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.

EURO ELECTIONS PROVE NOTHING, RESOLVE NOTHING.

Now that the European Parliament elections are over and the results mostly known, the question is "what has changed ?". The answer has to be "very little".

As in 2014, those who favour a quick exit from the European Union voted in droves for the main proponents of such a measure, now the Brexit party; those who favour stopping Brexit altogether voted for the Liberal Democrats, giving that party a huge boost form their dire result in 2014. The losers were the Labour Party, riven by divisions and failing to send out any clear policy message, and the Conservatives whose traditional supporters deserted them in consequence of Theresa May's appallingly bad attempts to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU. From 25 seats 10 years ago, the Conservatives now have only 3 - if that isn't political collapse, I don't know what is.

However, all of this mayhem has changed very little. While members of the political elite have come trotting out to claim all manner of things, mostly using the results to justify whichever course they themselves favour, it's really been a case of "smoke and mirrors" accompanied by "lies, damned lies and statistics". Brexiteers have shouted that the results demonstrate a clear demand for a quick Brexit, while Remainers have claimed that they show an obvious desire for either another referendum or for Brexit to be abandoned completely. In support of this latter aim, Remainers have continued to use entirely unsupported, and unsupportable, claims that any "form" of Brexit will be damaging to our country and a "No Deal" Brexit will be economically catastrophic. In making such claims they blithely ignore the fact that the identical claims that have been made for the last 3 years have proved to be nothing but scare stories, with the UK's economy performing significantly better than the other economies of the EU.

The result is that entrenched positions remain entrenched. The Labour Party is interested only in gaining power and will now do whatever it things will help it in this ambition; if this means that it moves to support calls for another referendum, that is what it will do. For the Conservative Party, mired in internal turmoil, its new leader will have to decide whether to pursue Brexit at any cost or to adopt a softer approach in order to try to bring the party back together and to regain lost ground. The Liberal Democrats must just be hoping that Brexit carries on being an issue as it's clear that they are currently benefitting enormously from the confusion elsewhere. 

What is astonishing is that a party which didn't exist 2 months ago has not only done well but has trounced the rest. The Brexit Party has topped the polls across most of England and Wales and gained almost a third of the total votes; it is clearly the most popular party, gaining 28 seats in the new European Parliament. Whether it can achieve a similarly spectacular result should there be a general election in the near future is another matter although its leader, the charismatic Nigel Farage, is promising to produce a full manifesto for such an eventuality. If there is a general election and The Brexit Party does anything like this well, it spells serious problems for both the conservatives and Labour; it would almost certainly mean a hung parliament with, who knows what outcome.

However, in the final analysis, nothing has really changed very much. These were elections for the European Parliament and have little immediate bearing on the real everyday lives of voters; they are, therefore, inclined to vote more for what they believe in than for traditional party loyalties; in a general election, things would inevitably be different. The political elite will continue to bluster and procrastinate, prevaricate and pontificate, and, eventually, come to some form of compromise that suits their own vested interests rather than bothering about what the electorate may want or have voted for. Any meaningful resolution of the Brexit conundrum will be further frustrated by the internal machinations of the European Union which now enters its own period of effective paralysis and inaction as the members jostle and connive in pursuit of assorted coalition arrangements over the coming months and look to decide who will take over the posts currently held by the likes of Juncker, Tusk and assorted others.

The country remains fairly evenly split over the vexed question of Brexit. A second referendum will resolve nothing - if Leave wins narrowly again, the Remainers will still call for the UK to remain tied to the EU's apron strings, while if Remain wins, Leave will call "FOUL" and demand a third referendum to resolve the 'draw'. A general election will also resolve nothing and may well put the hard left Marxists of Jeremy Corbyn's party in control.

Where do we go from her ? I wish I knew.

LEAVING THE EU ISN'T AN OPTION, SAYS CORBYN.

So Labour now want to have another referendum in which the alternatives will be Labour's Deal or Remain; that these options effectively amount to the same thing is ignored. That the referendum of 2016 produced a result of Leave, is ignored. That the Labour Party's manifesto in 2017 included promises to abide by the referendum result and not to seek another referendum is ignored.

