WHY IS THE WEST SO ARROGANT ?

Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.

There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of  execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .

Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.

More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.

That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist  minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ?  While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.

To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?

The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'. 

Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.

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.

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. 

POLITICS IS BACK AND SO IS THE GRIPING.

With the summer break over, our prancing politicians are at it again.

Over the last few days, Boris Johnson has hit the news with his views and claims about the benefits of Brexit, widely seen by some as preparation for a leadership bid, and Michael Gove has, again, not supported him. Amber Rudd has appeared on television and actually performed quite well in an interview with Andrew Marr, though Marr is not exactly a Rottweiler when it comes to interviews. Theresa May is off to Canada to discuss possible post-Brexit trade arrangements and her guard dog, Damian Green, has been providing a degree of support for her in the media.

At the same time, those grizzled old Europhiles, Paddy Ashdown (remember him ?) and Vince Cable, have also been hawking around their latest ideas for stopping Brexit in its tracks. It seems the new scheme is to have a second referendum which would allow the people to 'get it right' by voting for an "Exit to Brexit". Of course, neither of these two old pseudo-Liberals will admit that this is simply a way of rejecting the original democratic vote of the electorate but dress it up as some sort of addition to the democratic process by letting us decide 'once all the facts are known'.

It really is just the same old tripe rehashed. The people voted in 2016 and the answer was unequivocal. Do we re-run General election results just because some don't like the outcome or the outcome is close ? No.

When the Welsh voted to have their own Parliamentary Assembly by a few thousand votes, did we say they needed to have another vote because the first was so close  and the people might have made a mistake ? No.

So why should we have a second referendum about leaving the European Union ? The people made their choice last year and that should be that. Politicians of all persuasions, if they believe at all in democracy, should now rally behind the Government and do their level best to ensure that the United Kingdom and the European Union go their separate ways, preferably amicably but if not, so be it. Let's just get on with getting out.