WHERE IS JIM HACKER WHEN HE'S NEEDED ?

It's tempting to say that you couldn't make it up but, of course, someone did !

The reported 'sausage war' currently raging between the UK and EU seems like a surreal piece of nonsense that couldn' possibly be happening. That it was foreshadowed by an episode of the still quite brilliant "Yes, Minister", way back in 1984, demonstrates that fiction is not always stranger than fact.

In the final episode of "Yes Minister", the Minister for Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker, looks for a way of raising his profile as he pursues promotion to No. 10. Hilariously, an opportunity is presented to him as the European Union is about to introduce new regulations regarding the definition of sausages; Hacker leaps on this move to claim that the nasty foreigners are threatening to outlaw the 'British Sausage', and his manoeuvering pays off as the final scenes of the episode see him achieving his goal.

Now no one is claiming that the EU is planning to ban British Sausages (yet) but it does seem that there are problems over the movement of goods of all sorts, sausages being used as a suitably ridiculous example, from the island of Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is apparently a consequence of the "Northern Ireland Protocol", a cobbled together piece of the treaty that saw the United Kingdom, as a whole and including Norther Ireland, leave the European Union. 

This protocol was never going to be workable as it a) effectively partitioned the United Kingdom and b) kept Northern Ireland border arrangements under the control of the European Union. It seems highly likely that the protocol was as much about the ambitions of the Irish Republic as anything else, their hope being that it would help to pave the way for the eventual reunification of the 2 parts of the island of Ireland. However, others have also jumped on the opportunity to throw mud and threats at the UK, particularly the French and those at the highest levels of the EU itself who have still not forgiven the British for daring to leave their dictatorial and protectionist club. As for the French, they've always hated us and recent events over fishing rights around Jersey have probably inflamed this hatred still further; additionally, President Macron is in all sorts of trouble and faces an election next year, so any opportunity to bash the British will be grabbed with both hands as a potential vote-winning ploy.

And so we now have the "Sausage War". Residents of Northern Ireland are, reportedly, in danger of being deprived of supplies of the good old 'British Banger' as imports into the territory face so much red tape that companies are deciding not to bother. The UK is telling the EU to be realistic and flexible, the EU is telling the UK to be realistic and accept the rules they agreed to in the protocol. Failing an agreement, the EU is threatening to take legal action against the UK, all notionally because of the movement of sausages across the Irish Sea.

You couldn't make it up, except that Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn effectively did just that, more than 35 years ago. What we need now is a Jim Hacker, backed by his Humphrey Appleby, to win the day and save the "British Banger" !

JOHNSON'S STRATEGY MUST BE ALLOWED TO PLAY OUT.

Exactly why Prime Minister Johnson is trying to introduce legislation which his government admits might well lead to a contravention of international law is something I have no knowledge of. However, I have no doubt that it's some sort of ploy for use in the ongoing discussions with the European Union and is designed to give the United Kingdom an additional bargaining chip.

Inevitably, representatives of the EU have thrown up their hands in horror, accompanied by assorted voices from the list of usual suspects, meaning those who have always opposed all things BREXIT. Indeed, I suspect that the likelihood of the British government ever using whatever powers it is trying to bring into being is remote and that the huge political fuss that's been blown up is mostly a storm in a tea cup, not that anyone would believe this from the media's coverage of the matter.

Particularly shocking is that assorted former Prime Ministers appear to have given up on supporting their own country and have, instead, emerged from the woodwork to criticize their current successor. Of course, none of them like Boris Johnson who is a very different character to any of them - Major, Blair, Brown and May are all long standing members of the political establishment and not one of them will be remembered in 100 years time any more than are the likes of Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law today. Their legacies make sorry reading - Major entwined the UK in the Maastricht Treaty and all but destroyed the Conservative Party; Blair had a God complex and led the country into interminable wars in the Middle East while also creating, together with Brown, a nation in which all and sundry are dependent on state largesse; Brown was also part-responsible for the appalling financial crash of 2008 and as for May, she was a control-freak who was incompetent, a devastating combination. 

All 4 of these political 'giants' (in their own minds if no where else) are Europhiles and now all 4 want to argue for Europe against the UK. Interestingly, I have yet to hear that David Cameron has made any loud public pronouncements on the latest squabble, which might suggest that he is more aware of the underlying strategy, or perhaps I've just missed whatever he's said. 

Whatever is going on, it's clear that the EU is making things as difficult as possible in the discussions over a future trade deal with the United Kingdom and surely the role of all of our representatives, current and former, should be to support our government, not try to undermine it. That some egos are simply too big to follow this simple principle is disappointing, to say the least.

4 DAYS TO GO AND A DECISION TO MAKE.

Finally the UK Parliament accepted that the only way out of it's recent malaise was to agree to hold a general election. Now we are just a few days from the date which was set, 12th December 2019.

The choice before the people is the usual one of Conservatives against the rest, the rest being a mish-mash of left wing parties masquerading as Labour, Liberal, Green and Nationalist; the only slight change from recent history is the presence of the Brexit Party, a successor to UKIP which itself was a modern invention. However, on this occasion there is also the little matter of the UK's relationship with the European Union to consider, something that is rather muddying the water.

The Conservatives are standing on a manifesto that includes a guarantee of bringing about Brexit by the end of January. The Liberal un-Democrats propose ignoring the outcome of the 2016 referendum while Labour's policy is one of not being quite sure what to do. Quite frankly there is only one option available to any voter who believes in democracy and that is to vote for the Conservatives and against both Liberal and Labour candidates; in some seats there is the option of voting for a Brexit Party candidate as such a vote may give the Conservatives a greater chance of success, but that is somewhat problematic.

