TIME TO GET TOUGH WITH THE EU.

Even before the ink was dry on the UK's European Union Withdrawal Agreement, the bully boys of the EU were already issuing a new round of threats. I suppose that's just par for the course.

While Prime Minister Johnson and representatives of the British government have been positive and optimistic about a future trade agreement, the EU's mandarins have simply been negative and demanding. The Irish Premier, Leo Varadkar, has told us that the EU will have much the stronger hand in negotiations, effectively telling the UK that it will have to accept whatever the EU demands, or there will be no agreement. It's also reported that the French President, Emmanuel Macron, has told his EU colleagues that he wants continued access to British waters for French, and other,  fishermen for at least 25 years beyond the UK's exit if there's to be any deal. Others, such as arch-pessimist and obstructionist Michel Barnier, keep repeating that doing a deal by the end of the year is well nigh impossible. I say that where there's a will, there's a way but, of course, there has to be a 'will' in the first place, which is sadly lacking when it comes to the EU's leadership.

Both Varadkar and Macron are undoubtedly acting in their own interests as both have their own domestic political issues. However, their approach will no doubt be welcomed by others in the EU who are determined to make Brexit as uncomfortable as possible for the UK. What they seem to be forgetting, or at least ignoring, is that the EU benefits enormously from the existing trading arrangements, the UK actually running a substantial deficit with the rest of the EU's member states.

Given this consistently unhelpful and threatening attitude from the European Union, I wonder why our own government seems to be so unwilling to respond in like manner. Would the French be happy if we placed a 50% tariff on imports of their wines and cheeses ? Would the Germans enjoy seeing the prices of their cars similarly increased ? Our government need do no more than suggest possibilities.

I like French wine, but many countries outside of the EU also make good wine - Australia, the United States, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa and there's even our own English wine. As for cars, my last 2 have been German, but my next one won't be unless the EU shows a little more willingness to behave decently; Japan, Malaysia, Korea and the USA, even China, all make acceptable cars. There are many other areas of trade that can be similarly boycotted or changed, much more to the detriment of the EU than to the UK.

So let's have a bit of real intent from the British government as soon as we get to Saturday February 1st 2020 and we're out of this abominable organisation. Let's be clear. Tell them that it's a deal by 31st December or it's No Deal; no ifs, buts or maybes. It's take it or leave it on our terms and we won't be bullied.

Over to you, Boris !

OFFICE SPORTING CHAT TO BE BANNED ?

It's reported that some woman from something called the Chartered Management Institute wants discussion about sporting subjects to be "curtailed" in the workplace. Apparently she feels that such conversations, particularly about football and cricket, exclude women and lead to what's termed "more laddish behaviour". 

This woman, Ann Francke, is quoted as saying on the BBC's 'Today' programme "A lot of women, in particular, feel left out. They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included".

My God. There are days when I truly believe that I am living in some sort of parallel universe to the one in which I grew up. Would Ms Francke have similar thoughts about men being "forced" to listen to interminable chat about babies, pregnancy, periods, domestic abuse and the like ? If she is correct in her statements, why is it that every sport covered by television outlets now seems obliged to include women presenters, commentators and pitch side interviewers ? Indeed, why does she not complain about these poor women being "forced" to endure these male activities ? 

Of course, it was the good old BBC that gave a platform to this lunatic woman, just as it gives platforms to every crazed leftie, liberal, feminist, Tory-hating, nutter. Presumably Ms Francke would like to see company bosses instituting rules about what can and cannot be discussed by their employees - out goes sport and in comes the detail of changing nappies at 3 in the morning; chat about the mechanics of motor vehicles banned in favour of more genteel discussion about the merits of different types of sanitary protection. 

And, anyway, exactly what is "laddish behaviour" ? In my experience, the behaviour of groups of women is often every bit as "girlish", and revolting, as is the behaviour of groups of men; in fact, the women can be far more disgusting. 

The worst part of this episode is that my licence fee has been used to provide an outlet for this insanity and the BBC has happily considered that it's a worthy subject for one of its supposedly 'flagship' programmes. Frankly, the sooner 'Today' goes the same way as the appalling tripe that is the Victoria Derbyshire programme and, indeed, the whole BBC goes down the same drain with them, the better.

KEIR STARMER - FIRST ORDER HYPOCRITE.

Keir Starmer, one of the unholy bunch vying to become the next leader of the Labour Party and, potentially, Prime Minister, is going to make a speech later today in which he'll be setting out some basic principles for his campaign.

Starmer, a man who accepted a knighthood but apparently prefers not to use the title, will reportedly tell the world that Britain needs a "radical redistribution of wealth and opportunity" and an end to the "monopoly of power" in Westminster. He will tell whomever is listening that power should be put "into the hands of the people". Hold on a moment - isn't this just more hypocritical bunkum from someone who actually wants the power for himself ? 

