Is Populist Democracy an erosion of Democratic Values

Democracy is a given in the Western World – or is it? There is so much debate in recent times about democratic rights of various factions my head is spinning trying to comprehend how this word is being used – or abused.

If we go back to the fundamental meaning of democracy, we need to consider nation States where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture based on democratic principles. If we consider the characteristics that should define a democracy, we will see freely elected government representation, respect of civil liberties, an independent judiciary, organised and elected opposition, all enshrined within the Rule of Law.

Being a member of Chatham House I was invited to participate in a session entitled ‘The Pandemic, Populism and the Democratic Recession’ during which Professor Larry Diamond from Stanford University in the USA outlined his argument that, especially during the past 20-years, democracy as we understand it is on the decline as Nation States throughout the World labelled as democracies remove ever more powers from and/or impose more authority over the people, currently Hungary and Poland within the EU. Whereas I fundamentally disagreed with his understanding of both the UK and the EU, both politically and economically, his view that democracy is in recession resonated. I also agreed that the rise of Modern Populism is a major factor in degraded political governance. But what is driving this degradation?

As a Christmas treat in 2004 I took my then 14-year old daughter to Boston and New York City in an attempt to give her some feel for life in the USA using the more sedate and conservative Boston as a marker against the cut and thrust of New York City. Whilst in New York we passed the CBS Building more commonly known as Black Rock. In the window there was a large screen stating, ‘United States of America – the oldest surviving democracy in the World’. This statement, for me, encapsulates the problems encountered by Americans throughout the World. I question whether the USA can consider itself a democracy when I see President Trump with connivance of the Republican led Senate impose their choice of person in the form of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Judge for life. This can only be described as political stuffing of the Judiciary where such body is defined as independent within a democracy. Furthermore the turbulence over recent years where the whole Government apparatus becomes stagnant because the Senate and House of Representatives cannot agree a budget suggests the Political System in the USA is in need of structural reform to redefine and enhance democracy to better serve all the people before preaching their form of democracy to others. During my teenage years, segregation was still rife in the USA, and recent events stirring the Black Lives Matter upheaval suggests problems still exist.

Having close ties with Switzerland since the late 1970s I recall earlier this millennium being asked by a former Federal Counsellor of Switzerland to review their speech to an upcoming gathering of EU ministers considering the further integration into the EU of the former satellite states of the former USSR. There was a section in this speech lauding democracy, declaring Switzerland as a glowing example of a stable democracy. I could not help but point out that, in Switzerland, the Executive has total control over the judiciary with several recent occasions where the Federal Council has overridden judicial review to protect their own interests. I consider Switzerland as a Police State where people are declared guilty until they prove themselves innocent – hardly democratic. And they clearly have difficulties trying to govern in four different languages and associated cultures.

Countries such as Russia and China are accepted as undemocratic. We have witnessed both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping engineer their longevity in leadership amending constitutional rules as needed to secure their positions. Opposition is summarily dismissed even using horrendous methods such as Novichok agent with apparent impunity. China’s reversal of democracy in Hongkong with its latest dictum that MPs in Hongkong must be patriotic to Beijing if they want to serve demonstrates blatant disregard for the democratic freedoms afforded the people of Hongkong under the hand-over Treaty with the UK.

The recent elections in Belarus demonstrate that power corrupts leaving most of the former socialist States, even those classified as democratic, revealing the flaws in their leadership determined to retain authoritarian power by any means as the people become more aware of the rights they should enjoy as citizens. And, of course, we should not ignore the corrupt Governments in Africa whose leaders will use any level of guile and oppression to retain their corrupt power.

The citizens of the World are becoming more aware of the concept of democracy and seek to exert their rights within the accepted democratic framework. Authoritarian leaders who cannot easily apply direct oppression are seeking other means to retain their power. Knowing that many people have very little if any understanding of politics or economics they use Modern Populism as a powerful aphrodisiac. Knowing the affection of the people for pop artists and movie stars authoritarian leaders personify themselves as superstars worthy of the embrace of the people. Such charismatic leaders manipulate receptive voters by promising outrageous utopia whilst vilifying opponents using the ever-increasing wealth gap to decry the corruption and self-interest cronyism of the elite. Unfortunately, this works for enough voters to swing elections from capable Government into governments in name only. The star-struck voters get what they deserve, only realising their error when it is too late for 4 – 5 years, or as we are witnessing in countries such as China and Russia, for life of the leader holding the power. Constitutions are revised to cement the power base; democracy becoming no more than a word of convenient political rhetoric. This herald back to kingdoms where the leader has absolute power for life – no matter what.

The recent Brexit debacle in the UK sheds interesting light into this discussion. After the first Brexit Referendum the so-called Remainers – the voters who wanted the UK to remain part of the EU – made many outrageous claims that the Brexiteers were duped by Populism, being too uneducated to understand the issues. This view carried into Parliament where MPs from constituencies who clearly voted to leave the EU chose to ignore their local constituency vote instead voting to stifle the process. It took two further elections and the loss of a number of seasoned politicians and some younger opportunistic politicians to give Boris Johnson a mandate to leave the EU but many Remainers still argue that voters were casting their vote to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from leading a Government, not to leave the EU. Thus, we have a perplexing problem of voters not considered capable of casting a reasoned vote thus voting a Populist ticket, and the losers not accepting the outcome yielding a breakdown in credibility of the democratic system.

An alternate way of reading the last General Election in the UK is that Boris Johnson saw the opportunity to use the voters to disguise the Brexit issue within the Jeremy Corbyn ultra-left-wing Modern Populism and rely on the voters to see reason that the outrageous promises to the voters by a Jeremy Corbyn led Government would condemn the UK to the Dark Ages again. The results tend to suggest even in the more depressed, typically Labour stronghold constituencies of the UK the voters were savvy enough to know what they didn’t want both in Corbyn and the EU.  

One of the long-held complaints with the EU is the unelected but powerful European Commission. How can the EU declare itself founded upon democratic principles? The agenda of the EU is clear to ever more of its citizens. The UK has responded. Who’s next?

The current Presidential election in the USA could be described as Modern Populism versus Pragmatism but look how close the popular vote. If we apply the argument that many voters are not capable of understanding the debate one would expect the vote to be more pronounced in favour of Populism or Pragmatism. I don’t envy President elect Joe Biden who must repair such a polarised nation not least because of no clear Republican or Democrat majority in either House likely creating stagnation in policy agenda. And the losing voters will consider themselves robbed of victory especially if led by Donald Trump when his legal challenges fail.

