Has she gone yet?

I was a supporter of Theresa May. I thought her 'strong silent' approach to governing; not reacting to Brexit bullshit, keeping quiet while others - the EU, British Remainers and the media including, in particular the BBC - were flapping about trying every angle of attack, was a good thing. I thought she was in control and a source of strength. I thought we were in safe hands.

I was wrong.

For background, my overriding issue for the past 30 years has been anti-EU. I believe that the demise of the EU will be wonderful for almost everywhere in Europe (except Germany obviously) in terms of giving the people of Europe back their sovereignty, freedom and hope for the future. I have been (and still am) vehemently anti EU because I love Europe. I love its diversity, culture, cuisine etc. I don't want everywhere to be Germany. That's my starting point.

So Brexit is very welcome to me, not just because it gives the UK back its sovereignty like a proper country, but also, perhaps even more importantly to me, because it heralds the end of this failing, corrupt, undemocratic EU project that has been terrible for everyone in Europe except Germany.

So, where are we now, and how did we get here?

In April and May of 2017 Theresa May was way ahead in the polls. The UK public was dialled-in to Tory policies and the Tory approach to governing, partly because Corbyn's Labour Party was clearly a throw-back to the 1970s and, given that backdrop, Tory policies were increasingly welcome to UK voters. There was talk of Labour being defeated and out of contention for a generation.

And then what happened?

Theresa and her advisors decided that she had such an unassailable lead in the polls that she could try to park her tanks on Labour's lawn and go for the traditional Labour voter as well as the Tory votes that seemed to be safely 'in the bag'. In effect they thought that they could take the Labour vote as well as the Tory vote and deliver a knock-out blow to Labour over and above the Tory-based majority that they felt was a foregone conclusion.

They got greedy. And that greed has now left us in the position where Corbyn and McDonnell's 1970s policies and political stance could well be what we end up with at the next election. The absolute opposite of what the vast majority of the country thought it was looking forward to after the election of earlier this year.

Because what these fuckwits did (Theresa and her advisors, so-called political experts), was to half abandon the Tory policies that the country wanted and instead 'go for' some of the left-wing Labour policies of old, in an attempt to win both sides of the argument.

What they actually did was lose both.

Because the Tory voter saw this as an abandonment of the values upon which she'd built her lead; an abandonment of the approach with which the majority of the population was comfortable, and a betrayal of the Tory values that were winning the day in terms of popularity in the country.

What the Labour voter - many of whom were leaning towards a right-of-centre approach to governing the country - saw, was Theresa May taking the piss out of them. Insulting their socialist integrity and treating them as if they could be bought with a few 'leftist' initiatives that were not genuinely held, but were being put forward in order to win their vote, but at the same time, to demean their long-held socialist beliefs and values.

And the wavering Labour voter saw this as her taking the piss. And I think they were right to do so.

So from a position of formidable strength, Theresa May (advised by absolute fucking idiots in my view) managed not only to lose her majority and her strength, but also managed to propel a previously unelectable Labour party into the current position where it is almost a shoe-in to be elected into government at the next election.

And, along the way - and of much more importance to me - she managed to jeopardise the whole Brexit process. Not just process but whether it will happen at all.

The Tories have effectively made an unelectable Labour Party electable. A party whose ministers and policies and people will take this country back decades - even Labour Party MPs think this. But as we have seen in recent days with people like Harperson, Adonis and Hyacinth, these lefties don't actually give a fuck about principles or the long-term good of the country, they just want to keep their snouts in the trough.

This has always been the case for Labour. They don't really care about the state of the country, the prosperity of its citizens, our credibility as a nation on the world stage, they just want power at any cost. They don't care about their voters; they don't care about poor people or equality. They just want to shove the noses of successful people into the dirt, whilst enhancing their own merit-free, achievement-free rewards and lifestyles.

The trouble I have with this, is that it is all Theresa's fault.

She has to go. And soon.

Has she gone yet?

Thanks for reading.

Despite Brexit

This is just funny. And an excuse for me to spend about a minute investigating the BBC website for 'despite Brexit' quotes.

Two minutes' work found dozens of recent occasions in which the BBC has used the term 'despite Brexit'. A term they've been using regularly since June 24th last year, with a range of variations all of which are used to portray Brexit as a negative issue. 