Of course it is. Starmer's stance on his knighthood is a clear indicator of his basic hypocrisy but now he goes much, much further. While campaigning for power for himself, he pretends that it's really "power to the people". His nebulous slogans about redistribution of wealth and power are meaningless in any real terms and are the same tired old rhetoric that's been trotted out by politicians for decades. Most importantly though, when Starmer talks of power being put "into the hands of the people" he contradicts his own recent actions over Brexit.

Power to decide whether the United Kingdom remained within the suffocating bubble of the European Union was given to the British people and those people voted to leave it. Ever since, Starmer has battled to get that choice reversed - as a staunch Remainer, he campaigned for another referendum and was one of those who managed to get the Labour Party to reverse its own position on the matter. In fact, he's one of the prime architects of his party's dire performance in last December's general election. Far from putting power into the hands of the people, Starmer did everything he could to thwart what the people had clearly voted for. In his very own 'Westminster Bubble' Starmer knew what was best for the people and wasn't going to listen to any nonsense from them.

Starmer is a hypocrite of the highest order. Admittedly, most politicians are, but Starmer takes the prize amongst the modern day bunch. He no more believes in "power to the people" than did Stalin, Mao or indeed, Oliver Cromwell. He simply doesn't like the lot who have the power today and would much rather have it himself. If he gets it, WATCH OUT !

HARRY & MEGHAN - A RIGHT PAIR OF NUMPTIES.

What a pair of numpties.

Harry and Meghan, who seem to prefer this casual style of address to their formal titles, really have got it all wrong. In pursuit of what they see as their own way of life, they jumped the gun over setting up what amounts to a commercial website before agreeing things with the senior members of the Royal Family. They thought they'd be able to force the family to accept their notions of being half in and half out, playing at being Royals when it suited them and being free agents at other times. Presumably they had taken advice but whoever gave it was wholly misguided. Whoever thought it would be a good idea for Meghan to effectively snub the Queen by returning to Canada before matters were discussed is an idiot. 

It's difficult to know what the real driving force behind all of this is, but it seems highly likely that Meghan does not like being a 'Royal', with the attendant roles and responsibilities that entails, and Harry is basically naïve and confused. The actions of this pair of rich celebrities may bring them further riches and further celebrity but at what cost ? Meghan is on the point of going to court in a case in which her father would actually give evidence against her and Harry is on the point of being expelled from his family circle. Having lost his mother at an early age, he now risks being cut off from the rest of his close family; it looks as though he will be paying the price for his wife's desire to reject everything that goes with the position of the man whom she married.

Having apparently made a decision to make Canada their principal home, today's news tells us that Meghan is still complaining, this time about Canadian paparazzi paying close attention to her and her activities. It's reported that the couple are threatening to take legal action against these admittedly unpleasant and annoying people, but is it really the way to deal with the situation ? Will such an approach not simply exacerbate things ? 

They want the kudos and celebrity status that goes with their names without having to accept the inevitable media attention that's also a consequence of being who they are. Stupid, self-centred and unrealistic is what I call it. One day, they may realise it too.

LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES - WHAT A FABULOUS BUNCH !

What a fabulous choice Labour Party members face as they look for a replacement for the bearded wonder, Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn's ultra-left wing agenda was roundly rejected by the electorate in the recent general election but at least some of the potential candidates to take over at the helm seem to have closed their minds to this. In particular, Clive Lewis seems to be hell bent on running a campaign which could even be more extreme than Corbyn's although his supporters seem to be few and far between. Rebecca Long-Bailey, Corbyn's all but anointed successor, is also an adherent of the same Marxist policies as her mentor but seems to be somewhat more acceptable to her peers, Lord knows why. A vote for Long-Bailey would surely be nothing but a vote for a Conservative victory in 2024 or whenever the next general election takes place.

Whatever Emily Thornberry thinks is probably irrelevant as she appears highly unlikely to attract the support of more than a handful of her fellow MPs and MEPs; clearly, they've rumbled her and realised that her arrogance and snobbery render her an impossible candidate. Jess Phillips, the loud and somewhat foul-mouthed MP for Birmingham Yardley since 2015, has been no supporter of Corbyn and appears to have more support than Thornberry but can anyone really see her as a potential Prime Minister ?

The MP for Wigan since 2010, Lisa Nandy, may not have a particularly high profile but she does appear to be well respected. Her support amongst fellow MPs and MEPs is very similar to that recorded for Long-Bailey and Phillips although she is a very different character. As an opponent of Corbynism, Nandy has apparently spoken well at gatherings of the party faithful and made a very good impression; she actually seems to have the beginnings of a plan for restoring the party to a more sensible and acceptable pathway.

Finally, there's the front runner, Keir Starmer. Starmer has spent the last few years sitting alongside Corbyn on the Labour front bench but now wants everyone to believe that he's not really a 'Corbynista'. It is clear that he's a strong opponent of Brexit and has no record of opposing Corbyn's policies, other than his resignation from a shadow cabinet position in 2016 when there was a significant revolt against the leader. However, his subsequent return to the shadow cabinet suggests that the resignation was far more about positioning himself than about any principals that he may have had. What looks like hypocrisy is backed up by his acceptance of a knighthood in 2014 while apparently wanting the consequential title of 'Sir' to be omitted when he's addressed. A serious case of personal ego conflicting with public persona and career ambitions, perhaps.