Why is democracy failing when so many oppressed people in the World crave the liberty and freedoms it promises? I grew up in the aftermath of WWII where people relied on resourcefulness and resilience to survive and thrive. Communities worked together to rebuild their lives. Life was not idyllic, far from it, but an attitude was instilled that essentially meant that if you wanted to achieve you are responsible to make it happen. This attitude accelerated during what I call the Youth Revolution – the period between the 1966 World Cup and the landing of Neil Armstrong on the moon in 1969. Resilience and resourcefulness built in prior years now could be expressed in ways which changed the UK from an essentially conservative Government to a more liberal approach. Much wealth creation during this period across the spectrum of voters – class boundaries fracturing. People felt liberated and empowered to determine their own destiny in the World and demanded a more liberal framework by Governments.

This empowerment led to the people looking to exert their rights to whatever they could get for their votes building a now overburdened welfare state where an attitude of entitlement overshadows the need for resourcefulness among the poorer sectors. For example, could a political party now get elected on a ticket of much needed scale back and structural reform of the NHS to reflect need over want? Resourcefulness has morphed into indoctrinated entitlement. Resilience has morphed into insecurity with a new lexicon of mental disorders amongst younger people. Instead of the resilience to cope, people crumble. Having observed the depressing inability of people to cope with Covid-19 lockdown goodness knows what would happen if the lights went out for any length of time. Today there are still many families who have members who survived some 6 years of WWII in the shadow of bombing raids, losing loved ones, coping with rationing, and extreme workload to support the war effort. Has what I would term as Modern Socialist Populism created a complacency that quietly forgets the price paid for the freedoms they enjoy? Thank goodness for the emergence of heroes like Capt. Tom whose positive resilience injected a much-needed dose of reflection and goodwill.

However, we digress. Or have we? Creating unaffordable expectations among the masses in the pursuit of votes is destined towards a reality check. Corporate taxation at uneconomic levels, and personal taxes at levels significantly affecting quality of life are a formula for disillusionment, recrimination and ill-will towards the Government. Modern Populism hits the buffers. The Government coffers are empty. The people are disillusioned with Liberal Democracy and must pay for their sins with a period of Conservatism to rebuild the economy and reset voter expectations.

Is there not a note of déjà vu in this progression? I remember in the 1970s living under a widespread social engineering period by Labour Governments to support its popularity essentially bankrupting the country in the process requiring some 18 years of Conservative resets to prosperity. Then in 1997 Tony Blair and Gordon Brown emerged with New Labour on a Populist ticket spending a further 10-years of cradle-to-grave social entitlement engineering finally leaving the Government coffers empty in 2007 and so many young people disillusioned with their new but worthless university degrees and massive student debt. Another reset to Conservatism, austerity, and realism. The banking crisis did not help but the coffers were empty in any event. And, just as prosperity and the freedom from the EU were set to propel the UK into a new period of accelerated growth, we are hit with Covid-19. Should China have the moral fortitude to inject $2-3Trillion into the global economy to compensate for its failure to contain this virus we will most certainly see the UK thrive and prosper post-Covid-19 before the next General Election thus thwarting the Populists who will certainly make hay if recovery is still slow. In the event that China fails to stimulate the global markets but seeks to exploit the global economic weakness resulting from Covid-19 I would expect the West to reinvigorate the Marshall Plan along with a healthy dislocation from China from where three serious viruses have emerged in the past twenty years.

So what is different today? Before social media and the degradation of conventional press reporting to satisfy 24-hour news channels using their own brand of sensationalism to compete with online social media, voters could only derive information from a limited number of outlets. Social media has completely changed the dissemination of information; good, bad, or downright false or misleading. Unscrupulous entities from individuals, organisations, and even foreign powers can, in minutes, pollute social media platforms with lies, misrepresentation and complete fabrication intended to sway receptive victims to a desired outcome. I overheard a journalist from a broadsheet newspaper declare that the demand on her for articles each day meant that she had no time to fully research and validate her stories. But who, today, reads the second page corrections if indeed any are printed?

An analysis of which degradation came first would take another essay. But what is clear is we have a collision of culture and belief where national boundaries are blurred by new global organised activism built on conspiracy theories. We experience truth decay where facts no longer matter, and people lie with impunity, some merely to seek their 15-minutes of fame, but others with a more cynical intent. We observe more authoritarian countries attempt to curb access to social media. We also observe Western countries trying to marshal content but with little effect to date. One observation of this proliferation of false or il-considered content is the need of people to feel involved in this new-found freedom of expression which requires instant gratification regardless of consideration lest they be left behind. How many celebrities take the view that they need to be connected until the vitriol received causes them to retreat?

Thus, Populists and their cohorts can exploit the lack of any integrity in published works on any platform. If voters are not happy with what is, they can easily be swayed to the promised land. How such interference in democracy can be regulated will be debated relentlessly with little or no consensus throughout the World. Democracy could well become as toothless as the UN.

I put it to my readers that the degradation of integrity in politics has created a mistrust of democracy. This is a breakdown of social cohesion that amplifies by clever manipulators through social media platforms creating false impression, disenchantment, and social discourse. History repeats itself regarding the few people needed to stoke people into war with insane losses before sanity prevails. Does democracy need to follow the same cyclic course before people understand its values and limitations. It was Winston Churchill who remarked that democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others. Is it time to revisit the pillars of democracy, ensure that they are relevant, fully understood and implemented, and then guarded against abuse?

Covid-19 and Airnergy+ Active Oxygen

Covid-19 is presenting challenges to healthcare, the most significant of which is the supply of ventilators to help people for whom coronavirus has attacked their lungs making it difficult for them to breath. We now hear that Imperial College, London are working with Mercedes Formula1 racing in Northampton to produce a device that can attach to a source of medical oxygen and deliver the required oxygen through a facemask. But Mercedes Forumula1 can only produce 1,000 units per day and you still need 1,000 hospital beds with an oxygen supply, and the care staff.

