THE WEATHER AND BREXIT; IT'S ALL THE SAME.

In Britain, we never seem to be satisfied about the weather. It's always too cold, too wet, too windy or, less often, too hot. Why can't we just accept things and get on with it ?

The wonderful weather we've been experiencing in recent weeks has brought comparisons with the summer of 1976, the last time we had a really long hot, dry spell. Yes, the lack of the usual cloud and rain has brought a few problems but surely the beautiful blue skies and warm days have more than compensated. Perhaps the trouble is that our sensationalist media has been more interested in reporting the associated problems such as threatened hose-pip bans, supposed melted roads and buckled rails, overly hot train carriages and the potential for suffering sunburn or heat stroke. How sad.

Having raised all of these potential nightmares, what has actually happened ? So far, there are no hose-pipe bans in force, although one is still threatened in the North West of the country, and I've certainly heard no more about our roads turning into rivers of tarmac or our railway lines becoming molten masses of metal. I've heard of no vast swarms of people flooding into our hospitals with crispy skin although no doubt a few stupid ones have suffered a bit of dehydration. All in all, none of the threatened disasters have actually befallen us.

What this tells us is that our media love to report things that haven't happened and probably won't happen. They love the sensational stories that attract attention, whatever the truth really is. In this case the truth is that we've had some fantastic weather, albeit unusual and a little uncomfortable at times, but why can't we and the media just celebrate what is, after all, a rare event ? From the point of view of the media, of course, that wouldn't be a story, so it's far better to invent associated horrors, true or not, in order to sell their papers, news feeds, channels and whatever else they do.

I can't help feeling that this coverage of the weather situation has been akin to the government's handling of Brexit. Forget facts, just invent potential nightmare scenarios in order to sell its desired outcome and, ultimately, to get us all to do what we're told. The weather, and its supposedly dreadful effects, is a result of man-made climate change so we must change our bad ways; the horrors that will result from Brexit are of our own making, so we must change our minds.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher "No, No, No !"

"NO DEAL" BREXIT IN POLE POSITION !

At long last, it seems that the UK government has woken up to the fact that raising 'No Deal' as a genuine possibility might just make the EU sit up and take notice.

For months, the  European Union's negotiators have not negotiated at all, they've simply adopted the stance of General de Gaulle and met every UK position with a resounding "NON !" They've assumed that the UK is actually so desperate to remain closely tied to the EU that it would accept whatever was demanded, be it money, border controls and migration, trade arrangements or anything else. They've ignored the fact that the UK is a huge contributor, one of very few, to the EU's budget and they've ignored the massive trade imbalance, entirely to the EU's benefit, which exists. Their entire approach has been predicated on the basis that the UK would ultimately roll over and accept whatever the EU wanted.

Of course, it may all be 'smoke and mirrors' from the UK government but at least the messages now emanating from it give the appearance that a stronger line is being adopted. Indications that there are now active preparations for a 'No Deal' scenario may be aimed at pacifying Brexiteers but may also be a shot across the bows of the EU, the clear message being "negotiate properly or else".

For all our sakes, I truly hope that, at last, the UK government has got its act together.

TELL BARNIER IT'S NO DEAL !

It appears that Michel Barnier and his cabal of dictatorial European Union bureaucrats have as much liking for Mrs May's 'Chequer's Deal' as have Boris Johnson, David Davis and others in this country.

Yesterday, after a meeting of senior EU figures, Barnier came to the rostrum to relay the message that Mrs May's proposals were, effectively, being rejected. He didn't quite say that, but he did imply that the UK's proposals were little more than an interesting starting point for discussions; he made it clear that the UK would be expected to make further concessions if a deal with the EU was to be achieved.

Barnier also talked about a no-deal situation and issued thinly veiled threats about the consequences of such an outcome. Given that Mrs May now has almost no wriggle-room with her own supporters, no-deal must now be a real possibility; some are suggesting that Parliament has lost control and is in such turmoil over the matter that the only way out is to hold a further referendum in order to ask the people for their view although why this would help is a bit of a mystery. Our politicians have already largely ignored the result of the original referendum so what why would they take notice now; on the one hand a vote confirming a wish to leave the EU would still find little favour with MP's while a vote to cancel the result of the original decision would create constitutional mayhem and a huge public outcry.

