberal left bring masses of people onto the streets to protest. Their protests are always dressed up as being in support of some freedom or other, some 'just cause' such as saving the planet from climate change, or protecting the poor uneducated masses from the horrible policies of those nasty 'hard right' extremists. 

Hold on. 

Pursuing a policy that was voted for in a democratic process by more than 50% of the population, that is, one of leaving the European Union, is populist but bringing thousands of people onto the streets to cause mayhem and oppose the government isn't ? What is the pro-EU lobby if it isn't an attempt at a populist movement ? They shout about the claimed millions who have marched in protest against Brexit, but ignore the 17.4 million who actually did vote for it, dismissing them as uneducated, stupid and ill-informed while accusing those who now try to put the result into practice as, you guessed it, nationalists and populists.

Consider what would be said if the boot was on the other foot. What if the referendum had resulted in a vote to stay in the European Union, and that the anti-EU lobby had then set about protesting. Would anti-EU marchers have been met with the same forbearance ? I think not. The police, and army, would have been deployed to break up 'the mobs'; there would have been mass arrests and accusations of Nazism, Fascism and every other vaguely relevant '-ism that the liberal left could think of. The result of the referendum would have been hailed as a triumph for democracy and a defeat for the forces of nationalism and populism, by which the liberal left would really have meant the forces of anything of which they disapproved.

For 'populist', read anything that the liberal left doesn't like or agree with; anything it does promote is automatically good and, therefore, it's irrelevant whether it's populist or not. For 'nationalist', read any attempt to promote the interests of one's own country over those of any other; it is the traditional cry of socialists, for which the rest of we poor uneducated masses can read 'liberal left', who favour grand internationalist ventures and enterprises such as the European Union, levelled against those who oppose such things. That such enterprises are invariably bureaucratic, always ponderous, rarely tackle major issues effectively and always pander to the lowest common denominator is ignored.

The liberal left is always very quick to mobilise its forces and bring 'thousands' on to the streets to protest at whatever is the current perceived injustice. It does this regardless of how many may have voted, democratically, in support of whatever it is that the left doesn't like. It shouts its message from the rooftops and that message is then reported, most enthusiastically, by the left-leaning media as 'news'. Every attempt by the hated populists and nationalists to promote their interests is met with derision and cries of "Foul !"; whatever the liberal left does, however disruptive or undemocratic, is presented as being for the good of the people, the country, even the planet. How can anyone doubt them ?

Well, I not only doubt them, I despise them. The abominable masses led by Corbyn and McDonnell, Starmer and Abbot, and supported by a risible mishmash of fellow travellers made up of Sturgeon's Scottish Nationalists (there's a joke there somewhere), Swinson's dotty Lib Dems and the Greens who would have us all eating our socks rather than actual food, would deny us all self-determination in favour of the imposition of whatever mad, left wing schemes they currently support.

And so 'populism' and 'nationalism' mean whatever the users of such words want them to mean. They are words used by the liberal left to vilify their political opponents when it suits them and as arguments in support of their own schemes when that does. They are words that are flexible, malleable, able to be thrown at whatever target presents itself, their great advantage being that while sounding important and dramatic, they are essentially meaningless in the mouths of those with political intent.

If this reads like a rambling rant, it's because it is. I've had enough of the Brexit debate and want it to be over. I'm not a 'nationalist' or 'populist', I'm a democrat and I'm fed up with the whinging and whining, twisting and turning of the liberal left who will do and say anything to prevent our country from leaving the European Union and to gain power for themselves, even if that would leave them subservient to the corrupt bureaucracy in Brussels and with nothing but illusory power for themselves.

They must be opposed. Our representatives in parliament need to heed the voices of the millions who voted for Brexit and not the thousands who now protest against it. Deal or No Deal is not the issue, leaving the European Union on 31st October is.