The sight of our national broadcaster doing everything it can to undermine post-Brexit Britain; everything it can to promote the EU; everything it can to try to stop Brexit from happening, against the will of the people, is massively unedifying. 

Once Brexit is out of the way, we should think about how best to ensure that we have a national broadcaster that stands up for the country it represents and the people who pay for it. 

In my opinion.

Thanks for reading.

'Food banks are a disgrace in C21st UK'

I've been told that the use of foodbanks in the UK in 2017 is an absolute disgrace, reflects very badly on the Tories and points to a failing nation.

The Trussell Trust - which derrives its income and food donations for its foodbanks from members of the public, says that 1.2m people took a three-day food package from a foodbank last year.

Personally I'm glad that the Labour-backed Trussell Trust is doing this good work and helping out people in need. And that generous people are donating food to people who happen to need some help from time-to-time.

This help is usually required when the system breaks down and people find themselves outside of the welfare system for a few days. That is regrettable of course but the reasons why they are outside the system are many and varied. There are currently about 1.6m people unemployed in the UK and net immigration last year was 273,000 (ONS).

So when one puts this into some kind of perspective, the 1.2m people using foodbanks in a year does not mean that 1.2m people rely on foodbanks for all of the food they eat. Which, I think, many lefties seem to want to be the case so they can kick the Tories.

It's 1.2m people, out of our 65m population, our 1.6m unemployed and 273,000 immigrants, who had one three-day food parcel from a foodbank during the last year.

So one in about 60 of us had help from a foodbank which covered three out of 365 days of our food requirement. Or to put these figures in percentage terms; 1.8% of the population required help with 0.82% of their meals in the last year. That is hardly a nation in chaos or crisis.

Particularly since the combination of Labour's open border (not just open but 'go and find them') legacy and our EU 'free movement' requirement has seen more than 3m more people (net) arrive here in the past ten years.

Against that background, the fact that the figures for people using foodbanks is so low is testament to the fact that the system is working pretty well.

The other point to make, obviously, is that if you offer people free stuff, they tend to take it. And that's fine, good luck to them and if it means they have a few quid over for themselves because of the generosity of others then that's a good thing isn't it? So why use this as an argument with which to beat the Tories, whose supporters are likely to be donating the lions share of the food that the foodbanks distribute in the first place?

Maybe the Tories should close down all the food banks and ban their operation - so as to avoid this nonsensical criticism. I'm sure Mr Blair would have considered this course of action. Would that make you happier lefties? That there would then be no foodbanks for you to point to as a sign of Tory failure, but some people would be going hungry occasionally?

Of course it won't happen because the Tories tend to do what's right for the population, not just what fits the spin. Unlike Blair, Brown & Corbyn's Labour party.

Thanks for reading.

If we had a proper opposition Theresa wouldn't be able to make a massive mistake like houses for care

That's it really.

What are you looking here for? I've told you what I think.

Just kidding; but it's true. If Theresa didn't have such a lead, if Mr Corbyn and Labour weren't so inept, she would not feel able to make such stupid, anti-Tory manifesto pledges. It's a simple as that.

This 'using your home to pay for your care until you die' is just so stupid and anti Tory.

And the response from Labour, that rich people should continue to get the Winter Fuel Allowance and that rich people should not have to pay, with their homes, for social services care in old age, just turns everything on its head in terms of party principles.

Who knows where we are now? Are Labour the party of the wealthy? Why are the Tories attacking the rich in this way?

Frankly this is as stupid as the bedroom tax. But at least that had the virtue of being correct in principle but not in terms of it ever being fair in terms of application.

Allow me, briefly, to explain what I mean. (You've got this far, not much more to go).

Alan and Jane at number 26 have worked all their lives. They strove and saved and didn't go on holiday all that often if they couldn't afford it; didn't drink or smoke, brought up their kids and incidentally, fed them breakfast and lunch at school as well as dinner in the evenings. (That's 'Tea' to you in the North).

They did the right thing and paid off their mortgage. But they're now getting on a bit and the route to the hospital, sadly, is one they now know quite well.  But at least they have their home to pass on to the kids to give them a financial boost when Alan and Jane shuffle off. It's a thing that is never talked about, but it is also something that has motivated the couple all their working lives. After all, their parents, growing up after the war years, were not ever in a position to do the same thing for them.