But there is an established German technology, only known to the astute few in the UK, but widely used throughout Europe by the like of elite sports people and Formula1 racing drivers that can extract this valuable active oxygen, the life support system of every major organ in the body, from the air we breath and without the need to be attached to it for more than one hour each day if Covid-19 positive. For general preventative maintenance no more than 2-sessions of 20-minutes per day. Which means a family can use one device in the comfort of their own home without any medical supervision.

As you would expect the medical grade version of this technology is not cheap, but significantly cheaper than the alternatives. And it is easy to use. So, what is the science that makes this so valuable at this time?

All cellular metabolic processes in the human body are dependent on oxygen. As every child knows no human being can live for more than a few minutes without oxygen before taking another breath – or dying. Life begins with our first breath and ends with our last. But, as was found with the space program in the 1960s, pure oxygen can make you sick. The Americans used pure oxygen for the atmosphere within space vehicles which made astronauts sick after just a few days whereas the Russians secretly realised that they needed to emulate an atmosphere corresponding to the ideal atmosphere on earth. So, what is the difference?

We do not breathe air, we breath atmosphere which consists of air and at least one variable, the water content – the very essence of life. This water content is measured as relative humidity and temperature. The combination of these two variables determines how comfortable we feel but, more importantly, how healthy we feel.

Water defies all universal laws of physics on earth, but there is no life without it. Years of research, and no less than 3 Nobel prizes has taught us that the water in the air we breath is fundamental to our well-being. However, mankind has noted that the more industrialised we become, the more pollution in the air we breathe, the more respiratory illnesses. As the elementary presence of water in the atmosphere becomes contaminated the mucous membranes in the nose dry out slowly losing their natural filtering function allowing fine dust, pollen, viruses and bacteria to penetrate our bodies. As a result, the bronchi clog, reducing their capacity to cough fine dust. The lack of elemental water in the air we breath and the fine dust invading our lungs, the alveoli, whose natural purpose is gas exchange, lose their membrane function. Gas exchange in the lungs decreases, vital oxygen required by all organs of the body is not transferred to the blood, and CO2 is not adequately disposed. The dysfunctional oxygen transportation via our lungs into the blood results in illness and ageing, and the primary responsibility for this is the lack of elemental water in the air we breathe and the indispensable catalyst in the alveoli.

The respiratory epithelium is a layer of specialised epithelial cells that line most of the respiratory tract but is not required for gas exchange but for cleansing the respiratory tract and is dependent upon the water content of the respiratory air. Gas exchange occurs in the alveoli. So, the function of our lungs drives our well-being but is not solely reliant upon oxygen, but also upon the water in the air we breathe with its energetic qualities.

This energised water is created in nature by turbulence in water such as streams and rivers and by infrared radiation of the sun in connection with chlorophyll, the green pigment of leaves and plants in nature. Scientists have proven the existence of a special form of water molecule in the atmosphere under natural conditions which plays a dominant role as energy sources in all known biological processes including the driving force behind gas exchange in the lungs. This energy source is called Active Oxygen.

Today technology can convert the low-energy, polluted ambient atmosphere in which most of us live into clean, high-energy breathing air that will re-energise our lungs and provide the natural organs of our body with the Active Oxygen they need to function well. One such patented technology is Airnergy+ and which has been used now for some years, primarily in elite sports, and is referred to as Spirovital Therapy. I found the need for this technology after recent heart surgery where an over-zealous surgeon tightly sutured so much of my soft tissue that my left lung was barely functional for some 7-months. Amongst the numerous resulting health issues, I noticed my eyesight had significantly deteriorated so, in December 2019, went for my annual eye test. My regular optometrist was shocked at the deterioration, especially the presence of intermediate macular degeneration. I went to Moorfields Eye Hospital in London only to be told there was no known treatment (in the UK) for AMD. As a former scientist, I scanned the world looking for answers. I came across much work on Active Oxygen, including the Nobel prizes for the detection of this special Active Oxygen in our atmosphere and its fundament relevance to human well-being. I quickly realised that I had suffered oxygen starvation throughout my body because of the significant reduction in my lung capacity. I eventually managed to tear the scar tissue to rid me of this impediment but needed to turbocharge the Active Oxygen in my blood to see if I could reverse any of the damage.

I was surprised to find that the eyes are the most significant user of Active Oxygen of any organ in the body. Optometrists now tell me that they have long suspected that degradation of eyesight, and especially macular degeneration (AMD), has something to do with oxygen supply in the blood. After much research of clinical trials over some years I opted to try the medical grade Airnergy+ Pro Plus which at some £4,600 is no mean investment for a retired individual (lesser active models available). After just five weeks of two session of 20 minutes per day I went to a specialist optometrist in Harley Street, armed with the data from Moorfields Eye Hospital and my pre-surgery eye test, to be told that my sight had almost restored to pre-surgery levels. Her word was ‘remarkable’ and wanted to know more.

Unfortunately, that trip into London exposed me to Covid-19. I increased my use of Airnergy+ to 3 x 20 minutes per day preventing coronavirus any ability to attach itself to my lungs. Eight days later and 5kg lighter I am now through Covid-19. I encouraged a very special medical friend in Switzerland who suffers from asthma to try this therapy to protect him. After just two weeks his asthma, and general well-being has significantly improved. The evidence of the efficacy of this technology is clear and should be deployed in the fight against Covid-19 as a relatively cheap and most certainly effective protection.

Airnergy+ info at:

UK: www.biolifesolutions.co.uk

Other: www.airnergy.com

Should you use the Airnergy equipment I would be really interested in your feedback why you used it and the impact you feel attributed to this technology.

Corbynism -Attack on the Wealthy

Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell have announced their brave new world of far-left socialism. What will be the impact of trying to tax the rich and business to engage in unaffordable social engineering and to destroy the UK economy? Let us illustrate this in terms that Labour supporters should understand. It’s a sobering message.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the Corbyn expects to collect our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest; out of work, zero hours, etc) would pay nothing
  • The fifth (labourer) would pay £1
  • The sixth (skilled worker) would pay £3
  • The seventh (professional) would pay £7
  • The eighth (management) would pay £12
  • The ninth (executive) would pay £18
  • And the tenth man (richest) would pay £59

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a dilemma. “Since minimum wage, corporate and income taxes have been increased” he said, “I have to increase the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost £120.

They realised that £20 divided by five is £4 but if added to everybody’s share then not only would the first five men be drinking for free, but the sixth man would have his contribution increased by 133%!