As FREEDOM DAY, 29th March 2019, approaches, those who want us to remain locked into the stultifying bureaucracy of the European Union for ever are growing ever more desperate. Cabinet Ministers have openly challenged the Prime Minister's approach and policy; MP's increasingly demand that No Deal, the PM's only real bargaining chip, is ruled out as a possibility. Extending the lifetime of the Article 50 vote, effectively stopping Brexit, is now a distinct possibility.

So many politicians are dancing on so many pin heads that it's impossible to keep track. The one thing that is clear is that the establishment, the Liberal Elite, will do anything in its frantic attempt to keep the United Kingdom within the moribund and corrupt confines of the European Union, whatever the people actually want. Why ? Because this is what suits THEM best, this is what allows them to swan around Europe and the rest of the world enjoying all the perks that come with international gatherings, paid for by us the taxpayers, and, ultimately, it's another avenue for gaining political office or patronage once their careers in the UK are over.

Yes, leaving the EU may cause a few hiccups, leaving without a deal may be a bit bumpy, but staying in is not on the table; it was ruled out by the people in 2016. For Labour now to want make staying in an option in another referendum is nothing short of a criminal assault on our democracy, or what's left of it. That they have the most incompetent leader seen in British politics since the Ice Age is no excuse. Sadly, the Conservatives have the second least competent leader seen over that period, meaning that we have no leadership in Parliament, just a bunch of squabbling, egotistical and self-serving crooks.

If Brexit is delayed for anything other than a few more days to allow for the implementation of an agreed plan, it will be the end of our democracy. I will never vote in any election again unless it's for a party dedicated to get our poor country out of the EU; I will never vote in a referendum unless it's one in which I can say a resounding NO! to Europe, yet again. What would be the point of voting for anything else ? Whatever we, the electorate, vote for, those who nominally represent us take no notice unless it accords with their own wishes and desires. 

So to Hell with the lot of them. 

ANY OLD ARGUMENT IN A BREXIT STORM !

Until this morning, the Brexit options seem clear. Teresa May will lose the vote on her 'deal' on 11th December and that will prompt :

a) plan 'B', whatever that may be, and another vote on that, or

b) a vote for a second referendum, or

c) a vote for a general election, or

d) 'NO DEAL'

However, today some unaccountable legal eagle from the EU has given his view that the UK could simply revoke its 'Article 50' notice and stay in the Union. God help us, yet more for the pro-EU lobby to whine on about ! Of course, we also have the Speaker of the House of Commons lining up against the government with regard to its private legal advice and the start of a long debate on the vexed subject of Mrs May's 'Deal'. Aren't we in for a jolly time.

To my mind, matters are very simple. The people were offered a referendum in 2016 and they voted to leave the European Union; that is that. All the hot air expended since has been principally a consequence of the forces of 'Remain' refusing to  accept the democratic Will of the people, using every conceivable argument, most of them utterly spurious if not downright insulting, in their efforts to thwart Brexit. Sadly, even the government has been complicit in this, agreeing to a 'deal' which is hardly more than putting one foot on the threshold. Anyway, -------

Given that 'Plan B' is a total unknown to the vast majority of MPs, as well as to the general population, if it's any good, why isn't it 'Plan A' ?

Conservative MPs voting for a general election, with opinion polls indicating that they'd lose their parliamentary majority, would be akin to the old adage of turkeys voting for Christmas - it ain't going to happen.

There is no liking for a 'No Deal' scenario in Parliament and no likelihood of MPs doing anything to support it.

What this leaves is either 'Plan B' being sprung on us and finding surprising support in Parliament or there being a second referendum as a way of Parliament avoiding doing what it's there for, which is taking responsibility for running the country.

Will the Conservative forces opposed to Teresa May's deal make a point by voting against her once but then fall into line in a second vote ? What has happened to the prophesied legions who were sending letters to Graham Brady ? Will we find ourselves with a new Prime Minister who miraculously makes everything better ?

Are we headed for a huge Tory climb down, with acceptance of the deal or a second referendum ? It seems that one or the other must be the outcome.

The whole idea of a second referendum is an abdication of our democratic system. The people voted, clearly, to leave the EU, and yet many MPs are now asking for a second referendum to tell them what they should do' The simple fact is that they've already been told; the problem is that they don't like the direction they've been told to take. In essence, our representatives only like representing our views when they accord with their own; when they don't, they prefer to ignore us.