But they've paid into the system. They're coming up to retirement and hopefully they can enjoy the fruits of their labour for some time to come. They live in the south, so their home is worth £300,000 now, although they originally bought it for £25,000. They are not particularly wealthy in cash terms but the house is worth a bit. They receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and a free bus pass.

Alan is a school governor and umpires the cricket in the village of a Sunday. Jane is on the PCT and has coffee mornings to raise money for the Brownies.

And now Theresa (May) wants the house - or at least 2/3rds of it to pay for their care should they need it in old age. And the NHS has the brief to keep people alive for as long as possible - an aim we probably all share, but, not necessarily when we are so ill that there's no real quality of life and it's just 'existing' in a care home, rather than truly 'being alive'. The £100,000 they will be left with after their care is paid for, might just pay off (kids) David and Anne's student loans, but not much more.

Their Winter Fuel Allowance which is a nice bonus and makes the family Christmas easier to pay for, will be taken away because they have a few quid, having saved all their lives. They vote Tory. Always have.

Across the street are Bruce and Barbara. Same house but they don't own it. They had a different philosophy. They took holidays they couldn't afford, smoked and drank and have no savings. They paid into the system sometimes but mostly were recipients of benefits. On account of Bruce being unlucky, on account of him being a lazy bastard. They vote Labour. Always have.

I have nothing against lazy bastards, I myself have been known to be a lazy bastard, but bear with me.

Bruce goes to the pub and watches the cricket sometimes. Barbara goes to the Bingo. Their kids Kylie and Jason are minor drug dealers and still live at home. Both are on benefits and both smoke and drink.

Jason's Corsa is currently rotting away on the front lawn. Next to Bruce's old Capri and Kylie's daughter Jasmine's old pram.

Bruce and Barbara will not have to pay anything at all for their care in old age. They will continue to receive the Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus pass. They will pass on fuck all to their kids, but what on earth would be the point anyway?

Now I know that what Theresa is pledging means that what people can hand on to their kids out of the value of their home, is actually going up from £23k to £100k under this policy. But that still does not make it a Tory policy.

Yes this may have been going on for years, discretely, in the background, under the radar, but now putting it front and centre of your manifesto has exposed what an awful solution it is:- to have individual families suffering financially if they are unlucky enough to have a member who needs long-term care. When this is a national problem - just like the rest of the Healthcare system and should, therefore, be solved (paid for) on a national - not individual - basis. That would be the Tory way. Using it as an effective inheritance tax is simply not a fair way of solving the problem.

It is an unfair sticking plaster rather than an actual sustainable solution. Theresa is correct to look at the issue - it's about time someone did look at our changing demographics and our failing social care system - 'failing' because of the massively increasing pressures upon it - but this solution is grossly unfair in my opinion and should be reconsidered.

This current Tory manifesto is not a Tory manifesto. It's a manifesto, designed to wipe out the Labour party by stealing its policies and position on the board. But if, in doing this, you lose your core vote Theresa, you'll have been an utter fool.

Thanks for reading.

Newsnight 030417 Kirsty Wark 'Interviews' John Brennan

Tonight we have an exclusive interview with John Brennan.. (Obama's former head of the CIA {mentioned} and a sworn enemy of Trump {not mentioned}.

What does he think of the Presidential twitter strategy? (Clip - not much)

He warns about the dangers of America going it alone against North Korea and decries Trump's plans for a travel ban.

I began by asking him if President Trump is right to say, if China won’t solve the problem of North Korea, America will.

‘Very complex, too simplistic, etc.’

Q2 President Trump says, using the term Radical Islamic Terrorism will help the US win the war on terror: Do you agree with him

'No etc'

Q3 Do you think Donald Trump’s proposed ban on several Muslim majority countries will make America safer?

'No etc'

Q4 Do you think it will be counter-productive?

'Yes etc '

Q5 US intelligence is suggesting Wikileaks is helping the Russians do you think Julian Assange is being unwittingly used by the Russians?

'Yes and wittingly etc'

Q6 Why do you think Donald Trump is so well disposed towards Putin?

'You'd have to ask him'

Q7 But have you actually seen evidence that the Russians have compromising material on Trump?

'There are active investigations going on now, two investigations in Congress as well as the FBI'

Q8 But actually when Trump says only the fake news media thinks his team colluded with Russia, when the director of the FBI James Comey hasn’t ruled it out, clearly you’re not ruling it out either?