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men – the paying customers? The fifth member was employed by a small business which could not cope with the increases so was made redundant thus joined the first four and paid nothing. How could the remaining five divide the £20 increase so that everyone would pay his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to increase each man’s bill according to the principle of the new tax system and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

The result was that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

  • The sixth man now paid £4 instead of £3 (a 33% rise)
  • The seventh man now paid £9 instead of £7 (a 28% rise)
  • The eighth man now paid £15 instead of £12 (a 25% rise)
  • The ninth man now paid £22 instead of £18 (a 22% rise)
  • And the tenth man now paid £70 instead of £59 (a 16% rise)

Each of the last five was worse off than before with the first five now drinking for free.

But, once outside the bar, the paying men began to compare their rises.

“I paid 33% extra; double the tenth man,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “his share was much less than mine!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he only pay 16% when I paid 28%? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first five men in unison, “we can’t get a job because of this new system. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up demanding a greater contribution from him.

The following week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Corbyn/McDonnell tax system will work. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally consider their position. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, and take their business with them. This happened in the late 1970s when higher rate tax rates were 83%. Didn’t work then; won’t work now.

Lest we forget when Labour lost the General Election to the Conservatives in 2010. Liam Bryne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor stating, ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ This has been the case with every Labour Government since the war.

Any political promises more than 5 years away are pure fantasy because they exceed the term of a Government and thus why spades of such promises are put out there to woo the gullible. As for free broadband (re-nationalise BT with 5G driving future internet access??  – whoops), there is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the air you breath leaves you exposed to pay taxes. Anything for free will be abused, as we see in the NHS. Someone has to pay at the end of the day.

There is also an assumption by Corbyn/McDonnell that the financial community will agree to fund an additional £55 billion p.a. for 10 years – not likely, not least because much of this funding is not directly linked to increased productivity. A more likely consequence of a Corbyn Government would be a downgrade in the UK credit rating which would increase the cost of any available borrowing thus negating the McDonnell argument that borrowing will be cheap. The more modest extra £20 billion p.a. for 5 years spending pledged by the Conservatives will raise eyebrows in the financial markets; even with a majority Conservative Government.

It is only possible to spend if you have a strong underlying economy. Without the rich, and wealthy businesses to provide jobs and generate profits upon which the Government depends to accumulate tax revenues, there is no money to spend.

Is the NHS using BREXIT to hide its own Social Engineering in the limiting of drugs to save costs?

We are currently facing a constant barrage by the NHS through the media regarding the supply of drugs. But for those already experiencing the scarcity of prescription drugs they know that this has been occurring for some time. I have experienced the lack of supply of a particular brand of Omeprazole for some months now. My partner has also experienced the lack of supply of her HRT drugs and, indeed the supply issue is likely to get worse – but not because of BREXIT in any type of exit deal or no deal.

Any self-respecting biochemist will tell you that all drugs with the same name, but different manufacturer, are not the same as small differences in the manufacture process can lead to significant differences in the way the body metabolises the drug. And I’m not suggesting that generics are worse than the original. What matters is that a patient finds the version of a drug which best suits them. Thus, when I found myself needing Omeprazole as a result of the impact on my stomach of an over-prescription of analgesics a few years back, I tested the available versions to see which left me with the least aftereffects. When I changed surgery there was an attempt to wean me onto a generic form which I already knew had uncomfortable aftereffects, but I resisted and stayed with my preferred brand.

Some months ago, when in need of further supply, I was told that there were manufacturing difficulties and thus my brand was in short supply. This situation persists to this day. However, in April this year I underwent heart surgery in a private hospital in London. They wanted to ensure that my gastric acid was kept under control so put me on Omeprazole – the same brand I preferred. I asked the pharmacist if she was aware of any supply difficulties – none.

My partner is on HRT and was told that her preferred version was again experiencing supply difficulties. She has travelled far and wide around pharmacies to fill her prescription with modest success. It was suggested to her that she should come off HRT because of the increased possibility of cancer, using antidepressants as an alternative should the need arise. The NHS have stormed the media with fear propaganda for the past few months to deflect people away from HRT. But why?

My partner is Swiss, and still consults with her gynaecologist in Zurich, who happens to be the top gynaecologist in Switzerland. He provides her prescriptions. She consulted with him regarding the shortage of these drugs. No such shortage; and sent her a supply arriving a few days later.

Coincidence, or social engineering by the NHS purely on a cost basis. Whereas I agree there is a liberal wastage of drugs in the UK, not least in hospitals whose banal pharmacy procedures must waste considerable sums of money every day issuing drugs before need is established. I was in hospital a few years back where I witnessed the wastage of some £3,600 of drugs prescribed for me over just 8 days because of ridiculous pharmacy process.

So what has this lack of supply got to do with BREXIT – NOTHING. It is social engineering in an attempt to curb NHS costs.

Should we bear the Responsibility for our Ancestors?

Two seemingly unconnected news stories last week found their one minute of airing amongst the sensational reporting from the G7 Summit, the continuing saga of the EU vs BREXIT, and the burning of the Brazilian rain forest. Although my readers would probably expect me to comment on the suspension of Parliament, I think these two stories have a chilling connectivity worthy of debate.

One story was the admission from the University of Glasgow that it took contributions in the form of gifts and behests towards the construction its Gilmorehill Campus between 1866 and 1880; probably derived from the slave trade. Although these announced reparations of £20 million are not being distributed to individual descendants of slaves it sets a disturbing precedent.

The second story relates to the significant rise in white supremacy/nationalism throughout the Western World in the past two years. These people have moved from the shadows of internet activity to violence on the streets including mass shootings. And their numbers are growing at an alarming rate.

There are now so many ethnic and religious lobby groups trying to rekindle the past in a blame game euphemistically aimed at some moral admission of wrongdoing, but with the ultimate intent on financial reparations for events that occurred generations ago. I take the view that I am not responsible for anything my father did without my involvement or consent, and I do not expect my children to be held responsible for anything I do without their support or consent. Therefore, why are we tolerating lobby groups looking for reparations on activities that occurred so many generations ago that it is only recently that online genealogy allows us to remotely track such ancestry? When do these people realise that nasty activities such as slavery have existed since the dawn of mankind, and still exist today in various parts of the world. The great historic monuments of the past relied on slaves to construct them. We can take a social view today that slavery should be eradicated, but we cannot go back in time and legislate for the past.

