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.

EIGHTY SIX DAYS TO BREXIT.

Summer is here and politicians around the western world have gone on their holidays, regardless of the supposedly major issues that confront them. That said, President Trump has still found time to upset the world's financial markets with an escalation of his trade war with China, and Prime Minister Johnson is working hard on what seems to be more of an election campaign than preparations for Brexit. 

Although things have gone a bit quiet, Brexit remains a key issue and those want to prevent it are continuing to make occasional forays into the media with their forecasts of gloom and doom. Prime Minister Johnson appears to be set on sticking to his deadline of 31st October although the Brexit Party has been telling its members that he is less than determined about this; their line is that Johnson is backsliding at a rate of knots and that Brexit at the end of October is far from certain. With less than 3 months to go, we'll find out the truth soon enough.

European politicians are continuing to insist that the deal on the table is the only one possible and it's reported that the European Union has all but accepted that the UK will leave without an agreed deal. However, it's also been suggested that the Irish Prime Minister may be starting to get a little concerned about the effects of a 'no deal' Brexit on his economy and could be beginning to consider alternatives for resolving the Irish border problem. Given that it is this one issue which is at the heart of the UK's dispute with the EU, providing a resolution would be a major step forward.

Where will it all end ? Will the UK leave the moribund straitjacket of the European Union on 31st October or will Parliament and the naysayers find a way to prevent it ? Are we heading for a very early general election and the prospect that Johnson will soon be an ex-Prime Minister ? Will there be a second referendum ? Will we soon have a Marxist government in power, headed by the Corbyn-McDonnell double act ? 

The referendum was held one thousand, one hundred and thirty nine days ago; since then politicians, and others, have hummed and ha'ed, far too many spending their time on looking for ways of frustrating the referendum result rather than ways of putting it into action. Now, in just another eighty six days, all should come to a conclusion.

Or will it ?

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. 

BREXIT NOW IN THE LAP OF THE GODS !

Judging by the furore, Mrs May's Brexit deal is going to have a tough time getting through Parliament.

Although it was approved at a meeting of the lengthy Cabinet yesterday, the deal cobbled together between Mrs May's lieutenants and representatives of the European Union seems to be on very shaky ground. It's clear that some members of the Cabinet, perhaps as many as 9 or 10, were very unhappy and that the agreement was 'collective' rather than unanimous or even enthusiastic. Arlene Foster of the Democratic Unionists has indicated that her party is unlikely to find the deal acceptable, the Scottish Nationalists have always been clear that they will vote against anything that's put forward and the Labour Party is also plainly opposed for its own political reasons as well as anything else. Given that a significant number of Conservatives, both Brexiteers and Remainers, have indicated that they are likely to vote against the proposals, the chances of the Prime Minister's plan being approved by Parliament seem to be vanishingly small.

That said, politics is a pretty strange game and anything is still possible. The DUP may be cajoled into supporting the plan in order to avoid the spectre of a general election and a Jeremy Corbyn-led government; the Conservative opponents likewise, and there are still a few on the Labour benches who have independent minds and may well vote with Mrs May, also as much to avoid Corbyn gaining power as being in favour of Conservative proposals. All of this also ignores the possibility that any one of the remaining 27 member states of the European Union could decide to reject the deal when it's put to them at a meeting on 25th November.

Where will it all end ? 

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. 

IRELAND CANNOT PULL THE UK'S STRINGS.

Theresa May has said that any 'backstop' agreement for the whole UK, or even just Northern Ireland, to stay within the European Union's customs' union beyond the 29th March 2019 must be time limited. Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists, who support Mrs May's government, have made it clear that they will not accept any Brexit deal which leaves either Northern Ireland inside the EU's customs' union or in any way separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. Simon Coveney, deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, has said that his government cannot accept the imposition of any time limit on the so-called 'backstop agreement'.

Clearly, the positions of the UK and Irish governments are diametrically opposed, while the position of the Democratic Unionists simply seeks to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Irish government sees Brexit, and particularly the ill-advised agreement on a 'backstop' that was arrived at last year, as an opportunity to advance its ambition of annexing Northern Ireland and will do everything in its power to frustrate all proposals for resolving the border issue in any other way.

Enough is enough. Ireland is a piddling little country which relies heavily on the UK for its economic wellbeing. That the UK's government should be required to satisfy its wholly unrealistic demands and political ambitions is ridiculous. That the European Union as a whole is happy to allow this situation to persist shows just how it will use anything it can find in its efforts to frustrate Brexit. 