Far too many of those in power see the continuation of our membership of this bureaucratic club as their own backstop, an alternative route to power should their constituency decided to eject them. It can't have escaped notice that the Kinnochs, among others, have developed dynastic connections with the EU's parliament and other institutions. Numerous others have used the European Parliament as a stepping stone to the House of Commons or House of Lords, or vice versa. It's a gravy train that they don't want to be parted from.

I despair. When I voted to leave the European Union, I expected the government to fulfil its promise and act on whatever result the referendum produced. I expected our representatives to act according to the Will of the people, not as expressed in individual constituencies but as expressed by the nation as a whole. Instead, many of our representatives have proved to be disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest. 

There was a time that I believed in our democratic processes. How naïve I was. 

WHAT PRICE BREXIT NOW ?

It seems that the UK's hopes of leaving the European Union any time soon are receding into the distance. No one likes Mrs May's deal and her chances of gaining Parliamentary approval for it appear remote. Indeed, her chances of remaining in office are shrinking by the day. Nonetheless, she pushes on to what looks like certain disaster.

From the very beginning the government's approach to Brexit was weak. Rather than take the initiative and tell the EU what it wanted, it allowed the EU to dictate terms from the outset. Inevitably,  the resulting 'deal' is heavily weighted against the UK and in favour of the EU. Not only will the UK remain tied to the EU during a transition period, which could be extended, but even after this ends it could still be locked into the farcical arrangement of 'the backstop', in which the UK would be out of the EU but wholly subservient to it.

Today, Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been talking about yet more economic analyses which apparently show that the UK will be poorer as a result of Brexit; given the shockingly poor history of such analyses and projections over a period of many years, their reliability must be in question and yet still they are produced. Although Mr Hammond claims to be a supporter of Mrs May's deal, he was and undoubtedly still is, a 'Remainer' and has a vested interest in letting us all know about the potentially dire economic consequences of Brexit, however debatable the forecasts may be. 

Mr Hammond's latest intervention is nothing more nor less than the latest brick in the wall of 'Project Fear'. No matter what his words appear to say, he is, in truth, arguing for staying in the EU, or, at least, remaining very closely tied to it. With there being very little chance of Mrs May's plan gaining approval, politicians have moved rapidly on to the next stage of the process; will it be another referendum or a General Election ? Either way, Mrs May is dead in the water and her 'colleagues' are circling, positioning themselves for the final strike and succession to the throne.

There can be no doubt that 'Project Fear' has won and that Mrs May, intentionally, as a result of incompetence or accidentally, will be the biggest political loser. However, the real losers will be the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU back in June 2016. There will be a second referendum which will be won for 'Remain' by the disenchantment, apathy and disgust of voters, exactly as the EU has wanted all along.

Democracy in the UK is dead and the EU will have its corrupt, bureaucratic way.

JOHNSON MINOR STIRS IT UP !

The resignation of Boris' little brother, Jo Johnson, from Theresa May's government looks to be another step in the ever-evolving campaign to stop Brexit. 

Johnson says that he can't accept Mrs May's proposals for Brexit and has resigned in order to be able to vote against them; this is before any proposals have actually been put forward. Perhaps quite rightly, he also says that what Mrs May is likely to put forward is not what the people actually voted for back in 2016 though his solution, another referendum, is nothing more nor less than part of the Remain campaign of which he was, and remains, a member.

Johnson dissembles in the way that all politicians do, that is, he distorts facts for his own purposes and muddies the water so as to make it virtually impossible to tell fact from fiction. He talks about Brexit as if it has different 'types' or is something tangible; it is not. Leaving the European Union is an intangible and non-negotiable act, decided by a vote of the British people and agreed to by Parliament. There are no 'types' of Brexit, there is simply Brexit.

Johnson says that the current situation and what is currently 'on the table' is a far cry from what was promised during the referendum campaign; on this point he is correct, but a second referendum will not put things right. A second referendum is simply an attempt by the Remain campaign to reverse the result of the first, hence the tidal wave of horror stories about shortages of food and drugs, motorways used as lorry parks, queues at ports, visas for European travel and all the rest. 