I’ve debated with someone from the Indian subcontinent about the need for the British to pay considerable reparations for activities throughout the 18th and 18th centuries – the days of the British Empire. I suggested that India thrives today on both the constitutional Government and the railway system left by the British. Without the extensive rail network built in the time of British occupation India would suffer the transport problems that we see in countries today such as Brazil. China is building a massive rail network because it needs it to thrive. What would happen in India if our Health and Safety Regulations were applied throughout the Indian rail network? The country and its economy would come to a standstill. Very often it’s mentioned that Cuba sits in a 1920’s time warp but India also lives in such a time warp, but the quality of the British engineering still prevails, as in Portugal.

As for contributions to the University of Glasgow what about contributions from the tobacco and sugar trade? Both of these goods are now considered detrimental to human health so what about the people who suffered harvesting such goods, and then the consumers whose health may have suffered? Indeed, the City of Glasgow was built on these trades so do we demolish Glasgow as an unacceptable relic of our so-called terrible past as with the desire by a radical few to demolish statues of large benefactors to other universities and institutions where their wealth was derived from such activities. What about if Facebook put up the £20 million being sought, but in 100 years from now Facebook is considered a scourge on society and everything connected with it should be deemed poison?

By far the most damaging problem caused by these ill-considered lobby groups is the fuelling of racism. This card has now been so overplayed that white people are afraid to use large parts of the English vocabulary lest someone interprets such language as racist. And politicians seeking any votes possible to pander to their need for power have even legislated against such language without serious debate about the consequences. We have coloured minorities playing the victim card in their attempt to seek some ideology of equality, or even supremacy. I would argue that white people have had enough of being made to feel guilty for the activities of their ancestors and the continual pressure of the racism card which together with political correctness have overstressed tolerance. And this leads me to the connectivity to the rise of white supremacy and nationalism. White people are being eroded of their identity, their culture, and their heritage. Fodder for groups who are at the extremes.

My view is that Governments and Universities need to slam on the brakes regarding ethnic and religious lobby groups; take a break from any further antagonistic legislation or reparations touted in the name of equality; and study the impact of existing legislation on the indigenous population. Has the University of Glasgow attempted to determine if any descendant of a slave has prospered from a degree from their august hallows? Statistically this is highly probable as some slaves where transported back to Glasgow. Whilst there remains a suggestion that people today bear some historical responsibility for the activities of their ancestors, we have a cauldron that feeds extreme supremacy and nationalism.

BREXIT – The Use and Abuse of Political Statistics

The European Elections delivered a fragmented wake-up call to Brussels; a comfort in political terms, but hardly a vote of unity. As per usual politicians from all factions engaged with the use and abuse of statistics to shed some light on the outcome in their favour, even if only to say their message needs to be clearer.

Within the UK it would be laughable as these inept politicians squirm if the issue upon which they have failed the electorate is not such a challenge to the UK constitution.

What we saw in the UK was a fledgling BREXIT Party who platformed honouring the 2016 Referendum vote to leave Europe with or without a deal. They polled 32% of the vote and won 29 MEP seats. By far the winner. General Elections have been won at this level of vote.

Then we have the Liberal Democrats who platformed a single message of scrap BREXIT and remain in the EU. How a so-called democratic party can ignore a clear democratic referendum outcome is beyond me, but they polled just 20% of the vote and won 16 seats.

Following them we have the Greens which I think is a singular, more idealistic vote. I would suggest, based on the fact that all interviews I witnessed with Green Party officials and candidates regarding BREXIT reverted to climate change within 30 seconds of the interview, that the issue of political remain or leave was not a factor in such votes. If one believes the commentators, the Greens attracted predominately younger voters who may not have a political view/understanding of BREXIT, or are more preoccupied with climate change and want a voice. Thus, I don’t think it statistically robust to consider the Green vote in the leave/remain argument.

I think that the above parties all profited from a unifying sense of belonging to a singular cause.

Of the remainder there will always be the hardcore Labour or Conservative voters who have always voted in a singular way. We don’t know with any reasonable accuracy where any such voter stands on the leave/remain argument.

The remainder of smaller parties are a mix of rebel causes on the fringes of the system. If there is an argument to put any one of these parties in either camp, then you would also argue that the UKIP vote should be added to the BREXIT Party vote. The sum of these votes does not change the political landscape, so again not relevant to the argument.

In 2016 the result of the Referendum was 52% in favour of leaving the EU. The polarised nature of this result has fragmented and frustrated politics since – a clear demonstration that UK politics is neither democratic nor fit for purpose. Why ask for the majority will of the people who turned out in numbers never before seen in any election, and then ignore it? The European Election results would suggest that Nigel Farage is right. Leavers have hardened to some 60%.

Since then the anti-democratic remain side of the argument has tried everything to scupper BREXIT bolstered by Teresa May’s deal that cannot possibly be approved whilst it challenges the sovereignty of the UK. No true, blue-blooded Brit will allow sovereignty to be under the control of Brussels. It is clear that the backstop agreement is fully intended to be activated with the only way out for the UK is to concede Northern Ireland back to the Republic of Ireland – the game that Leo Varadkar has been playing all along. It will be interesting to see how he feels when staring into the face of a no-deal with the consequences to the Republic losing its largest trading partner. Ireland’s economy decimated again? For sure Teresa May will go down as one of the worse Prime Ministers ever, even worse than Tony Blair.

The motion passed through the House of Commons taking a ‘no-deal BREXIT’ off the table was a shambolic demonstration of abuse of the political system. The EU will only capitulate to a sensible deal when they are faced with ‘no-deal’ as the real alternative. As professional negotiators well know all options must be on the table, and it is certain that the EU will capitulate at the eleventh hour if no-deal is the option facing them – with most of the EU either in or approaching recession they cannot afford this outcome. There is no such person as a hardliner Brexiteer. They are the people who understand the protocols of negotiation.

Jeremy Corbyn has always played politics with BREXIT pushing for a General Election rather than respect the BREXIT result, relying on the younger, gullible voter who will believe promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Opportunist indeed, but I think be careful what you wish for. Climate change has captured the imagination of this younger voter so they can easily drift to the Green Party as throughout Europe. Then we have the hardcore Labour constituencies who voted for BREXIT and demonstrated their disdain with their party by voting for the BREXIT Party. If the BREXIT Party do indeed contest a General Election, I would reasonably expect Labour supporter to move to the BREXIT Party thus decimating the Labour Party. Justice indeed.