The European Union is an abominable organisation, hell bent on turning itself into a socialist European 'super state'. It ignores all opposition and every reality in its pursuit of this goal and is an almost perfect parody of Oscar Wilde's description of fox hunting - "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". As the populations of various nations become ever more disenchanted with the EU - Italy and  Hungary leading the way - its principal adherents, Germany and France, become ever more belligerent in their attitudes to dissent. 

Having been founded as a means of avoiding further conflict in Europe, the EU has now become a club for unelected bureaucrats who happily plough their own furrow, regardless of the opposition that is growing amongst the common people. They take vast salaries and perks of all sorts while the people starve; they impose all manner of rules and regulations regardless of the impacts. They steal hundreds of billions of euros, pounds and whatever else they can lay their hands on, every year to spend on pet schemes with little or no real financial accountability. In truth, no one really knows where all the money goes.

That the UK joined this rabble in the first place was a mistake. That it allowed itself to be dragged along with developments such as the transmogrification from Common Market to European Union, the introduction of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism, and the Maastricht, Lisbon and assorted other treaties, defies belief. The difficulties now being thrown up in the face of Brexit show just how convoluted and tentacular are the ramifications of membership of this spider's web of bureaucracy.

Theresa May made a monumental error when she agreed to the lunacy of the 'Irish backstop' at the end of 2017 and the EU leaders must have heartily congratulated themselves on their success in getting her to agree to it. It was always intended to be an impossible sticking point to overcome and so it has proved. The only answer is for the United Kingdom to walk away and leave it for the European Union to see sense.

LORD KING : A VOICE OF COMMON SENSE AND REASON.

While the current Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, seems to be doing everything he can to thwart Brexit, a former Governor, Mervyn King, appears to sing from a different hymn sheet.

In contrast to his successor, Lord King supports Brexit, although he does not support the way in which Theresa May's government has approached the matter. In fact, he considers the approach to have been incompetent in the extreme. However, he does not reserve his criticism for the government alone and has not directed his remarks at one side of the argument only; he has lambasted both the 'Leave' and 'Remain' camps.

Lord King finds it incomprehensible that the government had not made a possible 'no-deal' scenario a cornerstone of its approach from the beginning and says that to not do so has undermined its whole negotiating strategy. He says that it "beggared belief" that the world's sixth largest economy should now be talking about stockpiling food and medicines in the event that there is no deal.

That the 27 countries of the European Union seem to have been united in their negotiating stance while the 1 country of the United Kingdom has been unable to agree on an approach has also caused Lord King serious concern. He finds the current level of debate depressing, with both sides of the argument doing little more than throw insults at each other while ignoring the real issues which affect the nation. In Lord King's view, Brexit is almost the least of our worries; he cites a failure to save for retirement and pensions, social care and the NHS as being of much greater significance, but these matters have been side-lined by an all-consuming row about Brexit.

Because of the lack of a united front or a proper negotiating strategy, Lord King believes that the UK will end up with 'Brexit in name only, a situation in which we leave the EU but remain wholly subservient to it; this he describes, quite rightly in my view, as the worst of all world. He also feels that such an outcome would lead to many more years of debate and conflict as the 2 opposing camps of Remainers and Brexiteers continue to row amongst themselves.

Lord King's remarks are equally critical of all concerned in this mess. It's a bit of a shame that he's not still the Governor of the Bank of England as, if he was, perhaps things would have been different.

"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.

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 ?

MORE EU BLUSTER.

As the European Union forged a supposed 'agreement' on the vexed matter of migration, one of its leading figures, Donald Tusk, set about telling the UK that quick progress was now needed on a number of issues if a Brexit deal was to be agreed by October. What a hoot !

The 'agreement' on migration is nothing other than a vaguely worded fudge which has led to sharp disagreements between the various national leaders within hours of it being announced. However, and for reasons which are only too clear, a similarly fudged agreement regarding Brexit seems to be impossible. As has been the case all along, the EU simply keeps demanding that the UK produce answers to all of the bones of contention for fear of dire consequences if we don't.

Mr Tusk, who is President of the European Council (whatever that is) believes that the most difficult issues remain unresolved and wants the UK representatives to "lay their cards on the table" very quickly in order that a deal can be done. He makes no mention of the need for the EU to do anything similar, even though negotiation is usually a 2-way process. As far as the EU is concerned, it's for the UK to make all of the proposals and for the EU to simply tell us that the ideas are no good, the aim being to end up with such a watered down version of Brexit that we might as well stay in the dreadful organisation.