From both sides, some dyed in the wool supporters have suggested supporting their political opponents. From the left, the likes of the independent minded Kate Hoey, an MP who has been hugely respected by all for many years, has said that she can no longer support her own party due to the extreme left leanings of its current leadership. On the right, the likes of the centrist Tories, Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve and David Gauke have variously indicated their support for any party which will prevent Brexit. While there can be no doubt that the Labour Party has, indeed, made a dramatic swing to the left under Jeremy Corbyn, the accusations that the Conservatives have made an equally dramatic move to the right under Boris Johnson simply do not hold any water. The truth is that while Kate Hoey and other Labour moderates have been abandoned by the Marxists in their party, Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and others have simply been exposed as the rather wishy-washy liberal centrists that they really are, with no truly right wing bones in their bodies.

The election campaigns have trundled on amidst the Brexit furore and with all sorts of lies, damned lies and statistics being bandied around. Labour has promised to spend billions, hundreds of billions, even trillions, on nationalising assorted industries, handing out vast sums to all and sundry while paying for it all by 'only' attacking the rich and companies. The Liberal un-Democrats have largely gone along with this nonsense and only the Conservatives have resisted the urge to commit to spend huge amounts of our money on rubbish, although they've still committed significant sums. The choice here is between loads of jam today or an increasing amount of jam each year in the future; the first option leads to economic disaster, as in the 1970s, while the second suggests the increasing prosperity enjoyed through the 1980s. It's a simple choice.

If elected, Jeremy Corbyn says he would renegotiate Brexit and then hold a second referendum. That this is nothing but political nonsense should be obvious. Any renegotiated deal would be a recipe for the UK staying in the EU in all but name, and the suggested referendum would be a smokescreen for offering the electorate a choice between staying in and staying in. Additionally, Corbyn would soon be supplanted by some young Turk more ready to be moulded by the real power in the Labour party, John McDonnell, a man whose Marxist leanings are far more developed and acute than are those of his current puppet.

The Liberal un-Democrats plan to ignore the 2016 referendum is probably the most undemocratic proposal ever put forward by any supposedly democratic party in living memory. The party leader, Jo Swinson, comes across as being so naïve as to be unbelievable. When grilled by Andrew Neil, her lack of knowledge was palpable; her naivety clear. She is like an earnest schoolgirl debating in the sixth form, certainly not someone who has pretentions to be Prime Minister. Her party would, in common with Corbyn's Marxists, spend billions of pounds that they don't have on services and industries that need reform rather than simple investment, as well as bribing the electorate with supposed higher wages and more 'free' services. For the avoidance of doubt, 'free' means you still don't pay but you just don't realise your pockets are being picked. 

As someone who worked in the NHS for many years, I'm well aware of the pressures that it experiences but I'm also aware of the bureaucratic waste. This isn't about hospital management, it's about the targets and reporting imposed from above, it's about the appalling waste that goes unnoticed through clerical incompetence and the shocking lack of oversight of clinical services which far too frequently leads to serious consequences for patients that are denied by a culture of self-protection. Money won't solve this, reform might but, of course, Labour and the Liberal un-Democrats promise vast extra resources and so do the Conservatives, regardless of the real issues. 

The offers being made to us are attractive. Higher wages, higher pensions. More 'free' childcare, 'free' dentistry, billions of pounds towards preventing the climate change that's already completely out of our control. Anyone who can remember the catastrophic days of the 1960s and 1970s when the state owned our car making, ship building steel making, telephony and railways will know that a return to state ownership is a frightening prospect. those industries were subject to strike action over and over again, until they were driven to bankruptcy. Some were saved by privatisation, others simply collapsed under the weight of union action. Labour under Corbyn and McDonnell would return us to those dark days and at enormous cost to each and every one of us.

Where do we go from here ? The 2016 referendum gave the government a clear mandate to take our country out of the European Union; it said nothing about 'types' of Brexit, it just said that a majority wanted to leave. Any future government that believes in democratic principles must surely take this at face value and get us out at the earliest opportunity.

Other than Brexit, the choice is an economic one. Do we believe in the government owning vast swathes of industry and providing a huge range of 'free' services, paid for by hugely increased taxes and borrowing, or do we believe in less government, private enterprise, lower taxes and lower borrowing. A Corbyn government would almost certainly need the support of the Scottish Nationalists who would demand yet another referendum about their desire for Scottish independence, a demand that Corbyn would almost certainly grant whatever he might say today; the breakup of the United Kingdom could then happen and that would be far more traumatic and difficult that the UK leaving the EU, for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Additionally, who would actually be prepared to lend a Corbyn-led government the money they want ? It would either mean absurdly high rates of interest in order to attract vaguely sensible investors or it would be China, which would end up effectively owning our country and making all of the rules. Or perhaps the US would step in and try to keep the Chinese out with military force. Whatever the outcome, it would be bad.

No other choice is realistic. Whatever she may say, no one in their right mind sees Jo Swinson as a future Prime Minister and the rest of the parties are just also-rans. Yes, the Irish lot could end up having a say in a coalition, again, but it's unlikely. The Greens and Plaid Cymru are just socialists dressed up in different clothes but have no real hope of having much influence on anything.

Dyed in the wool remainers really should vote for the Liberal un-democrats as a vote for anyone else would be a step in the dark. Those who either favour leaving the European Union or simply believe in democracy have nowhere to go but the Conservatives, as a vote for the Brexit Party, except in a few specific seats, is likely to do more harm than good. Those who aren't sure about what to do should either stay at home or vote for the safe choice, which is, without doubt, the Conservatives. A vote for Labour risks Armageddon while a vote for the Liberal un-Democrats risks civil unrest at the very least.

The choice is clear and Thursday is the day on which to make it. 

IS THIS BREXIT OR JUST ANOTHER FALSE DAWN ?

So we have a Brexit deal - again.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised he would get a new deal with the European Union and would get rid of the hated 'Irish Backstop'; he seems to have achieved both ambitions. However, following the assorted shenanigans of the House of Commons, he now has to get this deal approved by Members of Parliament, which seems problematic at best.

Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party has now moved to a 100% 'remain' position and will not support the new deal, pretty much whatever it actually includes, although a few Labour MPs may still support it. The Scottish Nationalists have always opposed Brexit anyway and will also vote against any deal, as will the Liberal un-Democrats. Prime Minister Johnson has previously expelled some 21 of his own MPs from the Conservative Party following their opposition in previous votes and there are an assortment of others who have left one party or another during the last year or so. As something of a body-blow to the government, the Democratic Unionists of Northern Ireland have also said that they will not support the deal, having previously indicated that they would support a deal.

Parliament will sit on Saturday, a very rare occurrence, and Prime Minister Johnson will be hoping that he can persuade enough of his fellow parliamentarians to vote with him although his chances of success appear to be slim. If Parliament votes against the deal, the Prime Minister will have to obey the law passed a couple of weeks ago and ask the EU for more time although he's repeatedly said that the UK will leave the European Union on 31st October come what may. 

What is going to happen ? European Union representatives have been clear that they want this deal to be approved but less than clear about what they would do if it is not. While they may allow a further extension beyond the end of October, that is far from certain and any further delay would almost certainly be dependent on the UK holding a second referendum or a general election as soon as possible, neither of which is likely to provide any real resolution to the deep rooted problems of the UK's democratic process.

No one wants to see this issue drag on any longer, but the opposing factions seem to be utterly intransigent. The loss of its parliamentary majority has rendered the UK government impotent in the face of the vested interests of opposition parties. Labour want power but are terrified of a general election while Jeremy Corbyn is their leader; they are also terrified that  Boris Johnson would be unbeatable anyway if he finally gets a deal approved by parliament, and so they oppose everything while proposing nothing. The Scottish Nationalists link everything to another referendum on their own pet project, independence for Scotland, and the Liberal un-Democrats can see a chance of getting a share of power by being seen as the "Party of Remain". The Democratic Unionists see everything through the prism of their own insular and sectarian interests and will not vote for anything which they think will weaken their current hold over Northern Ireland.

Prime Minister Johnson has a problem, in fact he has several. Will he achieve a feat that would even have challenged the great Harry Houdini ? Come Saturday afternoon, we'll know, one way or the other.

IRELAND STILL THE STICKING POINT.

With Brexit negotiations increasingly rancorous and divisive, it seems clear that the one and only real issue is that of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, an issue which is being used by the Republic's government as a lever to try to force reunification of their divided island.

As a proportion of the EU's trade, what crosses the border in Ireland is minute, likewise for the UK's trade. Neither the UK nor the EU wants to introduce a massive border infrastructure and the UK has proposed various measures to ensure that border checks are minimal. However, neither the government in Dublin nor the bureaucrats of Brussels have shown any willingness to discuss such proposals, persisting in their demands that the "Irish Backstop" is the only way forward, something they know would severely weaken the connection between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and which they know is unacceptable to the government of the UK.

Ireland has been a problem for centuries, ever since King Henry VIII effectively annexed it. Religious differences have exacerbated the historic mistreatment of many of its citizens and the eventual separation of the predominantly Catholic south from the predominantly Protestant north did little but bring a temporary halt to the troubles of the early 20th century. The resurgence of violence in the 1960s was nothing but a resurfacing of centuries old hatreds and, again, the solution of the "Good Friday Agreement" did nothing but bring about a temporary cessation of hostilities. The Republic and the still extant and active IRA continue to aim for reunification while the Protestants of the North still hate such a prospect. The two sides are irreconcilable.

There seems to be little chance of the Republic's government agreeing to anything that would weaken their position and no UK government could agree to anything that effectively breaks up its country. Unless the Irish and the EU are prepared to agree to a compromise which safeguards the total integrity of the United Kingdom, surely no Brexit deal is currently possible and the options for a future resolution are limited.

A further delay to the date of Brexit, beyond 31st October, will serve little purpose given the attitudes of the Irish Republic and the EU and a second Brexit referendum would be a betrayal of the democratic process in the UK. The remaining options are "No Deal", to which the current UK parliament appears implacably opposed, a general election, which the Labour Party refuses to countenance, or the formulation of a laughably entitled "government of national unity", created solely for the purpose of preventing Brexit altogether.

Or can Prime Minister Johnson come up with something else ?

BREXIT OPPORTUNITIES STILL IGNORED.

The BBC remains relentlessly pro-Europe, left wing and anti-Conservative, as it's assorted news stories and reports of today confirm.

It's been headlining stories based on information supposedly received from unnamed government sources and analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a body whose predictions have become as unreliable as those of the Bank of England, International Monetary Fund and any other organisation with an overblown view of its own brilliance. 

According to the latest reports, discussions with the European Union are on the point of collapse and the government is putting in place contingency plans to disrupt the EU's future business. Reported  'leaks' from the EU side are entirely negative about the Prime Minister's latest proposals and a "government official" has "told the BBC" that the EU had not shown any desire to move towards acceptance of Mr Johnson's plans. It seems that "No Deal" is now the only likely outcome, at least according to these unidentified sources. However, given that the BBC is unashamedly pro-EU, might this not just be part of their contribution to Project Fear, insisting that all is doom and gloom ?

Allied to these stories, reports and leaks, the IFS has come up with a new set of predictions which claim that "No Deal" will lead to government borrowing reaching levels not seen in more than 50 years, and this on even the most optimistic "No Deal" scenario. Again, negativity piled on top of negativity, with little coverage given to the potential opportunities that will open up once the UK is free of the EU strait-jacket.

Instead of supporting OUR Prime Minister and OUR government in its negotiations, the BBC, much of the rest of the media, organisations such as the IFS and Bank of England, and many other high profile, but entirely self-interested and unrepresentative bodies, continue to focus on supposed dangers of Brexit, rather than promoting the very obvious opportunities. Why is this ?