There is no doubt that Mrs May has made a terrible hash of negotiating with the European Union though whether this has been deliberate or a result of incompetence is an open question. Might she, and her fellow Europhiles, have deliberately messed things up precisely so as to arrive at today's debacle ? Or was she just not up to the job of negotiating with the miserable bureaucrats of the EU ? It matters not which is the case as the outcome is the same. The European Union has dominated proceedings while Mrs May has been servile.

It seems probable that Mrs May's proposals, almost whatever they are, will be rejected by Parliament, resulting in yet more demands for a second referendum. Thus far, the Prime Minister, from her bunker at 10 Downing Street, has resolutely rejected all such calls, but time is running out, both for any Brexit deal to be agreed and for her personally. Might she find herself in such a tight corner that another referendum becomes her way out ?

David Cameron offered a referendum and said that the government would stand by its outcome. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both stood on platforms of carrying through this promise in the 2017 general election and Parliament has voted, several times, to do so. For there to be a reversal of this policy, in any way, would be such a betrayal of the democratic process that democracy in our country would be, effectively, destroyed. I voted to leave the European Union as did more than 17 million others; we didn't vote for any particular 'type' of Brexit, we just voted to leave. We weren't bothered about the detail, we just wanted out of a moribund, hidebound, bureaucratic, unaccountable and corrupt organisation that is stifling its members. That's still what I want, irrespective of the scare-mongering of those who still refuse to accept the result of the referendum. 

If there is no deal, so what ? The UK will leave the EU with no obligations and with its £39 billion still in the bank; there will be consequences but so there will be for the EU, probably greater ones as it tries to plug the gap in its finances and deal with an open border in Ireland. Why should the UK be worried about such an outcome ? Why on earth should we have a second referendum ?

Should the government eventually renege on its promises, reverse its position and hold a second referendum, the betrayal of trust in politics and politicians would be such as to make all future voting pointless. The people would know that it matters not what they vote for, the political elite will find a way to obtain their own desired outcome, come what may. 

If there is a second referendum, I shall not vote, for what would be the point ? In fact, I would never vote in any election or referendum for the rest of my life as to do so would be utterly futile. 

UKIP - RIP

If ever a party was over it is for UKIP.

Less that 3 years ago, UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, was the scourge of the established political parties, having won elections for the European Parliament in 2014 and given David Cameron such a fright in the 2015 general election that he decided to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. Since then, it has been downhill all the way.

Nigel Farage successfully resigned the leadership in July 2016, having tried and failed to do the same a year earlier. He was followed by Diane James who survived just 18 days and, after an interim holding role for Farage, Paul Nuttall was elected leader  in November 2016. Nuttall lasted until immediately after the 2017 general election in which UKIP performed dismally, having been unable to change their image as a one-policy party, and that a policy which was no longer relevant. There was then a further period with a stand-in leader until Henry Bolton was elected at the end of September 2017.

Now, Mr Bolton is under attack, having reportedly left his wife for a much younger woman shortly before Christmas 2017, but having left his new partner in the last few days following the revelation that she has previously sent a number of offensive text messages. The party's National Executive Committee, its ruling body, has passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in Mr Bolton, although he has refused to step down and remains leader as only a vote of the whole membership can oust him.

If this isn't a mess, I don't know what is. Having achieved its primary objective of getting the UK electorate to vote to leave the European Union, UKIP has failed to maintain its momentum or even to produce a coherent set of policies, and is now on the point of fading away. It has been unable to find a leader who can come anywhere near to matching the charismatic character of Nigel Farage and, indeed, its subsequent leaders have been notable mostly for their lack of public persona. Infighting between various factions and interest groups within the party has done nothing to aid its cause and the general perception now is that it's akin to ferrets fighting in a sack, with little likelihood of anything positive emerging.

Henry Bolton is a leader with no public profile whose time in office has produced little if anything. His character is surely summed up by his fickle approach to relationships and by his refusal to resign even though he is clearly not wanted. His stated reason for this is that he believes yet another leadership contest would signal the end of the party but that, surely, will be the consequence of his remaining in office as well.

Whatever Mr Bolton does, or doesn't do in the coming days, the UKIP party is undoubtedly over.

TONY BLAIR JUST WON'T LISTEN.

Way back in the 12th century, King Henry II is supposed to have called for someone to rid him of a turbulent priest, meaning the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. Today, it would not be surprising to hear calls for the similar disposal of Tony Blair.