Well Mr Tusk, perhaps you've forgotten the phrase "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". You may go on about issues such as the puffed up 'Irish Border' problem but the UK actually has the whip hand, if only we would use it. In the absence of an agreement, it is the EU which will suffer a huge potential loss through reduced trade and it will lose some £39bn of cash which it's expecting. The EU would be so diminished that it would crumble, whatever its arrogant bureaucrats might say. 

It is time for the EU to make some realistic proposals of its own, rather than sitting back in the smug conviction that the UK will ultimately see the error of its ways and agree to accept whatever the EU wants. Tusk, Barnier, Juncker and all the rest of these buffoons need to beware; the people of the UK can bite.

EUROPE ISN'T THE ONLY MARKET PLACE.

As the Brexit negotiations chug along to their inevitable conclusion - yet another fudge - it occurs to me that our 'friends' in Europe ought to think long and hard before pushing the British people too far.

I drive a German car, in fact my last 2 cars have been German. I also drink French wine and have done so, by the bucket-load, for decades. My kitchen contains olive oil, the produce, so it says on the label, of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. No doubt there are many other European products which I also consume in one way or another, just as do millions of other Britons. At the same time, my television is of Japanese origin, my laptop probably made in China. Many of my clothes and household linens convey the message that they were made in India, Bangladesh, China, Malaysia and heaven knows where else. 

My conclusion from this is that there are many places from which to buy goods which are not in the European Union. If the Bureaucrats in Brussels continue to obstruct Brexit at every turn my next car certainly won't be German, nor French nor of any other European origin; I hear that Japan, China, Malaysia, the USA and more all make perfectly good models. My French wine will be replaced with similar and sometimes superior products from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, the USA and others. Olive oil isn't essential and there are plenty of alternatives that will do. My fruit and veg will come from elsewhere than in Europe and my clothes already do. 

On balance, I reckon the EU will be the poorer for mistreating me and serve them bloody well right !

WHEN WILL REMAINERS EVER SHUT UP ?

Once again, the abominable Vince Cable has raised the spectre of another referendum on the little matter of the UK's relationship with the European Union. Of course, Cable doesn't call it a referendum but simply a vote, which is a fine example of the deceitful way in which he and his like try to corrupt our language.

Today, there is to be a march in London by anti-Brexiteers who still refuse to accept the result of the 2016 referendum. On television this morning, Cable asserted that polls were showing a definite movement away from Brexit - he did not give any details. In fact, his interview on 'Breakfast' was the usual jumble of highly selective 'facts' and distortions of the truth. Cable is one of those who will do anything, say anything, in order to achieve his aim of keeping the UK inside of the appalling dictatorial bureaucracy that is the European Union.

When I voted to leave the EU, I did so knowing that the process of withdrawal was likely to be tortuous though ultimately highly beneficial. I did not expect the EU to be happy or helpful and, in fact, I expected that its leaders would carry on as if nothing had happened, anticipating the usual solution in such situations, that is, that there would quickly be another referendum which would overturn the result of the first. That this has not happened must have been hard to take and it meant that the EU was in new territory. It's response has been to lay the responsibility for suggesting the mechanisms to be put in place after Brexit on the UK, the EU simply sitting back and acting like General de Gaulle in the 1960s; de Gaulle was the French President who famously said "Non !" in answer to the UK's initial attempts to be admitted to the then named Common Market. Today, it is Michel Barnier and his pals who are saying "Non !" to whatever the UK's negotiators put forward.

Airbus and BMW have both been in the news in recent days complaining about the lack of clarity of the economic position after Brexit but both appear to have aimed their remarks at the UK's government. Why are they not also complaining to the EU's leaders about their unwillingness to be positive and constructive ? Needless to say, both companies are perfectly comfortable in the protected environment of the European Union and neither wants to see their current rather cosy situation upset by any criticism of the EU's leadership. Equally needless to say, Vince Cable and his supporters have leapt upon the statements from Airbus , BMW and others and added them to the 'Project Fear' cauldron, having carefully and selectively edited the contents first.