Surely it is because these organisations benefit from the cosy and protectionist world of the European Union, a world run by the liberal left and one in which hard choices rarely, if ever, have to be made. The BBC's turmoil over the recent investigation into remarks made by the usually excellent Naga Munchetty demonstrates just how difficult this particular media outlet finds it to be open and honest, with its wishy-washy Director General being very easily swayed by a left wing assault on the judgement of his own complaints procedures. The BBC, and the rest, love the protective blanket provided by the EU's labyrinthine organisation and socialist doctrines; they'd much rather blame others for whatever goes wrong than accept responsibility themselves and so we have stagnation with no one making any meaningful decisions about anything, unless its the lowest common denominator that all can agree on.

If there is one ultimate benefit to be gained from leaving the EU it is gaining the right to make our own decisions, unencumbered by the need to obtain the agreement of 27 other nations, every one of which has its own vested interests. Why can't the BBC, BoE, IFS and the rest see this ?

JOHNSON RESOLUTE DESPITE THE OPPOSITION.

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to exude positivity on all fronts, those opposed to Brexit seem to have allied themselves with anyone who has anything bad to say about him or his approach to "Life, the Universe and Everything".

Not long ago, the BBC assembled an appalling gaggle of establishment flunkies who were asked their opinions of Mr Johnson's actions and future. Unsurprisingly, they were hostile and proceeded to deride him, indicating that the sooner he was gone from office, the better. These people, among them a former Black Rod, derided Johnson as a 'populist' first and foremost and appeared to ignore the fact that ALL modern political leaders are exactly that, Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi foremost amongst them, though not forgetting that Jeremy Corbyn has a substantial 'populist' following and has made appearances at pop concerts and festivals. Exactly what is meant by 'populist' is also rather unclear, although it is clearly intended as a term of abuse towards right wing political figures.

Since then, while Mr Johnson has concentrated on politics and, in particular, getting Brexit implemented, the media seems to have been far more interested in digging up and publicising whatever dirt it can find to throw at him, however ancient and however debateable. Former Prime Minister David Cameron has aided this process through the publication of his memoirs in which he throws dollops of mud at Johnson, Gove and other Brexiteers, and there have also been allegations of sexual impropriety from women who suddenly seem to have remembered events from anything up to 20 years ago. The rule seems to be that anything goes when it comes to trying to prevent Brexit and destroy Boris Johnson.

At the same time, MPs appear unable to agree on what they should be doing. Reassembled now that the prorogation has been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court (God knows how they arrived at this judgement) some are wittering about votes of no confidence and forming a government of national unity with a remit of effectively preventing Brexit; how any such government could bear the soubriquet 'national unity' is a mystery, given that it's main function would be to ride roughshod over the expressed view of the 52% of the electorate who voted to leave the European Union. Fortunately, such a move seems unlikely to come to fruition as Jeremy Corbyn is both reluctant to risk a general election and determined to be the next Prime Minister, which none of the other opposition parties appear to accept as an option. And so we trundle on.

While the forces of 'Remain' continue to be destructive at home, the European Union appears to be content to throw cold water on almost every suggestion of a way forward that emanates from the UK government. The Irish leadership, principally represented by the lugubrious Simon Coveney, rejects every alternative to the dreaded "Backstop" out of hand and almost before the details are known, while the rest of the EU supremoes simply utter banalities. It is clear that, as far as the European Union and Irish government are concerned, there is no alternative to the "Backstop" and they are relying on this to ensure that Brexit is ultimately prevented, 'No Deal' having been effectively outlawed by the UK parliament. 

Where, and when will it all end ? Will the UK leave the EU on 31st October as Prime Minister Johnson continues to insist will happen, will there be yet another extension to the Article 50 arrangement, or will Brexit never happen at all ? All I know is that British democracy is all but dead and the European dictatorship remains determined to have its way.

WILL BREXIT EVER HAPPEN ?

I find it amazing that those who want to keep the United Kingdom tied to the European Union consider ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum, ignoring the manifesto pledges of both major parties at the time of the 2017 general election and ignoring that they voted heavily in favour of implementing 'Article 50' all to be perfectly constitutional and democratic, while a Prime Minister attempting to enforce all of these is the opposite.

The general rumpus issuing from the anti-Brexit brigade is becoming almost surreal. The de facto leader of the Labour opposition is now clearly John McDonnell, with Jeremy Corbyn nowhere to be seen or heard. It is McDonnell who is fronting all of the major Labour Party anti-Brexit headlines while Corbyn remains in the shadows, emerging only rarely to show that he's still around; his dislike for the policy now being pursued by his party is palpable. 

Boris Johnson is pressing on with his plan for achieving Brexit by 31st October come what may, whatever that plan actually is. His opponents are chattering about stopping him, at all costs, even at the cost of bringing down the government, though Johnson appears to be indicating that even this won't stop him. Talk of a constitutional crisis abounds and the role of the Queen is being openly discussed. 

For the moment, Parliament is enjoying its summer recess and won't reassemble until 3rd September which, incidenatlly, is the day the UK declared war on Germany in 1939 - might we be in for something similar albeit 80 years on ? It is expected that there will be only a very short period of activity before MPs head off again, this time for their conferences which will see them away from Parliament until around 7th October, unless the conference season is postponed which has been suggested as a possibility by some anti-Brexiteers. However, assuming that things go ahead as already planned, MPs have about 8 or 9 sitting days in September in which to do anything meaningful before Brexit becomes a virtual inevitability. Leaving things until after the conference season is simply too late as, even if a no confidence motion was to be passed, Prime Minister Johnson would have 2 weeks in which to try to overturn it which would take us to about 21st October (another military date, being Trafalgar Day) A general election being called then would see Parliament prorogued and 31st October would come and go with the law as it stands meaning that the UK would leave the EU on that date; the election in mid-November would be an irrelevance as well as probably being a cold and wet one.

It looks to me as though the brief session in September might well be tempestuous and there must be a chance that the conference recess will be postponed. Then again, if Prime Minister Johnson can survive that period and conferences go ahead as planned, November 1st might well be a day of national celebration and even, as Michael Gove has suggested, a special Bank Holiday !