Having led the UK to economic disaster during his 10 years as Prime Minister, Blair simply refuses to go away, in fact, just the opposite. He has spent the last few years trotting around the world playing at being an international mediator, negotiator and statesman though he has achieved little if anything of note. Nonetheless, he still turns up regularly just like the proverbial 'bad penny', spouting his half-baked and usually disruptive messages.

As Prime Minister he managed to bamboozle Parliament into sending troops to Iraq on utterly spurious grounds; to say that he lied might be considered libellous but it's not far from the truth. Today, on the BBC's 'Today' programme, Blair was at it again, this time giving us all the benefit of his huge intellect on the subject of Brexit. He has never liked the idea of Brexit and, at one time, had clear ambitions to become President of Europe; now, he wants us to go back and rethink the result of the 2016 referendum. Just like his like-minded pals, he believes that the bulk of the electorate was simply to stupid to understand what it was voting for and that they need to be given another chance to get it 'right'.

In today's interview by John Humphrys, Blair used his usual scatter-gun approach, throwing in every conceivable issue and conflating all and sundry. He spoke rapidly, again as usual, giving the impression of being knowledgeable while actually waffling an awful lot and leaping from topic to topic at breakneck speed. He emphasised points which he believed supported his arguments and ignored those that did not. In essence, he was simply arguing for a rerun of the 2016 referendum, in typical EU style, in an effort to get what he considers to be the 'right result'.

Blair's arguments are spurious at best and rubbish at worst. He continues to make all manner of claims about the British economy now and in the future which are either misleading, plain wrong or, at this stage, unknowable. Above all, he simply wants to prevent Brexit and he'll do and say anything that might help his cause.

Thankfully, Norman Lamont had a brief opportunity to counter Blair's tirade immediately afterwards though I suspect that many people will already have switched off by then. More significantly, there have been negative comments from the Labour side as well, suggesting that Blair's continued interventions are less than helpful. Sadly, this shockingly arrogant member of the left-leaning metropolitan elite simply has too thick a skin to be put off by such adverse remarks or to hear what the people have already said. He, after all, is an international statesman of huge experience; he knows best.

We are left with only King Henry's approach, though perhaps sending knights in armour to bump him off would be a little extreme. Instead, could he not be made the UK's ambassador to somewhere vitally important to mankind's survival but also distant, somewhere like Antarctica perhaps ? There he could be assisted by those other fanatical Europhiles who have an equally arrogant approach to democrarcy, such as Peter Mandelson, Andrew Adonis, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Paddy Ashdown and, of course, Ken Clarke.

I'm sure they would all relish the opportunity to get stuck into solving the environmental problems affecting that part of our world, something that, in the overall scheme of things, is probably far more important than wasting their time on the piddling little issue of Brexit.

DEMOCRACY RULES, OK ?

Many of the people of the Spanish region of Catalonia want to be independent of the government in Madrid. Similar to many Scots, they no longer want to be a part of a country, they want to be a country in it's own right.

In the UK, the government, reluctantly, allowed the Scots to hold a referendum on the question of their independence and the majority voted to remain as part of the United Kingdom. In Spain yesterday, things were very different.

Apparently, holding independence referendums is illegal in Spain and so the central government took extraordinary steps to try to prevent one from taking place. With soldiers and armed police on the streets, voters were intimidated and brutalised, polling stations ransacked and ballot papers destroyed. The Spanish Prime Minister appeared on television to make a few noises about unity or some such but utterly ignored the shocking and appalling violence being perpetrated on his own people by his own police and military.

This was a dreadful indictment of the supposed democracy in Spain but is also mirrored to a degree by the way in which the European Union is attempting to punish the United Kingdom for its 'Brexit' referendum. Rather than accept the Will of the people and behave democratically, politicians of all flavours act like dictators, imposing their Will on others regardless of all else.

Politicians lie and cheat routinely. They will say whatever they believe will bring them power and, once they have that power, they will do whatever they like regardless of what the people want. Why on earth do we let them treat us this way ?

LET'S ALL GO TO THE POLLS --- AGAIN !

Following months of argy bargy over the 'type' of Brexit that Theresa May's government is going to negotiate, Mrs May has made the decision to dissolve parliament and to hold a General Election. Good for her.