As for the Conservative Party the ill-consider snap election called by Teresa May without any understanding of her failings in the Party Manifesto find themselves in a difficult position and need to bring their own MP’s fully into line and then attract dissenting Labour MP’s in fear of losing their seats if they are not seen to support BREXIT to restore order to the BREXIT process. Perhaps it’s time to ask local constituency party association officials to encourage their MP to back the party or surrender their seat to someone more understanding of collective co-operation and respect democratic outcomes.

The UK now need a capable Prime Minister who understands how to negotiate with the EU. A no-deal option must be on the table, and a hard position taken with the EU with the certainty that no-deal will be the outcome should the EU not take a more reasonable stance.

Unifying the UK is best addressed once the people see that all the remain fear tactics are nonsense, even with a no-deal outcome. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the World and has global influence the EU can only dream of. The EU cannot ignore the UK.

The European Elections have pushed the real statistics back in support of BREXIT with, or without a deal, knowing an agreeable deal will most certainly be forthcoming from the EU at the final hour. The other statistic that will be interesting to watch is how many of our current MP’s are serving their final term as in the next General Election voters express their wrath with them for failing to respect the majority will of the people.

 

BREXIT: A Pragmatic Message to the EU

The intransigence of the EU, no doubt fuelled by the traitorous people of the UK attempting to overturn Brexit, now requires a firm, but British pragmatic approach. I would propose the following:

Ladies and gentlemen of the EU we find ourselves at an impasse that could lead to unnecessary harm to our great nation States. Today we are faced with the opportunity to show why our nations have survived great turmoil in the past, and that we have learnt the lessons of failure to achieve equitable relationships. During the past two years the UK has been more than conciliatory in its attempt to smooth an orderly exit from the EU. The imbalanced level of consideration provided to the EU has clearly caused irreconcilable division in the UK Parliament resulting in many difficulties for the UK Government. In order to achieve an orderly exit this must change. Having given great thought to what needs to be achieved before the 29th March 2019 I would agree that reopening the Exit Agreement would not achieve the required progress in the time remaining. I propose we bin it. Of course, there are aspects of this Exit Agreement that can amicably and equitably be transposed to a new agreement.

Let me be clear that we will not extend the leaving date as I’m sure that we all consider that enough time an expense has been expended on this project. Other distractions such as revoking Article 50, a further referendum in the UK, any reference to Norway plus, or Canada plus plus are not considerations on which the EU can rely. The only surety is that the failure to achieve a reasonable and, above all, equitable settlement before 29th March 2019 is that the UK will leave the EU and that the £39 billion demand by the EU will then be subjected to International Court of Arbitration scrutiny and ruling. Failure to agree an equitable way forward will certainly cause short-term economic turbulence throughout the member states and the UK Government could better apply the exit amount to smooth such turbulence within the UK economy. During this exit process the UK economy has shown itself to be resilient and indeed buoyant and I fully expect this to continue regardless of what happen on the 29th March 2019.

From the start of the leaving process the UK proposed negotiation based upon a Strategic Alliance. The EU rejected such proposal insisting that the divorce settlement be agreed before any future relationship. This has proven to be a failed approach. Now we must proceed with an inclusive agreement including a future trading relationship as proposed and submitted to the EU in March of this year. As we are looking to replace an existing trading relationship none of the usual procrastinated negotiation of trade deals is either desirable or necessary. We may have to agree to further refinement during a transition period, but this is the nature of the strategic alliance process. Importantly, within the existing proposal are terms that with the installation of additional electronic surveillance on the Irish, Northern Ireland border as proposed by HMRC and declared as workable by the technocrats in Brussels we can completely illuminate the most contentious issue facing us today; the backstop agreement.

No doubt you will resound with protestation that such an agreement cannot be achieved in the time available. We disagree. Most, if not all, of the required components are at our disposal. All we need is the essential component of any Strategic Alliance; the will and commitment to achieve an economic and political relationship in the spirit of friendship and co-operation, and above all of reasonable and equitable benefit to both parties. Any financial settlement will be fully subject to such parameters.

To the heads of the EU member States I would add the following invitation. Should no agreement be achieved and ratified by both sides before the 29th March 2019 then the UK is fully prepared to continue to trade with any member State on existing terms and give priority to such trade over alternate sources if delivery and reciprocity can be assured. Further political posturing will not solve this problem and thus we must each address the realities of no deal in regard to the best interests of the people we each represent.

Why is the UK Government Shambolic?

Well, well, well, the UK Parliament has now completed their demonstration of irrelevance to the people of the UK. IN 2016 the people provided the most conclusive referendum result in British history instructing our politicians to leave the EU. What have our politicians done about it? We have politicians who claim that 17 million people were completely duped into a decision to leave – what an arrogant lack of respect for the people. They further argue that Brexit will make the UK poorer by 3.9% over 15 years. Such economics is not only irrelevant once projections exceed 5 years, but also assume the remainder of the World remains stable – most unlikely. These people are so deluded that they think people care about such minimal projection compared with maintaining their English way of life.

Then we have Teresa May’s idea of a negotiated exit. She tried to be all things to all people and was duped into an exit deal which is meaningless to all with the first attempted sacrifice of national sovereignty in UK history with the so-called backstop. As an experienced negotiator with some 30-years of experience of negotiated deals throughout the world had I been David Davis and found out that she had been agreeing terms counter to my strategy behind my back I would have ripped her throat out. A negotiator goes to the table with a mandate to agree a deal, not play puppet. She should listen to her own words when she has often said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Then she should understand that united, her enemies stand; divided they fall. Her isolationist approach allowed her enemies both in the UK Parliament and the EU to unite against her. About time she studied Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’. She listens to civil servants (who were probably remainers) rather than seasoned negotiators. When have such people ever negotiated a good commercial deal – think PFI and MoD procurement over the years. Her track record with the recent Conservative Party Manifesto which so obviously would lose her votes speaks volumes about her approach. Then she tries to apply a hard line by regularly stating that her deal is not only the best deal but the only deal that can be obtained. What an amateur. Who does she think she is kidding? She gives her very soft Brexit stance away when she insists that she is honouring the 2016 Referendum result but safeguarding economic interests. You cannot go to the negotiating table with one foot in each side of the argument and expect to satisfy anyone other than the EU.