To be campaigning for a further referendum on the final terms of Brexit is dishonest. Brexit means Brexit. It does not mean staying in the customs' union or single market. It does not mean accepting freedom of movement nor rulings of the European Parliament, Court of Justice or any of the myriad of other European bureaucratic institutions. The electorate did not vote with any such provisions in mind, it voted for leaving the entire European Union. Those who now tell us that we were, in fact, too stupid or ill-informed, or simply did not understand what we were voting for, to have cast meaningful votes are following an utterly anti-democratic line. The referendum was promoted as a once in a lifetime opportunity and the people took it; it was always clear that the result would be final and that there would not be any further referendums on the issue. 

Cable and his ilk lost the argument. It is now time for them to accept this and shut up.

BREXIT : IRISH BORDER NOW THE ISSUE.

There have been conflicting reports today regarding the latest Brexit negotiations but one thing is clear. The Irish government is hell bent on using Brexit for its own ends.

At one point it was reported that the UK and EU had reached an agreement over the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It was said that the UK had agreed to some sort of arrangement whereby Northern Ireland would be more closely tied to the EU than the rest of the United Kingdom, allowing for the retention of the current very loose border between north and south. However, it soon became apparent that either this story was wishful thinking by those on the EU / Eire side or that it was true but completely unacceptable to many on the other side. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been a degree of backtracking.

Arlene Foster, leader of the  DUP, has made it clear that no such arrangement would be acceptable to them while representatives of the administrations in Scotland, Wales and even London, have asked that if Northern Ireland can have a special relationship with the EU, why can't they ? Some Conservative 'Remainers' have also been upset by this proposal, fearing that it could, indeed, lead to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Conversely, the government of the Irish Republic was all in favour but is no disappointed that the proposal has struck the rocks; from their point of view, nothing could better suit their aim of establishing a united Ireland than to create a rift between the North and the rest of the UK.

That this issue has been given the importance which it has is nonsensical. The UK government has made it very clear that it does not want  a so-called 'hard border' and yet it is the UK which is being held up as the 'bad boy' in this argument. It is actually the EU which is causing the difficulty by demanding that there is a 'soft border' across which all of its rules and regulations must also apply. It's crazy.

Theresa May seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the demands of the bureaucrats of Brussels and it's time that she stopped. Tell them, in clear terms, that the UK will not impose a 'hard border' but that  Northern Ireland will continue to operate as a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom, whether the EU likes it or not. If they don't like it, they're at liberty to institute whatever border controls they like or they can just accept things as they are.

Come on Theresa, show some steel and stand up for your country.

UK COUGHS UP FOR EU DIVORCE.

It's being reported today, with a degree of fanfare from some and fury from others, that the UK government has 'agreed' its bill for leaving the EU. A sum in the region of £45bn has been suggested and it's said that this has been the subject of communications between the UK and EU over the last few days.

Given that the UK and EU have yet to agree the details of their relationship after the UK has left the bloc, I find it difficult to understand how the size of any 'divorce bill' can be agreed. Yes, the UK undoubtedly has commitments relating to agreements it entered into whilst a member of this profligate club and these should be honoured, but how can any other costs be assessed at this stage in the negotiations ?

The EU has a 7 year budget cycle and its members agree the basic principles for each cycle before agreeing individual budgets for each of the years concerned. Thus, the current budget cycle, to which the UK agreed and for which the UK is committed, runs from 2014 to 2020. Allowing that the UK will be leaving the EU in March 2019, this means that we have a basic commitment to continue to make payments up to and including the 2020 budget year. As the UK's net annual contribution is around £10bn, a 'divorce bill' of about £18bn to cover that period might be a reasonable starting point, and this was the initial suggestion made by UK negotiators; anything more than that figure is all about perceptions and negotiations.

The EU expects the UK to pay for future costs which have already been initiated, such as for the pensions of EU employees, an amount which is not exactly easy to calculate; additionally, it wants payment for other long term costs which are equally nebulous. It now seems that these largely unquantifiable costs have been assessed at around £25bn, bringing the UK's bill up to its latest estimate.

Inevitably this won't be the end of things. There is continuing discussion about the nature of the UK's relationship post-Brexit and we will undoubtedly finish up paying for membership of an assortment of EU organisations as well as being expected to contribute to whatever trading arrangements are eventually arrived at. Nonetheless, things are progressing, it seems. 

BREXIT : PEOPLE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND, SAYS BLAIR.

The arrogance and egotism of Tony Blair truly knows no bounds.