Ever since the referendum in June of last year those who didn't like the outcome have made it clear that they will do anything they can to frustrate the process of leaving the European Union. Ghoulish figures from the past, such as Tony Blair, Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg and others, have popped up to try to create mayhem; Nicola Sturgeon has used the situation to demand yet another Scottish independence referendum and there have been calls for a reappraisal of the division of Ireland. An utterly spurious notion of there being options of 'hard Brexit' or 'soft Brexit' has been invented, a notion which is nothing more than a political mechanism contrived to create confusion and division.

When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit" she was stating the obvious and trying to make clear that there was no 'hard' or 'soft' option; when one leaves a club, one leaves and that's that. What happens thereafter is a matter for negotiation and, again, Mrs May has made it abundantly clear that she wants to seek the best possible post-Brexit arrangement for both the UK and EU. Unfortunately, Mrs May's clarity has failed to halt the march of those determined to try to prevent the UK from leaving the club and she has been left with only one option, that of attempting to strengthen her position in Parliament by seeking a new mandate from the British people.

Mrs May has said that she did not plan or want to take this course of action but, after careful consideration, she decided that it was the only real option open to her. Some are saying that she has made a 'u-turn' and shown that she is dishonest, untrustworthy and simply taking advantage of the disarray of other parties. While there can be no doubt about the shambles in which the Labour Party finds  itself, I don't believe that Mrs May has been anything other than honest in her words and actions. In as far as any politician can be trusted, I believe that Mrs May is one of the better ones; compared with the self-serving, arrogant, deceitful and downright slimy behaviour of some of her predecessors, she is undoubtedly one of the 'good guys'.

When the election results are known on 9th June, we will hopefully have banished the powers of darkness once and for all, and Mrs May will be able to carry out the Will of the people, as expressed in last year's referendum, without further manufactured confusion, interference and delay.

ESTABLISHMENT LINES UP AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

Today, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Government cannot initiate the UK's exit from the European Union without obtaining the consent of Parliament; in fact, it's said that there has to be an Act of Parliament which means full debate in both Houses and an opportunity for the large number of Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords to create mischief. Thankfully, the Court's ruling also said that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have to be consulted.

Where this will lead is anyone's guess. There are many in Parliament, and also many other loud voices, who simply want to prevent the Will of the people, as expressed in the referendum last June, from being actioned. These people continually throw up spurious arguments and some, the likes of Nick Clegg and Tim Farron prominent amongst them, are making no secret of their determination to keep the UK so closely tied to the EU as to make any exit meaningless. The Welsh Labour party has made some sort of alliance with Plaid Cymru aimed at achieving something similar and Nicola Sturgeon seizes on every opportunity to try to stir up enthusiasm for another vote on Scottish independence. None of these people and parties are prepared to accept the result of the referendum and are simply set on imposing their own views on the people they are supposed to represent.

If anyone ever needed proof of the duplicitous and disingenuous nature of politicians, surely this is it. Those who suggested that UKIP no longer had any reason to exist have also been proven to be very wide of the mark; indeed, the forthcoming by-election in Stoke-on-Trent may well provide a huge boost both to UKIP and the Brexit campaign.

VOTE LEAVE AND FORGET THE IMF

As the EU debate, or should that be row, rumbles on, a host of major political figures and organisations have lined up to tell us how dangerous a UK exit would be. They tell us all manner of horror stories about what 'could' happen, without any of them saying that these disasters actually 'would' happen.

The latest intervention from the International Monetary Fund warns of the potential 'severe regional and global damage' that BREXIT 'could' cause, as well as saying that it would disrupt established trading relationships. Implicitly, the IMF seems to be acknowledging that a UK withdrawal from this protectionist bloc might result in problems for the bloc itself which others have rather ignored. However, problems for the remainder of the EU would also surely mean that they'd have no choice but to be very cautious about being unfriendly to the UK; in a roundabout way, the IMF is actually implying that a UK exit may well be potentially so disruptive that everyone else would have to treat us with kid gloves in order to avoid global meltdown. The deal we might then get from a position outside of the bloc might well be far better than anyone can currently imagine.