BREXIT HUMILIATION GOES ON, AND ON, AND ON ............. .

How on earth is Theresa May still Prime Minister ? How can anyone have any confidence in her ?

Yet again, she's travelled to Brussels and prostrated herself before the great leaders of the European Union including, of course, the leaders of those mighty international powers Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia etc. She went begging for a further extension to the UK's deadline for leaving their august organisation and came away with a botch - an extension to 31st October unless she gets an agreement in Parliament before then. What happens if there is still no agreement by the new deadline, God knows.

For a once great nation, the UK is being humiliated almost daily. Rather than leading her government and country, Theresa May has been led by the nose by members of her cabinet who are vehemently opposed to Brexit and has found herself a supplicant at the high table of European machinations. From the very outset of her premiership, she has been weak and vacillating while claiming to be "strong and stable". By calling an election when she didn't need to, she weakened her government's position dramatically; by failing to enact Article 50 for some 9 months after the referendum, she began the process of procrastination designed to weaken the resolve of Brexiteers. By failing to negotiate effectively with the EU she ended up accepting a withdrawal agreement that is fundamentally flawed. By failing to be the "strong and stable" leader which she claimed to be, she allowed her government to fracture in all directions to a point at which she now has no control over any of its members. By allowing the fracturing of her government she tacitly allowed the fracturing of her party and handed control of Brexit over to the strongly anti-Brexit House of Commons. Finally, and worst of all, these assorted failings led to her failure to achieve the government's primary objective of leaving the European Union on 29th March 2019.

March 29th became 12th April, then 22nd May and now it is 31st October. The referendum was held on 23rd June 2016 and the people voted to leave the EU; nearly 3½ years later we are highly likely to still be in this damnable institution or, at least, so closely tied to it as to make no difference. Mrs May has shown herself utterly incapable of leading this country or the process of Brexit; surely she must see that and now resign, or is she really so thick skinned and obstinate that she believes she alone follows the path of righteousness ? 

She has deserted her party and the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU and has, instead, entered into discussions with the ultra left wing Labour Party, itself led by Marxist / Leninist lunatics who are still fighting the battles of the 1920s and 1930s. Corbyn, McDonnell and the rest have only one aim and that is to gain power. They care not a jot about the European Union, only about their own ambitions and they will do anything to achieve them. In attempting to have serious negotiations with Corbyn et al, Mrs May and her mismatched band of goons are on a fool's errand; Corbyn's only interest is to destabilise and frustrate in the hope of bringing about a general election which he hopes he might win. 

What those in Brussels and throughout Europe really think about all this can only be imagined. Whether they hope that Brexit will eventually be cancelled or just want the whole bloody thing over and done with as soon as possible, surely they all must wonder how a once mighty nation that ruled a third of the world has sunk so low as to be begging for time to allow its parliamentarians to make a decision, a decision that has already been made and communicated quite adequately by its people.

I've never thought it before but, today, I'm ashamed and embarrassed to be British.

EU TO CONTROL TIME AND SPEED

As the UK government and parliament degenerate into total chaos and the prospect of any meaningful exit from the European Union fades into the distance, the control freaks of that Union have been busy dreaming up yet more ways to micromanage the lives of its citizens.

Within the last couple of days, while Speaker Bercow has been doing his best to destroy democracy in the UK, the loons in Brussels have voted to require every member state to follow ne rules about their time-zone arrangements; in short, the practice of moving clocks forward in spring and back again in autumn will be outlawed and all will have to choose which clock setting they prefer, and stick to it for ever and a day. Someone in the UK hierarchy has apparently said that we will continue to move our clocks twice a year "once we've left the EU", but what will happen if, and quite possibly when, our anti-democratic parliamentarians prevent that from happening ?

Secondly, another little wheeze that was voted through yesterday would see all cars sold in the EU after (I think) 2022 fitted with cameras that would magically read roadside speed limit signs and automatically ensure that they are complied with. One can only wonder how this will actually be achieved, at what cost, with what chaos and to what real end. The roadside infrastructure would have to be standardised, with all across Europe having the same design, the same height and positioning; the huge amounts of overgrown hedges and trees that abound in the UK, and no doubt elsewhere, would all have to be cut back and properly maintained - fat chance ! What would happen on roads which currently have no signs ? How would cars fitted with the new devices be integrated with older models which are free to speed as they like ? What about the simple fact that the UK uses MPH, while most of the rest of Europe uses KPH ? It's a potential nightmare idea, dreamt up by liberal-left politicians who are certain that they know what's best for the rest of us poor plebs. Presumably, this is a precursor to eventual satellite tracking of all vehicles, another nightmare scenario. 

(Oh, it seems I'm behind the curve. UK government representatives have already said that we will be lumbered, whether we leave the EU or not, and GPS tracking is part of the package - more lunacy as BIG BROTHER controls more and more of our lives.)

I find it amazing that while the EU cannot see its way to a technological solution to the supposed Irish border issue, it can come up with a technological means of controlling every motorist throughout almost the whole of its continent. I find it unbelievable that they should see a need to interfere in the lives of people by insisting on rules about time and clocks. Have these faceless bureaucratic busybodies nothing better to do with their own time ?

With every passing day, I grow more convinced that the UK must get away from this insane organization. Sadly, our masters in Westminster remain wedded to what they perceive as the security of a European super-state, ignoring the fact that it is, in reality, a moribund, insular, protectionist, controlling and interfering anachronism. Thank heaven that I'm much nearer the end of life than the beginning. 

BREXIT ON A KNIFE EDGE.

Theresa May must surely be one of the least competent Prime Ministers this country has ever had. In being so, she joins a sadly lengthy list of others who have risen to the top but ultimately proved to be incapable of doing the job. Is this not a perfect, if appalling, example of the Peter Principle in operation ?

Even over the last 70 years, the UK has suffered under the leadership of incompetents too many times - Theresa May joins Anthony Eden, Alec Douglas-Home, James Callaghan and Gordon Brown in being a Prime Minister who quite clearly is not up to the job. None of the others lasted very long in office and we can but hope that Mrs May is gone in the very near future as well.