What a bunch. Not a statesman, or stateswoman, amongst them, not even a player with any real charisma or political weight. Thank God the choice between them isn't mine to make.

PRINCE HARRY HAS A SIMPLE CHOICE TO MAKE.

Take one rather naïve Prince, add one worldly wise, strong willed, divorced American minor television celebrity. Mix well with plenty of unrealistic expectations and the usual media attention. 

What do you get ?

Well, it seems the answer to the question is manifold :

a) a disenchanted couple

b) an angry Royal Family

c) an uncertain future

d) an unholy mess 

While Prince William found the perfect bride in the former Kate Middleton and, as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the couple have done nothing to arouse even the slightest criticism or to cause even the most minor ripple in the lives of the Royal Family, Prince Harry seems to have followed a different path.

In choosing to marry a minor show business personality, Prince Harry may have married for love, but was it wise ? That his bride was American raised the odds against success even further. While the Duchess of Cambridge had a clear understanding of the culture of the United Kingdom and the position of its monarchy, even before her marriage, it appears that Megan Markle did not. Worse, she seems to have had a wholly unrealistic expectation about what marrying into the Royal Family would actually entail - she would not be marrying a man, but an extended family, even a dynasty. Whether Prince Harry, or any other of the Royals, even considered this as a potential issue, we will probably never know. 

Unsurprisingly, once expectation was confronted by reality, things began to go wrong and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now trying to organise a 'half in, half out' relationship with the Royal Family. Just as other 'unsuitable' Royal marriages - the Duke of Windsor and Mrs Simpson, Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones, Ann and Mark Phillips, Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, to mention but a few - ultimately failed, the truth is that silk purses aren't made out of sows' ears. I have no doubt that the non-Royal spouses were perfectly nice people, but they weren't Royal and didn't fit, for whatever reason. While the Duke and Duchess of Windsor remained together until the ends of their lives, they were ostracized by the Royal Family; the marriages of Margaret and Ann simply failed; although Prince Andrew has apparently stayed on the best of terms with his former wife, Sarah Ferguson has been rejected by the Family. 

The lesson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex surely must be that it's all or nothing - they either are members of the Royal Family or they're not; they can't pick and choose. Rumour has it that both Margaret and Ann wanted to marry men who were considered unsuitable and that both eventually  married 'suitable' husbands under pressure; if that's so, it's hardly surprising that the marriages failed. The Duke of Windsor chose to marry for love and against the wishes of the family and establishment; he suffered the consequences. Prince Andrew may also have married for love but accepted that the marriage had to end if he was to stay as an active Royal, and so the marriage ended. He understood that his family, the foremost family in the country if not in the world, made the rules and had to come first.

We have to believe that Prince Harry also married for love, but his wife has much more in common with Wallis Simpson and Sarah Ferguson than she does with the former Kate Middleton. If history is any guide, either Prince Harry will find himself excluded from the Royal Family or the marriage will end quite quickly. Quite simply, he can't have his cake and eat it.

STOP PRESS !

Having been a prime mover in the creation of this situation, the Duchess, aka Meghan Markle, has decided to run off to Canada, reportedly to be with her son. So firstly, she and her husband came back to England a few days ago but left their very young child in Canada, and secondly, the Duchess can't face up to dealing with the fall out from the mess she's had a major hand in creating.

Despite the fact that the Queen and other senior members of the family are reportedly seeking ways of accommodating the demands of Prince Harry and his wife, this really doesn't look good.

DEAD MEANS DEAD, NOT "PASSED".

In a film many years ago, Robert Newton's character refers to a remark made by one of his fellow performers about a deceased person by saying that "She did not pass on, pass over or pass out. She died !"

Frank Gibbons, the character played by Newton in the great wartime film "This Happy Breed" was a realist. He didn't believe in hiding the truth or in finding comfortable ways of describing unhappy events. Until recently I thought that this approach to life was the norm, but I was wrong.

In the last year or so, television and film seems to have decided that referring to dying is not a good thing; instead, anyone who dies is referred to as having "passed", whatever this may mean. Is it a nod to the pseudo-religiosity that seems to pervade all corners of our world, or is it  due to some simple fear of death ? Are the words die, died, dead, death and dying no longer considered acceptable in polite society ? Will they soon be discouraged even more strongly for fear that they may be considered frightening to some or may cause offence to the recently bereaved ?

What is this nonsensical lunacy all about ?

Is it something to do with selling programmes and films to the USA, where most of this type of idiocy originates, or is it simply further evidence of the extent to which our own culture and language are being drowned out by the seemingly endless influx of the most appalling language, ridiculous phraseology and verbosity and, worst of all, a mind bogglingly narcissistic and puerile culture from across the Atlantic ?

Whatever the answer, "passed" as a euphemism for "died" is a ridiculous use of language. Dead is dead, nothing more and nothing less.