The man who deceived parliament and the country over Iraq's mythical 'weapons of mass destruction', and then led the country into the catastrophic financial collapse of 2008, now intends trying to convince us all to change our minds over leaving the European Union.

Blair believes that he knows better than the rest of us and that those who voted to leave the corrupt and profligate EU simply didn't understand what they were doing. Basically, he says that we were too stupid to make the right choice.

Since being elbowed out of office by his 'colleague', Gordon Brown, Blair has used his status as a former Prime Minister to amass a serious fortune. He still has ambitions to achieve other high political office and was strongly linked to a position as some sort of President of Europe; clearly, he still has such hopes but has to keep the UK within the EU if they are to be realised.

Blair is a desperate man. He is thrashing around trying to find something which will ensure that history remembers him as a political giant rather than as a failed man of straw. Frankly, his attempted return to the political frontline in this way proves his failure. He failed in the UK, he failed in the Middles East and in his European ambitions. He is a failure and his latest attempts to lead us down a path of his choosing should be rejected with vigour.

ARTICLE 50 : WHAT NEXT ?

On 23rd June the British electorate voted to leave the European Union. This vote was despite the avalanche of frightening stories that came from politicians, bankers, businessmen and others, all telling us that a vote to leave would result in immediate and catastrophic economic collapse.

Admittedly there were claims from some of those who wanted to leave that were also rather dubious, but they, at least, had tales of hope and forecasts of a brighter future. They were positive about the prospects for the United Kingdom freed from the stifling bureaucracy of the European Union, while those who wanted us to stay in could only try to frighten us with claims of the horrors that would be unleashed should we dare to leave.

Leaving the European Union begins with the 'triggering' of Article 50, part of the Union's constitution which sets out how a member country can leave. Following the triggering, the Article allows for 2 years of detailed negotiation before final separation can be achieved and this period can even be extended if all parties agree. To my mind, the vote of the British people on 23rd June was a clear statement to Government that Article 50 should be triggered; after all, Government and Parliament are there to do the Will of the People, are they not ?

Not, it now seems. The likes of Ken Clarke see themselves as somehow better than the rest of us and much prefer to dictate rather than represent.

Yesterday's High Court ruling has given fresh wind to the sails of those who want us to remain in the Union, giving MPs and Peers the chance to refuse to allow the triggering of Article 50. Some such as Ken Clarke and Owen Smith, have said that they will vote against triggering the Article, come what may. Others, such as Nick Clegg, have said that they will only agree to its triggering if there are certain highly restrictive provisos written into the Government's negotiating stance, in effect, making any meaningful negotiation impossible. Quite simply, these MPs, supposedly representatives of the people, propose to reject the clear view of the people as expressed on 23rd June, in favour of their own. It appears that many in the unelected House of Lords are of a similar mind.

Amid all of this, Theresa May has apparently told the EU's leaders that her timetable for triggering Article 50 remains unchanged, something which both France and Germany are rather keen on. Both have elections next year and neither wants the water to be muddied by continuing uncertainty over 'Brexit'. Nonetheless, the reality has to be that, unless the Supreme Court overrules the High Court when it considers the matter in December, the likelihood is that we are going to have to endure weeks, and even months or years, of renewed campaigning over this issue.

The Government may be able to push a brief measure through Parliament fairly quickly, though that is far from certain; something more comprehensive is unlikely to be viewed favourably unless it has all manner of provisos included, such as a guarantee that we will remain within the Free Market and that freedom of movement will be largely unchanged. If they have to consider resorting to primary legislation, that could take years and effectively stop us from ever leaving.

Given this mess, Theresa May could well find herself having to attempt to call a General Election, though even this could be a messy affair. Because of the 'Fixed Term Parliament' Act, she would need to gain a large majority of the House of Commons or lose a vote of confidence in order to be able to ask for a dissolution. Many 'Remainers' may baulk at either possibility and many Labour Members may be terrified of what an early election might do to their representation in the House. In other words, Mrs May may be unable to get either a sufficient majority or to lose a confidence vote due to the simple cussedness of some MPs. What would happen then is anyone's guess.

We are undoubtedly in for a turbulent time in the next few months. Had the vote been in favour of 'Remain' we would have had none of this, but the 'Remoaners' have far too many vested interests of their own to ever give up and listen to the 'little people'. They are the establishment which has done so much to destroy our society and economy over decades and, as the 'establishment' they control much of the power in the land. It's time for the little people to rise up and give them a bloody nose.

DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP ?