Mrs May's return from Brussels a few months ago, figuratively waving her agreement at us, brought back thoughts of Neville Chamberlain's return from Munich. Chamberlain, yet another in that panoply of incompetents was a man completely out of his depth and utterly unable to comprehend the realities of life in 1930s Europe. Mrs May does not understand, and neither do many of her Parliamentary colleagues, the realities of life in 21st century Britain. 

The people voted to leave the EU. They did not vote for any 'kind' of Brexit, they voted for Brexit, full stop. They understood that leaving the EU meant leaving the customs' union and the single market, something which was made very clear by both sides in the argument at the time. They voted in the expectation that the government would act accordingly, not with an expectation that there would be years of political chicanery followed by delays and even calls for another referendum, dressed up as a 'peoples' vote' by some in order to avoid use of the 'r' word.

Now that Mrs May has written to EU representatives asking for Brexit to be delayed she has finally broken the solemn word given to the British people in 2016 and reiterated many times over the last 3 years. She is not fit to be our prime Minister and the government that she leads has failed in its duty to the people. At the same time, the opposition parties have done no better, using Brexit as a tool for their own political ends, and have equally ignored the referendum result.

Neither another referendum nor a general election will resolve this problem. Mrs May must go; the government, under a new Prime Minister, must carry through the commitment given to the British people in 2016 and ever since, deal or no deal. Members of Parliament, who have already voted in favour of leaving the EU on 29th March and enshrined that decision in law, must now comply with that law. 

Otherwise, democracy is dead and one wonders who will bother voting for anything in the future.

STURGEON, CABLE AND CORBYN - AN UNHOLY TRINITY.

Now that the Christmas break is over, politicians have been getting back into the swing, reiterating the same tired old policies they've been promoting for what seems like ages.

From Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon witters on about keeping that part of the United Kingdom "at the heart of Europe" whatever the outcome of the Brexit process. Err, excuse me Ms Sturgeon, but when the UK leaves the EU, Scotland is part of the deal and there will be no separate treaty between Scotland and the European Union. Scotland will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the UK, that is, OUT of the European Union. Sturgeon also seems to think Scotland has an immigration policy that is separate from that of the rest of the UK - it doesn't. As usual, Ms Sturgeon has talked a load of old twaddle aimed specifically at her likeminded, independence-motivated supporters.

For the Liberal Democrats, septuagenarian waffler Vince Cable (remember him ?) reiterated his pet policy of stopping Brexit through the mechanism of a second referendum. Cable is, of course, one of those who really doesn't like the idea of Brexit at all believing that remaining under the control of the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels is far better than abiding by the wishes of the British electorate. While his party may style itself the 'Liberal Democrats', Cable is neither liberal nor a democrat when it comes to Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, though exactly he got the job is something that's still a bit of a mystery, has trotted out his usual platitudinous tripe. The system is wrong, the Conservatives have made a mess of things, Britain's got talent, millions are struggling, many receive low wages, the old are being neglected and so on. Corbyn's solution to all of this is that Labour will fix it through a "radical alternative"; Labour will "stand up to the wealthy few so that the wealth …. is shared fairly". They will "work to create a society where the talent of everyone is unleashed" and they will "rebuild and transform our country". Wow ! What high minded ideas, but without the slightest hint of how all this will be achieved. Anyone who remembers the Labour governments of the 1960s and 1970s will be well aware that a Corbyn-led government would result in grotesque rates of tax, rapidly rising prices and interest rates, a return to the days of union power, strikes and company failures and a general collapse in our economy. High ideals - maybe; realism - definitely not.

At the time of writing, Theresa May has yet to tell us of her thoughts about the next 12 months but one can imagine that it'll be the same tired old drivel from her too. Can no one rid us of these turbulent, egotistical, self-serving politicians ?

FANATICAL RANT FROM EUROPHILE PATTEN.

Having given Chuka Umunna the opportunity to make his pitch for the UK remaining in the EU, an aim to be achieved by any available means on this morning's 'Andrew Marr Show, another arch-Europhile was allowed to vent his spleen on Radio 4's 'The World This Weekend'. Interviewed by Mark Mardell, Chris Patten launched into those who want to see Brexit achieved, referring to them as 'Maoists' and 'fanatics'

Patten has always been on the left of the Conservative Party, one who would have been termed 'a Wet' in bygone days. He's also spent considerable time with his snout in the EU's trough and is an ardent Europhile, but his angry rant on today's news programme was extraordinary. He seemed quite oblivious to the fact that he was demonstrating a degree of fanaticism far in advance of anything shown by even the most strident of those whom he opposes.

As a new entry to the list of ways to prevent Brexit from even happening, Patten's latest proposal is for Prime Minister May to call on her predecessors for advice. Presumably, the Europhile leanings of David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major would be expected to turn May to the right path, that is, to find a way of keeping the UK in the EU. One wonders whether Patten would have made the same suggestion if Margaret Thatcher had still been with us.

Verbally abusing those to whom you object is never a very good strategy and it's usually a sign of desperation. Added to Patten's pretty insane idea of bringing past Prime Ministers, people with no official position, into the centre of the debate, desperation seems to be the name of the game. 

HOW MANY REFERENDUMS SHOULD WE HAVE ?

Listening just now to the rather supercilious Chuka Umunna arguing for a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, I'm driven to the conclusion that arch-Remainers such as him will use any and every spurious argument in pursuit of their objective. 

Umunna is very clear that he wants the UK to reverse its decision and remain within the EU. He is a firm supporter of calls for a second referendum, part of his reasoning being that there are many people who will be affected by the decision to leave who haven't had a chance to have their say, principally referring to those who were too young to be able to cast a vote in the 2016 referendum. For a supposedly highly intelligent man, Umunna appears to have a particularly blind spot when it comes to seeing the basic illogic of this position.

