ANNA SOUBRY - ARCH EUROPHILE & ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

Following the government's 'agreement' at Chequers 10 days ago, the Brexit rollercoaster has careened on. Yesterday, various votes in Parliament were won by small margins and even with the help of rebel Labour members. Today, the odious arch-Europhile Anna Soubry, has been making a nuisance of herself on the BBC, voicing her opinions about matters.

Soubry is of the opinion that Theresa May no longer runs the government but that Jacob Rees-Mogg is now in control of the country. She wants there to be a 'Government of National Unity' embracing what she considers to be the 'pragmatic' parties - that is Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists as well as those members of the Labour party who do not think much of Jeremy Corbyn. In other words, Soubry allies herself with every socialist party in the House of Commons though excludes the Eurosceptic parts of both Labour and her own Conservative parties. She talks of democracy while rejecting all who do not share her own views.

The agreement reached by the government ministers at Chequers was for a severely watered down version of Brexit which has failed to find much favour with anyone and could still be rejected by the European Union itself. Nonetheless, Soubry continues to rage against those whom she refers to as extreme hard-line Brexiteers, whatever that means; one suspects that it encompasses anyone who is in favour of the UK leaving the EU and who opposes her own pro-EU stance.

In her interview on the BBC this morning, it was very clear that Soubry has nothing but hatred and contempt for her fellow Conservative, Jacob Rees-Mogg; every time she mentioned his name it was accompanied by real venom. She even implied that Rees-Mogg had some involvement in the Conservative party's problems of the mid-1990s when John Major faced criticism from various senior party figures, although Rees-Mogg only entered Parliament in 2010, at the same time as Soubry herself.

Soubry is an arrogant and highly opinionated individual who seems to care little for democracy, but only for her own beliefs. Her political views seem to be very confused and she appears to be extremely embittered, especially towards men such as Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson whom she also detests. One wonders exactly what is her driving force.

ANNA SOUBRY : ARCH-REMAINER & ANTI-DEMOCRAT.

Today's news stories are so ludicrous as to make me think that I am living in an increasingly insane world.

First up, Ann Soubry, a Member of Parliament whose ridiculous over-promotion in David Cameron's government is matched only by her gross arrogance, stupidity and blind adherence to all matters feminist, has now revealed herself to be utterly anti-democratic too.

It's reported that Soubry, now no more than a loud mouthed back-bencher, has called on Prime Minister Theresa May to "get a spine" and expel what she considers to be "hard ideological Brexiteers" from the Conservative Party. Needless to say, Soubry is one of the most ardent Remainers, but she seems unable to accept that there may be others who hold different views; in her world, you either agree with her or get fired.

This appalling creature has apparently told the BBC that she is willing to leave her party if the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg 'take over', and has said that the Prime Minister's Brexit "red lines" about leaving the EU's customs' union and single market are wrong.

Thankfully, a far  more seasoned and intelligent voice, Lord Lamont, has said that Soubry is being "quite ridiculous", although his comment is rather lost amidst the cacophony from the lady herself, not to mention the way in which her words have been reported. Nonetheless, Lamont is quite right as are Messrs Johnson and Rees-Mogg when they call for Brexit to be real and not a sham. As for Soubry, she has always been well to the left of her party on most issues, what would have been termed a 'wet' in the days of Margaret Thatcher, and would probably be far more at home elsewhere, perhaps the wishy-washy backwaters of the Liberal Democrats who are equally enamoured of the European Union.

Soubry's entry into Parliament was on the back of David Cameron's approach of prioritising female candidates through a list system; her career has been one of rapid rise and even more rapid fall, with her taking every opportunity to shout loudly without actually doing much at all. Even this latest outburst can be seen as little more than an idle threat; would she really leave the Conservative Party and migrate to the Liberal Democrats or, worse, Corbyn's Labour, knowing that it would signal the end of her lucrative parliamentary career ?

If she truly believes what she says, rather than issuing silly threats, it is Ms Soubry who should be the one to "get a spine" and just go. She will be neither mourned nor missed.

BREXIT : WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE ?

It seems that we are in for a further bout of argument about Brexit.

Following Theresa May's visit to China, during which she achieved some valuable new trade agreements, there has been nothing but negativity from many quarters. The media, and particularly the BBC, seems obsessed with digging up every possible story of the Brexit horrors yet to come while advancing no evidence apart from the semi-mystical projections, forecasts and predictions of diehard Remainers. Assorted political figures, with Philip Hammond at the forefront but others such as the arrogant and annoying Vince Cable in tow, keep banging on about the 'type of Brexit' we are going to achieve and talk of staying as close to the European Union as possible; some still campaign for another referendum in the hope of reversing the nation's decision.

On the other side, and do doubt driven by the need to keep true Brexit at centre stage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and others have felt compelled to voice their concerns about the government's direction and ultimate objectives. They, too, have been drawn into the crazy world that imagines different 'types' of Brexit and are becoming increasingly vocal. The result is that the government, and Conservative Party, appear to be in disarray, something which is meat and drink to their opponents, notably Jeremy Corbyn, who keeps remarkably quiet on the subject of Brexit while simply criticising the government for its apparent indecision.

Amid all of this, what seems to be forgotten is that there are no 'types' of Brexit, only Brexit itself. The United Kingdom will leave the EU at the end of March 2019, when a transition period will begin; this will end on 31st December 2020 at which time we will be finally and fully free of the EU. How close we remain to the countries of the European Union will then depend on whatever trade and other agreements have been reached. We may pay for access to some services or facilities but we will be OUT of the Union, which also means OUT of the customs union, OUT of the single market and OUT of the agreement on freedom of movement. If we are not out of all of these agreements, we will not be out of the EU and Brexit will be a sham.

Those who argued that Brexit would be a catastrophic disaster for the UK have already been proved totally  wrong and yet they continue to forecast a bad outcome. Why ? Even David Cameron, one of the most ardent Remainers, has admitted that voting to leave the EU was not a disaster but, in his words, was a mistake. The UK economy has fared far better than the naysayers predicted and the sky has not fallen in, and yet those such as Philip Hammond and Vince Cable continue to talk it down. It already seems likely that the next round of official government forecasts will revise Hammond's miserable budget predictions from November, increasing predicted growth figures and tax revenues, and finding billions more funding for the NHS.

While our economy may not be booming, it has not collapsed and shows no signs of doing so. Once we are free of the EU and its volumes of bureaucracy, restrictive practices, corruption and simple waste, we will be free to invest as we wish to. We will not have to pay to keep French farmers in business nor allow Spanish trawlers access to our fishing grounds, except on our terms rather than  theirs. We will not have to pay for an entirely unnecessary tier of European government that  encompasses a parliament, commission, courts, ambassadors, council, vast civil service and heaven knows what else. We will make our own laws, free from European Union diktat; we will trade freely with whomsoever we like on terms that suit us, rather than being bound by the grindingly slow processes of EU negotiation.

What can there possibly be about leaving the European Union that is not to like ?