The EU seems to be operating on the basis that the UK government will make whatever concessions are demanded in order to obtain a deal while the UK government seems to be running scared of a no-deal outcome as the belief is that Parliament would not support this; in truth, this is all about brinkmanship. The EU needs the UK's money and trade and would be severely hurt if no deal can be agreed. Yes, the UK would also suffer in the short term but it would be free to take whatever steps were necessary to solve the resulting problems; it could make deals and arrive at agreements with others on a bipartisan basis without the need to satisfy the vested interests of 27 other countries as well.

The EU still harps on about the Irish border, the situation with Gibraltar and umpteen other parochial matters. The UK should tell them, firmly, that we've gone as far as we can; if the EU wants more, it will have to whistle. No Deal.

EU WILL SUFFER FROM DISORDERLY BREXIT.

It seems that the reality of Brexit is finally beginning to hit home; both the EU and IMF have started  to understand that there will be serious consequences for the remaining European Union members if there is no satisfactory resolution to the Brexit negotiations.

While the EU's leaders have begun to panic about the potential effect of a disorderly Brexit, the IMF has attempted to quantify the possible impact. According to them, European economies could suffer an average 1.5 % reduction in GDP, although the Irish Republic could lose out to the extent of 4%. Even accepting that the IMF's history on such prognostications is poor, this is a new element in the Brexit saga.

Until now, little has been said about the potential effect of Brexit on other European economies and the emphasis has been heavily on the supposedly catastrophic impact on the economy of the UK - 'Project Fear' in full flow. Now it seems that 'Project Fear' has begun to spread to Germany, France, and the rest, especially Ireland; maybe now there will be a new realism from the EU negotiators and a withdrawal from their previous intransigent positions.

The UK has always been in a much stronger position than has been generally admitted - might that strength finally be becoming apparent ?

ISREALI APARTHEID MUST BE CONDEMNED.

The actions of the Israeli government in implementing a legal apartheid in their country must surely be condemned, but no. Israel appears to be immune to such condemnation, at least in any meaningful form.

Having occupied land previously home to a variety of Arab tribes, Israeli settlers have gradually extended their sphere of influence, pushing the original Palestinians further to the periphery of their former lands. The Israeli government has ignored numerous international calls for it to give up the occupied West Bank area and also to stop its continuing creation of new settlements in disputed territory; it has continued to use massive and lethal force against poorly armed, often unarmed, Palestinians.

Now, a new law has been introduced which effectively makes anyone who is not a Jew a second class citizen; Palestinians, and others, whose families have lived in the region for centuries have been declared to have none of the accepted rights of self-determination that apply globally. In effect, the government of Israel has introduced apartheid.

When the government of South Africa behaved in such a way, it was condemned and ultimately ostracized. When the government of Southern Rhodesia did something similar, it was driven into submission through the imposition of draconian sanctions, although when the white regime was replaced by a far worse indigenous African one,  the international response was rather more muted. It seems that the actions of some groups are treated rather differently from the actions of others.

The Israeli government is a disgrace. It's extremist attitudes would not be tolerated if they were exhibited by an Islamic state or, indeed, most others. Why does the world do nothing in the face of such behaviour ?

CLIFF RICHARD, THE BBC AND PRIVACY.

The way in which the BBC and other media have reacted to the court judgement regarding the harassment of Cliff Richard is concerning. How anyone can argue that the appalling way in which the police raid on his home was covered by the BBC escapes me.

Similarly to the shocking case of Christopher Jeffries, the Bristol landlord who was tried and convicted of murder by the media having done nothing wrong, Cliff Richard was effectively condemned without trial by the appallingly intrusive actions of the BBC. The court quite rightly determined that there was no justification for the way in which Richard's privacy was invaded nor for the way in which entirely unsubstantiated accusations were reported. Significant damages have previously been awarded against the South Yorkshire police and now damages have also been awarded against the BBC, with the likelihood that further very substantial damages will be added at a later date.