We have a Parliament populated by a few who understand pragmatic democracy, the remainder being either traitors to both democracy and the people they are elected to represent, or opportunists who care only for power at any cost. Even seasoned politicians such as Ken Clarke fail to respect the 2016 Referendum result. Whatever happened to integrity, honour, servitude, and loyalty to the democratic process? The mandarins in Brussels must be laughing their socks off.  I sincerely hope that the people of the UK remember these traitors at the next General Election and cast then aside.

There is no escaping that the weak position adopted by Teresa May in these negotiations means that the UK has very little substance to show after two years of negotiation. Her stance of an amicable, soft Brexit settlement has led to concession after concession and a large exit bill without so much as a letter of intent regarding a future trade deal when such a deal could so easily be on the table today if the EU wanted such a deal. Whatever happened to “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”? Had M. Barnier arrived at the negotiating table with a contained mandate that no trade deal could be discussed until the exit terms have been agreed a seasoned negotiator would counter with the proposal that exit terms will only be agreed when a trade deal is part of that process. The EU played well. They used the emotive Northern Ireland border issue with great effect, and May’s secret team fell for it hook, line, and sinker forgetting that it is the EU who are insisting on a hard border, and which is not necessary in any event with a suitable trade deal. The UK is not obliged to install a hard border leaving the Irish Government, hence the EU in a difficult position. And the EU’s stance; the UK wants to leave so it is their problem, and May’s team swallowed it. Negotiation is a war where dignity and respect are maintained throughout, but never accepting any responsibility or compassion for the other side’s position.

The collaborative position of the EU and the UK traitors against an ill-equipped negotiating position have manifested itself into the shambles we have today.

It is perfectly clear that the EU will do anything to avoid losing the control they currently enjoy over the UK. It is devastating to the EU both politically and economically to lose the second largest economy within the EU and to lose the influence that the UK provides in the global arena. And they want to avoid having such a large successful trading nation as a neighbour without any influence over such a nation. And off course they want to avoid losing any other major countries of the EU so must make the UK exit as difficult as possible. And we must include vested national interests such as the opportunist Irish Government seeking to use Brexit to re-unite Northern Ireland with Ireland. The contra of this is that the UK is a significant trading partner in the EU with a net surplus of Euro 1 billion per week in favour of the mainland EU. The UK is the third largest trading partner of Germany in the world, and the largest exporting partner for the German automotive industry. France exports some Euro 37 billion of produce to the UK each year. We have just witnessed how a few thousand angry demonstrators react to (needed) social and fiscal reform in France with President Macron being forced to retreat. Think about the impact of some one million farmers, trucker, and other associated business interests on the streets if told that they can no longer deliver such produce to the UK tariff free. Spain have already declared that their close relationship with the UK predates that with the EU and they have no interest in damaging such relationship. And I think Italy will just ignore Brussels. Therefore, reality will be far more powerful than political posturing. What a strong position for a Brexit negotiation. So why is the UK negotiating team sympathising with these EU realities. They are powerful weapons, and I don’t see the EU having concerns over the impact to UK citizens of their proposed stranglehold over the UK with the current deal.

As much as a no deal scenario is not desirable in the short-term because of the inevitable disruptive impact I have to agree that no deal is better than a bad deal. However, I am equally certain that the more devastating consequences to the EU of no deal would instil a needed dose of reality into this situation with the EU coming to the table with a far more reasonable and conciliatory attitude within weeks, if not days. The EU cannot afford a no deal Brexit, so the negotiating position is still wide open if the UK Government wake up and instil some British backbone into these negotiations. The Lithuanian Prime Minister has inadvertently indicated that the EU expects to concede more.

BREXIT – The EU plan to derail Brexit is exposed

At last the EU has declared their devious hand – let’s make negotiations so difficult for the UK Government that they need to put the deal to a UK vote in order the derail Brexit. Typical EU shenanigans. Ark back to various treaties that required ratification by each member State. If any member State could not get the support of the people the orders from Brussels were go back and keep trying until you get the result we require. The EU are desperate to keep the UK within the EU because of the serious impact to them of losing such a powerful member. And no doubt they have been working with compliant members of the UK Government to spread fear and negative propaganda regarding the impacts of Brexit. Even Christine Lagarde from the IMF was brought out this past week to spread her evil discourse, but she did the same just before the Brexit Referendum and what a total fabrication of economic misrepresentation and lies that was.

The interesting question now is the extent to which Teresa May is complicit with the EU as she did vote to remain in the EU. I hope not but the knowledge that she was secretly negotiating with the EU through a separate team of Government mandarins whilst David Davis was officially in office to negotiate the UK exit deal (and over which David Davis resigned) does give cause for concern. If she fails to stand her ground on a ‘no deal’ Brexit then it is time for her to go. She clearly demonstrated in her disastrous General Election manifesto that she is not a competent leader of the people and I do not think her Chequer’s paper comes close enough to what the majority of the people expect. She has repeated stated that Brexit means the UK is out of the Customs Union, the Single Market, out from under the control of the European Court of Justice, and out of the free movement of EU citizens. I agree with the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and many others that Chequers doe not deliver this. The fact that Michael Gove has stated that a future Prime Minister will need to change her proposed deal speaks volumes.

We also see that the EU is specifically targeting the Irish border issue – probably the most emotive aspect of Brexit but in no way difficult to resolve. The UK has no desire to install a hard border crossing into Northern Ireland – a practically impossible task in any event, and not needed. The electronic border process that exists today can be readily adapted assuming that the EU is prepared to agree a free trade agreement with the UK. As this was the original intent of the EEC all those years ago and to which the UK joined – not political union – then this should be relatively straight-forward except that such an agreement would leave the door open for other member States to leave and this is the crux of the problem. The Irish border issue, and indeed Brexit, are not difficult for the UK, but they are a thorn in the side of the EU as they cannot ignore the serious impact to the EU of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit but have so many other problems that they do not want the UK to be the first of other States who see their future outside of the control of the mandarins in Brussels.