When the UK voted to stay in the forerunner of the EU, the Common Market, in 1975, there were just as many young people who were denied a vote and whose views were not taken into account. No one suggested that there should be another referendum a few years later in order to rectify this 'problem'. Indeed, had there been a second referendum at that time, surely logic would then have demanded that there should have been a third, fourth and fifth referendum, followed by an infinite series, so as to ensure that the views of those who were not even twinkles in their grandparents' eyes in 1975 were ultimately taken into account; after all, there will always be a new batch of 'young people' who should be allowed to 'have their say'. The UK could have done the 'Hokey-Cokey', joining, leaving, joining, and leaving, for ever and a day as the results of a never ending stream of referendums see-sawed.

Umunna's approach simply doesn't hold water. A referendum is a one-off way of determining the views of the populace at a point in time for the purposes of finding a path to follow. It is not a mechanism for allowing Parliament to avoid its responsibilities, nor to try to get an answer which the elite likes. Having held a referendum in 2016, our representatives were given a clear direction - the people of the United Kingdom had had enough of the European Union and wanted to leave. That should be the end of the matter.

Arguments about 'types' of Brexit, the vote not being fair as young people didn't have a say, the people who did vote not having 'all of the information' and the rest of the Remainers' armoury of nonsensical drivel are irrelevant and the sooner the likes of Chuka Umunna accept it, the better.

Leave means Leave.

MAY TOILS AND BLAIR STIRS.

Teresa May's latest pleas to the leaders of the European Union appear to have fallen on stony ground. Indeed, the likes of the high and mighty Jean Claude Juncker have simply refused to come down from their ivory tower, or is it climb out of their concrete bunker ?

While May toils away in Brussel in what seems a fruitless attempt to gain any meaningful concessions from the most pig headed bunch of bureaucrats to exist since Europe's leaders sent millions of men to their deaths in the trenches of World War One, arch egotist and Europhile Tony Blair has been hitting the airwaves.

Not a man to fail to promote his own image and importance at any and every opportunity, Blair has surfaced this morning to reiterate his calls for a second referendum although, in typical Blair fashion, he doesn't call it a referendum; he uses every word or phrase other than referendum. Unlike most, if not all past Prime Ministers, Blair refuses to fade into the background but instead has spent the last decade or so trotting around the world as some sort of Messiah, offering to resolve problems and deliver words of wisdom. Heaven alone knows what he was paid to sort out the difficulties of the Middle East when he was the representative for the so-called Quartet in that area, but his total lack of achievements speak for themselves. Blair is a man long on words and his own brand of wisdom but very short on achievement. Anyone who wants proof need only look at the end product of his tenure as Prime Minister, which was never ending conflict and near bankruptcy.

As an arch-Europhile, Blair held hopes of becoming the first President of a United States of Europe, a hope that was dashed by the UK's unexpected vote to leave the EU. Having had his ambition so bitterly interrupted, Blair turned his attention to trying to convince people of the error of their ways and has enthusiastically championed the cause of Remain ever since. By hook or by crook, Blair will somehow get that top European job, or so he still hopes.

How anyone can take this man seriously is a mystery. A rich, now super-rich, supposed socialist from a privileged background, Blair led a government that was so profligate that, when a crisis occurred, there was nothing left in the coffers with which to fight it; the result was the printing of vast quantities of paper money which had no assets to support it, and a consequent depression of economic growth for year after year. Even now, we are suffering from the effects of Blair's years in office. Additionally, Blair, who now talks about the lies and untruths told by Brexiteers, lied through his teeth about the situation in Iraq and misled Parliament and the nation over his determination to go to war with that country in support of his pal, another arch-egotist, George W Bush.

  

Blair is a man who puts his own interests and what he sees as his place in history far above any other considerations, That he is so ardent when it comes to the UK remaining in the European Union should serve as a warning to all of us. If Blair wants us in, the best place to be has to be OUT.

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. 

PROJECT FEAR REARS ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN.

And here we go again !

Today, both the UK Treasury and Bank of England have produced some new figures and predictions about the potential effects of Brexit. SURPRISE, SURPRISE ! Both august bodies have said that the UK will suffer potentially severe economic consequences from Brexit OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS !

When, if ever, has either the Treasury or Bank of England got forecasts for the next couple of years right, let alone over a period of 15 years. Before the referendum of 2016 both organisations made dire predictions should the population be stupid enough to vote to leave the European Union - the pound would collapse, the stock market would tumble, house prices would crash, inflation and interest rates would soar, etc. etc. Which of these was proved right ? NONE !

Now, the Bank is repeating its warnings of 2 years ago - why should they be any more right today than they were in 2016 ? In arriving at their predictions, both the Bank and the Treasury have made various assumptions but how can they possibly make any valid assumptions about the world 15 years from now ? How, indeed, can they make any valid assumptions about the world 3 or 4 years from now ?

With political uncertainty rife across Europe and in the US, with China increasingly challenging the economic domination of the West and Russia ploughing its own furrow of militaristic posturing, we cannot, with any certainty, even know what the world will be like in 2019, let alone in 2034. The one thing that is very clear is that 'Project Fear' remains in full swing and that the people of the UK are being readied for either another referendum or a general election, which those of the liberal elite who run things expect to result in a reversal of the decision taken in 2016. 

Don't let the men, and women, in grey suits who appear to be so knowledgeable and certain, fool you. They have one aim in mind and they will do and say anything to achieve it. They want the UK to be a good little servile nation, do as it's told and decide to stay in the EU. 

Don't let it happen.

CRUNCH TIME FOR BREXIT FAST APPROACHING

The anti-democracy movement really is getting into full swing.

Over the weekend, we've had stories of a gaggle of 'business leaders' signing a petition demanding a second Brexit referendum quickly followed by a similar story about a bunch of lawyers. Thrown in for good measure has been copious coverage of the totally unsubstantiated allegations being made against arch-Brexiteer Aaron Banks who was forced to endure the BBC's version of an impartial interview on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday. The jolly old Beeb has, inevitably, made much of these anti-Brexit issues, quite regardless of matters of relevance or fact; in their eyes it seems that anything anti-Brexit is news to be shouted from the roof tops.