'These are ongoing investigations..'

Q9 Now the British Home secretary says UK government should be given access to whatsapp, security etc.

'blah blah'

Q10 In the lecture you’re giving tomorrow, the Dimbleby lecture, you’re saying very clearly that you’re concerned about the competence of some politicians to enter positions of authority who don’t have the skills for carrying out their solemn governmental responsibilities with competence, integrity and efficacy… who are you thinking of?

'Lots of people around the world etc..'

Q11 You talk about, though a variety of people – the kinds of people you might be talking about, and you said, if this person came from, even in an unrelated celebrity inducing field; you’re being coy, but you’re talking about Donald Trump aren’t you?

'Expressing my concerns about how important these gov't positions are.. whether some people with power & authority are up to the task etc..'

Q12 Was Donald Trump right to tweet his accusation that President Obama wire-tapped him before the election? Was he right to say that?

'tweets, he needs to tweet information that is accurate, measured, not impulsive'

Q13 But Donald Trump would say that the real story that’s going on at the moment is leaks for the intelligence community not the alleged links with Russia is he right?

'Leaks are appalling, need to stop'

Q14 One of Donald Trump’s first outings when he became President was to make a speech in front of the CIA memorial, in which he talked about his disputed inauguration attendance figures rather than actually paying tribute to the CIA agents who’d fallen in the course of duty; what went through your mind when you saw that?

'That wall of honour is hallowed ground for the agency, fine men, line of duty etc..'

Q15 Because you criticised Donald Trump for comparing intel agencies to Nazi Germany and I wondered how that was received by the intelligence community? Not what you said, what he said?

'Intelligence professionals.. don't do it for recognition etc, baseless criticism, impugning the integrity etc'

Q16 But just going back to that whole question about Barack Obama, the White House all but accused GCHQ of helping President Obama wire-tap Donald Trump, I mean was that justified? Did it damage the Five Eyes alliance?

Smiles & sighs - how ridiculous this is: 'Lot of things that have been tweeted that I'm mystified over..'

Q17 If, at the end of these investigations into the leaks it is found that there have been leaks buy CIA officers themselves they will undermine their own organisation, the organisation that you served for all these years. If that’s found to be the case..

'Releasing classified info, treasonous act, should be held to account, occasions where officers have gone bad..'

Q18 The Deep state?

'Individuals'

Q19 But you don’t believe in the Deep State

'No I don't, absolutely not, ridiculous'

Q20 But that’s what Steve Bannan, what Donald Trump thinks..

'Delusional'.

John Brennan thank you very much

'Thanks Kirsty'

Not a shred of balance or defence of Trump. No-one invited to challenge what was said. A simple, biased, unbalanced stitch up. 

Tonight the BBC gives him an uncluttered 45 minutes to continue his unchallenged criticism of Trump, the elected President of our most important trading partner and military ally in the world.

Surely a proper journalist would be challenging his position? 'For more than a year the world's best security agency, which you led, has been trying to find evidence against Trump. If there is any, why haven't you found it yet?' For example.

Good old BBC eh? Our national broadcaster. Really? Richard Dimbleby must be spinning.

It's on iPlayer, watch it yourself and see if you think this was journalism or pure propaganda.

Thanks for reading.

Loveliest of trees, the cherry now

Loveliest of trees, the cherry now 

Is hung with bloom along the bough, 

And stands about the woodland ride 

Wearing white for Eastertide. 

Now, of my threescore years and ten, 

Twenty will not come again, 

And take from seventy springs a score, 

It only leaves me fifty more. 

And since to look at things in bloom 

Fifty springs are little room, 

About the woodlands I will go 

To see the cherry hung with snow.

A.E Houseman. A Shropshire Lad

A50 letter

Stairway to Brexit

There's a lady who knows
all that glitter's not gold
and she's climbing a stairway to Brexit.

When she gets there she knows
if the doors are all closed
with a word ('bye') she'll get what she came for.

There's a sign on the wall ('We're leaving')
but she wants to be sure
cause you know sometimes EU words have two meanings.

In a vote by the Brits
We've decided to quit
Sometimes all of our thoughts are correct ones

There's a feeling I get
when I look to the east
and my spirit is crying for leaving

In my thoughts I have seen
Threats of problems unseen
And the voices of those who stand hoping

That it won't go so well;
That we'll suffer, they'll yell
That 'we told you so' loudly and often.