Shockingly, the BBC has still refused to apologise for its actions and has said that it will appeal the court's decision; it claims that it had run a 'public interest story', although how spreading highly damaging and unfounded accusations in a highly sensationalist fashion can be considered to be in the public interest is a mystery. Along with other equally self-interested media, the BBC has attempted to claim that invoking an invasion of privacy defence to such reporting will prevent their ability to do their job and to raise matters of public interest. In my view, this is total rubbish as there can be no public interest in such reporting other than in satisfying the prurience of certain sections of the populace; in terms of fairness, justice and honest reporting, there can be no justification for it.

Whatever damages the BBC eventually has to pay will have to come out of the money paid by licence payers. This is scandalous. The decision to act as it did was made by BBC senior managers and it is they who should bear the costs of their entirely unacceptable actions. They should also be sacked.

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.

BIG SERVERS ARE RUINING TENNIS.

Kevin Anderson, the big-serving South African who's made it to the final of the Wimbledon Men's Championship, has been whingeing about the length of his semi-final match against the even bigger-serving American, John Isner which extended to 6½ hours. Apparently, the match went on too long and Anderson wants Wimbledon, along with the French and Australian championships, to curtail the 5th set of men's matches just as they do the first 4, by the use of 'tie breaks'. That the second semi-final was also a marathon - lasting 5hours 17 minutes - but did not have anywhere near the same number of games, is ignored. Anderson and Isner played 99 games with 3 tie breaks, while Djokovic and Nadal played 59 games with only 1 tie-break. Clearly, the length of matches is not a function of the incidence of tie breaks nor even of the number of games played. Having a 5th set tie-break is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Not that many years ago, 'tie breaks' didn't exist and yet the tennis world managed very nicely. It was only after the integration of the amateur and professional tournaments in the late 1960s that anyone even had the thought of introducing ways of shortening matches, and that had much to do with the American inability to cope with anything which isn't over quickly. 'Tie breaks' at 6 games all in the first 4 sets of men's and 2 sets of women's matches, then most men's tournaments reduced to the best of 3 sets, doubles' matches reduced to 2 sets followed by a quick-fire deciding game of 10 points; all of these measures were introduced in order to shorten matches and, supposedly, heighten the excitement. 

Those of us who remember the epic matches between Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Pasarell or between Ken Rosewall and Cliff Richey do not need quick-fire endings to raise the pulse. Indeed, a major part of the excitement of a great tennis match is the cut and thrust over multiple sets with a drawn out denouement - no one can be quite sure who will triumph until the final point is won. Sadly, too many modern audiences are far more interested in a quick result than in the drama.

Anderson has been annoyed by the length of his match against Isner though he and Isner are themselves largely to blame. At 6ft 8", Anderson is a giant whose serve is frequently unreturnable; at 6ft 10", Isner is even bigger and has an even more powerful service. Inevitably, if both men are srerving well, the opportunities for their opponents to return serve and actually play some real tennis are few; both players simply hold serve until the tie break comes along which, in the 5th set at Wimbledon, it does not. Consequently, these 2 serving giants 'enjoyed' a long drawn out and pretty boring final set that stretched to 50 games; this was not, though, a result of anything but the playing styles of the 2 men.

Neither Anderson nor Isner can be counted as a great tennis player and, but for their service games, neither would have achieved very much. Rather than pandering to Anderson's call to accommodate players such as himself by artificially reducing the length of matches, surely the tennis authorities should act to make matches more competitive by reducing the dominance of the serve. Most male players are now much taller and stronger than they were 50 years ago; some, like Anderson and Isner, are ridiculously tall and have a huge advantage purely from their height, which masks shortcomings in their overall level of skill.

It is time for the net to be raised a few inches or the service box to be shortened by a few inches. It wouldn't take much to reflect the general change in player stature in recent years but it would dramatically reduce the dominance of players who rely almost entirely on a powerful and largely unreturnable service. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen and American influence will almost certainly lead to shortened matches and the huge, crashing service will slowly become an even more dominant part of the game. Truly great players such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will become no more than distant memories.

The misguided notion that bigger, faster or newer is always better simply doesn't hold water.

MAY SELLS US OUT; JOHNSON & DAVIS STAND FIRM.