In the Western World, we have what we like to term 'Democracy' and some countries have moved to what can almost be called 'ultimate democracy', with a variety of proportional representation voting systems. We deride all other forms of Government.

At least in the UK we have yet to accept proportional representation for our principal parliament and still have a 'first past the post' system which allows for the election of a relatively strong government most of the time. Nonetheless, many major issues still take months and even years to decide. The recent never-ending debates about the expansion of airport capacity in the South East of the country, the construction of the HS2 rail link, the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point and so on, all demonstrate the difficulty which democratic governments have when it comes to making major decisions. The problem is that they have far too many interests to satisfy - their party members, their MPs, their voters, big business, foreign investors, special interest groups and, above all, their own desire to perpetuate their position at the top of the 'power tree'.

In countries which have embraced proportional representation, these problems are magnified. Administrations have to be constructed from several different political groups and the resulting governments are compelled to accept the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to their policy making, as nothing else can be agreed by the range of interests which share power. Consequently, the western nations are rapidly losing the ability to make quick and strong decisions on matters which are considered 'sensitive'. Possibly the ultimate exhibition of this failure is in the European Union and its utter inability to deal with the consequences of the vast influx of migrants in recent years

In contrast to democracies, dictatorships have no such problems. The Dictator simply needs to satisfy his principal supporters, often the country's military forces, and he or she can then do pretty much whatever they like. If the people don't like it, tough; they don't have a vote so what does it matter ? Some countries which do have voting, such as Russia or Zimbabwe, have systems effectively rigged in such a way as to ensure the desired outcome and that power remains vested in the hands of one leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a dictator. Regardless of the shortcomings of their political systems, such countries are able to make the rapid and forceful decisions denied to democracies.

It has been suggested that the British system is, in effect, an 'elective dictatorship' with power vested in a small number of individuals. While there may be some truth in this, at times when the government has only a small parliamentary majority, it certainly is not; such governments are even more 'in hock' to their coterie of backers than usual. Government is prevented from doing anything to which a sufficient number of its adherents object and this is the problem faced today by Theresa May's administration.

With a majority of only around dozen or so, dissident voices on her own back benches can effectively scupper any measures which they don't like. The re-introduction of grammar schools is one case in point and the issues surrounding the UK's separation from the European Union is another. It is quite clear that the likes of Ken Clarke have every intention of making life extremely difficult for the new Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to the matter of 'Brexit'. They will do everything in their power to prevent the UK from ever really leaving the EU by using every delaying tactic available and voting down anything but the most innocuous of measures.

Mrs May does have one card to play, that of calling a general election, though she could even have difficulty in doing this. She could try to amend the '5 Year Parliament Act' but might find herself defeated by a coalition of opposition parties and her own dissident MPs who would fear that a larger majority would make it easier for her to push forward with what they call a 'hard Brexit'. Such a defeat could be followed by a 'confidence' vote in the government but, this time, opposition and dissidents could ally themselves to keep the government in power, albeit by its slender and vulnerable majority. Conservative MPs would hardly vote against their own party and Labour Members are only too well aware of the danger of going to the polls at this time; it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mrs May is, therefore, between the proverbial 'rock and hard place'. She can be prevented from doing what the people want purely because of the system of democracy, parties, patronage and vested interests. Now, if we had a dictatorship .......................................................... .

SO WHAT DOES 'BREXIT' MEAN ?

Those moaning minnies who really don't want to accept the result of last June's referendum keep looking for anything that might put a spoke in the wheel of 'Brexit'. Anything and everything is being used including Nicola Sturgeon's barely veiled threats about a second independence referendum for Scotland, challenges in the courts and daily nit-picking in Parliament. One of the 'big questions' beloved of these 'Remoaners' relates to the precise nature of what 'Brexit' means, as if it can mean different things.

Frankly, this is straightforward bollocks. 'Brexit' can only mean one thing and that is that the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union; the obvious implication of this is that the UK's position vis-a-vis the EU should be restored to what it was prior to its accession in 1973, amended only by any effective international agreements in the interim period which relate to the UK and other current EU countries as individual and independent countries, and not as members of the EU.