The latest seems to be a suggestion that Theresa May has cobbled together some sort of proposal for ensuring a Brexit deal by offering to keep the whole United Kingdom inside of the EU's customs' union, a move which would lead to the most limited form of independence for the UK after Brexit - BRINO, or 'Brexit in name only'. Can she really be serious, or is this just more media tripe ? Surely there are far too many in her own party who would baulk at such an outcome and her chances of securing a deal on this basis must be remote, so what next ?

In Ireland, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, a man who seems to hate the UK with a vengeance, and his deputy Simon Coveney have both been making noises about the border issue and general relations between the UK and the Republic. In truth, this is no more than hot air and wind, though the rhetoric is being ramped up. Comments about threats to the Good Friday Agreement and, by implication, the relatively peaceful atmosphere that has existed for the last 20 years or so are a clear indication the Republic will use every weapon at its disposal in order to further its ultimate aim of reunifying the island of Ireland.

Something must give within days if there is to be a Brexit deal. The question is "will anyone do the giving and, if so, who will it be ?"

REMAINERS CARRY ON THE FIGHT.

There always are people who are more than happy to join in a demonstration about almost anything. It's an opportunity for a day out with lots of chanting and flag, or banner, waving for whatever the cause is. In truth, the cause is rarely the real reason for the demonstration, it's just an excuse.

Today, in London, it's reported that anything up to 500,000 people joined in a demonstration against Brexit. Apparently, these people all want there to be a second referendum, ostensibly to allow the electorate a say about whatever deal is, or is not, agreed between the United Kingdom and European Union; in fact, those who actually care simply want an opportunity to reverse the result of the referendum held in 2016 and which their side lost. They are anti-democrats of the type so beloved of the bureaucrats of the European Union.

In 2016, 17.4 million people voted for the UK to leave the EU. Today, 0.5 million demonstrated their opposition to the democratic result of a democratic vote, their leaders citing a raft of spurious reasons why a second referendum should be held, why it wouldn't actually be a referendum but a 'people's vote' and why such a vote wouldn't simply be an undemocratic rejection of a wholly democratic original process.

Had the 'remain' side won in 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron would have praised the sense of the electorate and charged on regardless, immersing the UK ever deeper in the mire that is the EU. The very notion of there being a second vote, whatever it might be called, would have been laughed out of court and the views of those, however many, who had voted to leave the EU would have been trampled underfoot. Had Cameron got the result he wanted, and expected, the voice of Brexit would have been silenced forever. So why is it so different now that 'Leave' won ?

Simply, the establishment didn't get its own way. The people didn't do what they were expected to do, told to do, even frightened into doing. Instead, they took the opportunity to have their voices heard and gave the establishment a good hard kick in its complacent, supercilious backside. Unfortunately, the establishment had no intention of letting this minor setback upset its longer term plans, and so it's kept up a campaign to get the result reversed, one way or another. A second referendum, delaying tactics, 'impossible' problems to resolve, any and every obstacle has been put in the way of a successful Brexit and, today, it was a demonstration in London backed by an assortment of dedicated Europhiles. 

However, in the end it's the balance of numbers which must win. 17.4 million voted to leave the EU, 0.5 million may have demonstrated to stay in. Seems pretty clear to me.

STURGEON SHOULD BE IN THE TOWER !

Nicola Sturgeon really is an annoying little troll. The grandly titled Scottish 'First Minister' is so fanatical about the notion of independence for her territory that she bangs on about it at every opportunity.

With the SNP's annual conference getting underway, Sturgeon has appeared on both radio and television telling us, again and again, that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and that her mob would back a second referendum on the subject. She also appears to be hell bent on using Brexit as a springboard for holding another referendum on Scottish independence as soon as possible, notwithstanding that the referendum in 2014 was trumpeted as being a "once in a generation opportunity". Of course, as with the EU referendum, those who got the 'wrong' result, that is the result they didn't want, are now dead set on holding another one in an attempt to get the 'right' result.

Sturgeon insists on behaving as though Scotland is an independent entity, rather than being part of the United Kingdom; the UK is a sovereign nation, Scotland is not. The UK has a seat at the United Nations, Scotland does not; neither, for that matter, do Wales, London, Cornwall or any other constituent part of the UK. The United Kingdom held a referendum and the decision of the majority was to leave the European Union; it matters not one jot that this area or that county had a majority in the opposite direction. When Scotland held its independence referendum in 2014, was there interminable chatter about which areas voted to stay in the UK against which wanted independence ? Indeed, was there a clamour from the people of Glasgow, Dundee, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire demanding that, as they'd voted for independence, they should now be allowed to go their own way ? Of course not.

Sturgeon's notion of democracy is whatever she wants it to be at any particular time. Rather than accept the will of the people of her country, the United Kingdom, Sturgeon wants to break up that union for her own antiquated concept of sovereignty which, by the way, then leads to her taking her newly independent Scotland back into the European Union, a move which would result in far less autonomy than Scotland now enjoys under the United Kingdom. Enforced use of the Euro as its currency and total control of its finances by the EU, with only a very small voice in the Union's debating chambers. Given the current fuss being made about the Irish border, the little matter of the border that would then be created between Scotland and England, and the sea crossing from Stranraer to Larne and Belfast, would keep the EU's negotiators scratching their heads for decades. Clearly, Hadrian's Wall would have to be restored, and there'd be a floating border in the North Channel - wonderful.

Rather than supporting her Prime Minister through difficult negotiations with European bureaucrats, Sturgeon plays the part of a termagant, doing her best to stir up trouble and to use the situation against her own country and for her own narrow political objectives.  

People should see her for the troublemaking political opportunist - dare I say traitor ? - that she really is.