The IMF is, of course, little more than a supra-national company doing its best to maintain the status quo; it doesn't want change and would rather have a stable and stagnant world than a changing and vibrant one; for them, change is dangerous as it's much harder to control than is stagnation. Major change is anathema. the IMF is also renowned for revising its forecasts every 5 minutes, rendering its economic foresight of rather less value than such an apparently august body would like it to be. It's head is a former French Finance Minister, Christine Legarde, raising questions as to its independence when it comes to matters relating to the EU anyway.

The truth is that no one really knows what the consequences of BREXIT would be, but the global establishment would much rather have stability and everything staying as it is than risk the consequences of change. Leaving the EU would undoubtedly test the ability of much-vaunted politicians to manage a tricky situation but it is, without doubt, the only sensible option for the British people to take. Let's leave this suffocating organisation; vote to leave on 23rd June.

EUROPEAN UNION - IN OR OUT ?

As the debate regarding the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (EU) gets under way, the man in the street can expect to be bombarded with all manner of misinformation. There will be the usual lies, damned lies and statistics so beloved of politicians and their acolytes, much dissembling and plenty of ambiguity.

Despite all of this, there are certain facts which should not be ignored. Firstly, the EU owes its origin to the post-war world of the 1940s and 1950s, the desire of major western European nations to find a means to avoid another continental war and the perceived threats from the military, financial and economic might of the USA and Soviet Union. In 1951, France and West Germany formed the European Coal and Steel Community and in 1958 they were joined by Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg in creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or Common Market. At this time, the UK opted not to join the EEC and, instead, was a founder member of another free trade area, EFTA, in 1960. However, there was a subsequent change of heart and the UK made 2 attempts to join the EEC during the 1960s, on both occasions having its application vetoed by the French president, De Gaulle.

Eventually, in 1973, the UK was successful in gaining entry at the same time as Ireland and Denmark. However, joining this somewhat exclusive European club meant that the UK's membership of EFTA was terminated and its trade links with the many world wide nations of the Commonwealth also had to be severed; in future, the UK's trade with countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and so on, would have to be on terms negotiated by the various organs of the EEC. Over the years, the EEC grew further and transmogrified into the European Union, a body virtually unrecognizable from the Common Market  which the UK had joined in 1973. There are now 28 member states with still more waiting in the wings, vast numbers of officials, huge volumes of legislation, a central bank and even a new currency for many of its members. Member states are bound hand and foot by rules and regulations dreamt up by faceless bureaucrats living and working hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Those who want the UK to leave this organisation refer to issues of cross-border migration, the lack of transparency, institutional corruption, and its insularity and protectionism. They complain about the way in which national governments have, in effect, become subservient to the whims of distant legislators, most of whom have little concern for the interests of individual nations. The drive for 'ever closer union' and the creation of a 'United States of Europe' is seen as a nightmare scenario.

On the other hand, those who favour the UK's continued membership, seem to have little to support their argument other than nebulous fears about what might happen should the UK vote to leave. They say that the consequences could be dire, that there would be huge costs and job losses, and they've produced figures which they say support their claims. Lord Rose, formerly chief executive of Marks & Spencer and now appointed to lead the 'In' campaign, simply says that "it's not worth the risk" to leave. Again, nothing positive or concrete, just fear-mongering.

Many of those who favour continued membership seem to be executives in charge of large financial and commercial organisations, people who have vested interests in having identical financial, economic and trade regulations across as much of their areas of operation as possible. Others are political figures from a bygone age such as Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, people who still live in the past, and Gordon Brown and John Prescott, whose left wing views sit comfortably with the predominantly socialist, centrally controlled nature of the EU.

The truths of all of this are that the EU is a construct of the past. Since its origins, the world has changed out of all recognition and there are now many more nations vying for significant international trade. The UK is one of the biggest economies in the world and, in the event of a 'No' vote, would have little difficulty in establishing its own links with many of these growing countries, as well as remaining a major trader within Europe. The EU itself is an impossible amalgam of such disparate nations, with vastly different histories, cultures and economies, that it cannot survive; it must change or die, whatever its current leaders desire.

If the UK votes to leave the EU, it could well be much more problematic for the future of the EU than of the UK. Indeed, a UK 'No' vote may well be the catalyst for a major rethink amongst European nations that could result in the emergence of a genuinely sustainable European bloc. Only time will tell, but I'll be voting to leave, and the sooner the better.