So where now? Obviously over the coming months we will see an avalanche of remoaner attempts to derail Brexit. No doubt the EU will both fuel such dissent and measure the impact as part of their strategy. Could I remind these remoaners that the UK has, for the past 100 years, been called upon to be steadfast against the conflicts within Europe. The UK is under attack from European mandarins who want control of Europe and the diminishing of the power of the UK in the process. This process is far from democratic and does challenge the freedom of the British way of life. I have recently visited with a number of different peoples of Europe who all agree that the general difference between mainland Europe and the UK is that Europe tends to be introspective whilst the UK tends to global in interests and reach. If remoaners need positive guidance they should look at the people who put their money where their mouth is. The UK stock market has been remarkably resilient in the face of substantial challenges since the Brexit vote. They believe in the future of the UK outside of the EU and buy into the UK. We see Apple moving its European headquarters to London as with Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and other major corporations. We also see Deutschebank take 25-year leases on two new office buildings in London. These people know where they need to be to prosper post-Brexit. Can armchair remoaners without such financial commitment challenge such business logic?

We are called upon yet again to be steadfast amidst the likes of well-meaning but unrealistic Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain attempting to appease the enemy. They are the enemy within and should certainly reap dire reward for their treachery. If Teresa May cannot stand her ground in the face of the EU shenanigans then she must step aside for the sake of the British people. The dogs are at the door; it is time to deal with their rabid intensions.

Does the UK Party Political System need a ‘Night of the Long Knives’?

 

Brexit has amplified blatant dissension amongst politicians of all persuasions. This not only creates difficulties getting anything done but also makes politics irrelevant as there is no longer the discipline within any party to fulfil manifesto pledges under collective responsibility. As politics in its disciplined form functions on mediocrity what we now have is treacherous chaos.

Having recently watched the ‘Darkest Hour’ account of the challenges faced by Winston Churchill during those dark days of May 1940 dealing with the plotting shenanigans of the fearful pacifists headed by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax (whose view was essentially that he knew better than the people what was good for them). They completely undermined any attempt to deal with the fundamental reality that Adolf Hitler was hell-bent on conquering the whole of Europe, including the UK. Any hope of a peace deal as proposed by Halifax was pure fantasy based only on irrational fear. These people were the remoaners of today. Churchill’s ‘Night of the Long Knives’ came after speaking personally to the ordinary people on a tube train to Westminster and which prompted the courage to deliver his famous oratory to the Houses of Parliament on 4th June 1940. He mobilised the people of the UK to save the UK army stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk and to fight for the British way of life in the face of the overwhelming odds within mainland Europe, and in the face of certain members of UK politics. Sound familiar?

Our party-political system is based on people agreeing a basic ideology and creed regarding how to run a country. Like-minded people then form a party, select constituency representatives to stand as Members of Parliament under an agreed manifesto who, having achieved the majority of MP’s, select a leader who then forms an executive in the form of a cabinet. This cabinet is obliged to execute the manifesto upon which the people voted them into power with the full support of back-bench MP’s.

Think of the UK as a major corporate (UK plc) with a CEO (Prime Minister), Board of Directors (Cabinet), Line Managers (back-bench MP’s) and departmental workers (local constituents). Successful corporates will have competent and capable management resources who co-operate to secure their place in the market. Such corporates have a circular information flow in which strategy is fed from the Board down the ranks, and the ranks feed back the merits of such strategy in terms of execution and benefits. A competent Board will consist of Directors representing different factions of the company each expressing their own views without fear within the confines of the Boardroom. However, once a majority vote has been taken as to strategic direction then each Director, irrespective of their own personal view, is obliged to either diligently implement the agreed strategy, or find another job. Likewise with the Line Managers and departmental workers. Anyone expressing dissent or failing to comply will be quickly dispensed. A successful corporate needs allegiance and loyalty of all involved or it will surely fail.

So why do our politicians think that UK plc does not need the same corporate discipline to be successful? Why is it possible within UK plc to have a small band of Conservative back-bench MP’s who, in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, are hell-bent on sabotaging Brexit – and think it entirely acceptable to attempt to hold the Prime Minister to ransom if she does not comply with their wishes. These people clearly think they know better than more than 17 million constituents and thus believe they have the right of treachery both to their political party and to the people of the UK.

In the case of Brexit David Cameron asked the people where they stand on UK membership of the EU. They responded in numbers never before witnessed – the majority wanted out. The people have spoken. The Executive has their instruction to leave the EU; the obligation of the back-bench MP’s to support the executive in the process regardless of their personal preference or how their own constituents voted – this was a national referendum; not regional.

So why are these rebels not dismissed? There must be a mechanism to dispense with these people. They are on the wrong side of the argument and are naphtha to the politicians in Brussels fighting to hold their power over the UK including extracting continuing contributions to its failing economy. Complex negotiations for Brexit are difficult enough without having the enemy within your own camp. As a trained negotiator the fundamental mindset is that life is simple, only people make it difficult. Unfortunately, the Churchillian orator powers of Socrates are a scarce resource at present so I fear we need an alternative ‘Night of the Long Knives’ to rid us of this treacherous few so that the people get what they expect. I would certainly like the opportunity in open debate to expose their lack of understanding of the EU venture to the UK people. When do these people wake up to the fact that the UK economy is robust despite the politically motivated propaganda of the likes of OECD and IMF. Of course the EU will trade with the UK on fair and reasonable terms – the trade deficit alone in favour of the EU is Euro one billion each week! Of course the most important centre of Global banking will remain in London (the USA have made several unsuccessful attempts to move this influence to the USA). And history has shown that the UK prospers better when it controls its own destiny.

Just a brief note on the antics of the House of Lords remoaners. Anyone familiar with the Corn Law of 1932 will understand the vested interests of hereditary peers in their fear of losing substantial subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy that should have been scrapped years ago.

If we go back to 1940 Clement Attlee, the leader of the opposition Labour Party understood the realities within Europe and proposed a grand coalition, but absolutely not under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Today we have a Labour Party in disarray regarding Brexit. Last week demonstrated that the rebels in the Conservative Party could easily be countered by the Brexiteers in the Labour Party. Thus, one remedy to rebels against Brexit would be a grand coalition of MP’s committed to the majority will of the people specifically for Brexit to achieve the best possible terms for Brexit putting Brussels on notice that the UK is united across the major parties in responding to the mandate of the British people. This would change the whole dynamic of negotiations with the EU and result in the effective beheading of the remoaners as would be the case under that greatest of Generals, Sun Tsu. Furthermore it would neutralise irrelevant but mischievous minority parties such as the Liberals and the SNP.