It seems that Brexit is finally coming to a crunch point. Following Theresa May's watered down proposals which were 'agreed' by the Cabinet on Friday, first David Davis and now Boris Johnson have signalled their disapproval of the plan by resigning from their positions as Brexit Secretary and Foreign Secretary respectively. What now ?

Mrs May has reportedly said that she did not agree with the two ex-ministers about "the best way to honour the result of the 2016 vote" which seems to me to be a complete surrender to both the European Union's negotiating position and also to those here who want the UK to remain as closely tied to the EU as possible, if not actually remaining inside it. There is only one way to "honour" the vote and that is to do what it asked, that is, to take the UK out of the EU, Customs' Union, Single Market and all of the other nonsense that goes with it.

Some time  ago, Mrs May told us that "Brexit means Brexit" and she promised that we would be leaving the Customs' Union and Single Market, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as well as bringing an end to the free movement of people across the EU. Now it appears that she is effectively proposing to keep the UK in the Customs' Union, to keep us fully aligned with all EU rules and regulations and to offer European citizens preferential rights of migration. All of this of course means that the ECJ would also continue to be the ultimate arbiter of our compliance with EU diktats although we would have no say in the formulation of such rulings.

On television yesterday, Michael Gove attempted to dance on the head of a pin, saying that the UK parliament would, nonetheless, have the final word regarding any EU rulings, and trying to make out that this was perfectly normal in trade deals. Although he claimed that his acceptance of, and support for, the Prime Minister's proposal was a result of him being a realist, it was clear that it was nothing more than a sell out of the people who, like him, voted to leave the EU. Gove was positioning himself as a reasonable alternative to Theresa May in the event that any of his other Cabinet colleagues decided to be more forthright in their opposition. While supporting Mrs May's proposal, he did not renege on his Brexit credentials and could now easily be seen as a Prime Minister in waiting by both sides of the Conservative party.

Theresa May has let the country down badly. She has failed to carry out her own promises from 2016 and 2017 and has failed to conduct any effective negotiation, refusing to issue any threats, veiled or otherwise, to the EU and refusing to use the UK's bargaining power on money, trade, defence and much more. Rather than tell the EU what she will accept, she has bent over backwards to accommodate its every whim and has, frankly, been pathetic. What we now have to wait to see is whether the resignations of Johnson and Davis are anything more than just acts of petulance. Will there now be a leadership challenge and a far harder attitude from the Conservative Brexiteers in Parliament ?

Only time will tell though we're unlikely to have to wait long to find out.

TURNIPS BEAT SWEDES AT LAST !

Years after the infamous newspaper headline, the Turnips have finally beaten the Swedes in a meaningful football match. WHOOPEE !

Sadly, the victory doesn't mean that the Turnips, aka, England, have actually won anything, just the chance to win something. Nonetheless, it's a bit more than the ridiculously named "Three Lions" have managed for many years and is to be applauded; after all, this young England team seem to have a bit more about them than many far more lauded squads of recent memory.

The victory over the Swedes was a good one and well deserved, even if the Swedes did provide several severe tests for the England goalie, Jordan Pickford; on the overall run of play, it would have been something of a travesty had there been anything but an England win. However, England did make it somewhat more difficult for themselves than it might have been; if Raheem Sterling was even close to being a top class player, the result would have been beyond doubt much earlier than it was.

Sterling runs fast and dribbles well with the ball, but he's far too easily pushed aside by chunky defenders. When he does make a nuisance of himself in the opponent's half, he generally ends up having no idea what he should do - should he shoot, pass, go for a corner ? The inevitable answer is that he loses possession far too often, nothing results for the team and his efforts end up proving pointless. Sterling does not have the strength to hold off defenders, as does Harry Kane, and does not have the striker's instincts of Kane; he might be 'great' playing in the 'armchair' provided by Manchester City but, for England, he's a liability. In his England career, Sterling has played more than 40 times and scored twice - against the mighty giants of Lithuania and Estonia and both in 2015.

England can get to the final and might, just might, even win the World Cup, but they'll need a far more effective player than Sterling if they're to worry the French or Belgians. The rest are fine.