The issues being raised daily by the 'Remoaners' are not relevant to 'Brexit' at all. Questions such as potential limits on migration between the UK and EU, the status of EU citizens currently resident in the UK and of UK citizens currently resident in the EU, access to the 'Single Market' and many others all relate to the nature of the relationship which will exist between the UK and EU after the UK has left the Union. None of these are matters which affect the fact of 'Brexit' itself, although the unreconstructed 'Remainers' are only too happy to muddy the waters by constantly referring to them as if they are actually key to whether or not 'Brexit' can even happen. Their barely hidden agenda, whatever they may say, is that unless the UK Government can leave the EU while effectively staying in, they will do everything in their power to stymie the 'Will of the People'.

Of course the Government will negotiate for the best possible relationship between an independent UK and the EU, but negotiation is a 2-way process and relies on goodwill and common sense from both parties. It also relies on keeping one's cards close to one's chest and not publicising one's negotiating position in advance, as the 'Remoaners' would love to see happen. The likes of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband (remember them ?), Ken Clarke and others should shut up and let the Government get on with things. There'll be plenty of opportunity for debate later.

WE STILL NEED UKIP.

The forces of fear and protectionism are gathering again.

Those same individuals, organisations, businesses and 'think tanks' that told us all that voting to leave the European Union would result in immediate and uncontrollable catastrophe are regrouping. Faced with the unthinkable, that is, a UK withdrawal from the EU, the Europhiles are beginning to mount a new campaign of terror designed to encourage voters to 'think again'; we're being told that prices will rise, industries will collapse, millions will lose their jobs, the NHS will crumble and so on.

Old fashioned Europhiles like the Liberal democrats (remember them ?) and Kenneth Clarke simply insist that they were right and the rest of us have got it wrong; they want various opportunities to be created for them to be able to vote down whatever the Government tries to implement in pursuit of the 'Will of the People'. They're calling for assorted votes in Parliament before, during and after the exit negotiations in order, so they say, to hold the Government to account or to ensure that the terms are right, or whatever else occurs to them as a slogan to use.

In truth, this is nothing other than the political and business elites trying to reverse the result of June's referendum. Anyone who thought that those who are wedded to the EU would give up the fight never was likely to be proven correct; the big guns will continue to fire their salvos of frightening scenarios and stories until the UK has actually left the Union and, even then, some will start arguing for us to re-join.

Theresa May and her Government, despite its obvious internal divisions, must hold its line and steer us out of the EU as rapidly as possible. They must ignore all the scaremongering and get on with it. Things will never be anything like as bad as the doom-mongers want us to fear, in fact, they'll probably end up far better than even the most optimistic of optimists can conceive. 

What we really need is for Ukip to pull itself together and finish the job it's started.

EU CRUNCH TIME FOR CAMERON.

Oh dear, oh dear. The poor old European Union is huffing and puffing and making out that agreeing to new arrangements for the UK is a huge problem. As we get closer to the supposed 'crunch meeting', key players are letting it be known that the negotiations are hard, agreement may or may not be possible, there are 'sticking points' and so on. The truth is very different.

Of course there'll be agreement, mainly because there's very little that can't be agreed. Cameron's 'demands' are virtually meaningless and will make almost no difference to anything. The EU will continue on its merry way as before and all of the fuss that's been made over the last year or so will be forgotten. Migration into the UK will continue; paying benefits to migrants will continue as will having to provide them with all of the social facilities enjoyed by long term residents, such as free access to the NHS and assorted local authority services. The UK will continue to be beset by vast volumes of rules and regulations issuing from the faceless bureaucracy that will continue to shuttle back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg, not forgetting the vast costs incurred by simply having the various EU bodies of parliament, council, commission and God knows what else.

The European Union is a huge conglomeration of nations which serves no one but itself. It is inherently socialist, protectionist and inward looking. It is like an old-fashioned 'closed shop' trade union, with its leadership hell bent on maintaining power and status at all costs; no one can 'enjoy' its privileges unless they're members and no one can be members unless they sign up to its ways. Leave, and you forfeit all rights. This is a doomed organisation, utterly unfit for a world in which communications and trade are global; while it may have been a good idea, once, its day has passed.

Cameron will return from his latest round of talking just like Neville Chamberlain did in 1938. He will have at least a metaphorical piece of paper to wave at onlookers and will claim that he has achieved a wonderful result, and that all is now well. He will say that we can now vote to stay in this organisation without fear but that to leave it would be both foolish and highly dangerous.

POPPYCOCK.

Vote to leave. Get out. Open up the UK to business and opportunities with the rest of the world without all of the baggage of the EU around our necks. Di it now. Do it in June. Do it as soon as possible. Just DO IT !