But it's whispered that soon, now that we call the tune
then the PM will lead us to reason
and a new day will dawn, for those who've waited long
and the forests, hills and streets will echo with laughter.

Does anybody remember laughter?

But I've got some good news..

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now,
it's just a spring clean for the MAY queen.
Yes there were two paths we could go by but in the long run,
We're better off on the one we're on.

Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know
The PM's calling you to join her
Dear Lady can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Our stairway lies in the British winds?

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our souls
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything will turn to gold

And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll.
To be a nation, and in control.


And she's climbing a stairway to Brexit.

I was there! :)

With profuse apologies to Led Zeppelin.

Thanks for reading.

Response Brexit positives

OK my optimism is based on where we are. The Brexit debate happened last year and the result was clear. So that debate is largely over as far as I'm concerned; I'm now looking forward and backing the UK.

I find it depressing on a human level when people want everyone else 2 suffer so they can say 'I told you so'

Firstly sovereignty- UK laws will now be made by people who live here, know our issues & we can kick out if they don't deliver what we want.

Second, control of borders does not mean no immigration (I'm an immigrant); it means control & knowing the numbers coming in so we can plan infrastructure provision for everyone, including those who pay 4 it.

Controlling borders is what a proper nation state does. It's fundamental & we've seen the mess Merkel is making of Europe by ignoring perfectly good existing laws on 'Illegals'. It's a disaster 4 Europe.

After that it's trade: Leaving EU is not leaving Europe. (I love Europe btw, have lived & worked there).

We are the EZ's biggest customer in the world. There's a £106.4bn/yr (2015 ONS) trade deficit in their favour. They simply will not mess w' their biggest customer. It's in both sides' interest 2 do a free trade deal and I'm very confident that this will happen. If not we revert to WTO rules which are fine for us too.

Meanwhile we're leaving a declining & protectionist trade bloc, free 2 trade w' whole world on our terms & the world is queueing up 2 do deals with us. As part of the Commonwealth we are at the head of a group that includes about 1/3 of the world's population. And we are able to do deals on our own behalf acting as a sinle nation state not needing the agreement of 27 other nations or, worse, regions like Walloonia - which is ridiculous.

It its also true that 90% of future global economic growth is forecast to come from outside of Europe. An ability to do trade deals on our own behalf, with the growing economies and trade blocs of the world (as a nation which boasts the global number 1 financial, legal and business services sectors and is therefore in fantastic shape to take advantage of this fact) is fundamental to ur future prosperity.

As a nation we have 10 universities in the world's top 30 (the highest EU university is Munch at 34), we have the world's #1 financial centre in London; the top EU financial centre is Frankfurt at #20. We're the 5th biggest economy on the planet, the world's 5th biggest military power and the second most influential nation on earth. Yes the EU is a market of 500m people, but 350m of them don't have two Euros to rub together and we've been bailing them out for decades.

None of the doomsday forecasts of project fear has materialised - mass unemployment, a punishment £30bn budget, a DIY recession, WAR!!

The pound has been over-valued for years; a decline is good for exports, balance of trade & UK jobs.

Finally, for now, we're now good mates with the US who distrust the EU/Germany. Biggest economy in the world.

Finally, finally, you need to understand that while I welcome Brexit, my main concern (for 30 years) is about the EU. I'm anti EU because it has not fulfilled its role to protect weaker European nations from stronger, bullying ones. It has been a disaster for everyone in Europe except Germany. Its policies have directly led to massive youth unemployment in southern Europe.

I genuinely believe (and I have been watching this very closely for 30 years) that the EU is effectively a German take-over of Europe. See next blog. (which was written as a blog rather than a staccato tweet-based piece like this - for which my apologies.


Thanks for reading.

A new Royal Yacht would be fantastic

Not a 'Royal Yacht' like Mr Green's gin palace; a place for pleasure or ridicule or contempt, but a symbol of the UK as a trading, maritime nation. A symbol of our status in the world, a symbol of our history as a global player.

Something, actually, that no other country has. A reminder, to other nations of our class and history and reliability whatever else is happening in the world.

And nor would it be a plaything for the Queen and other royals. It would not be a weekend 'toy', but a serious statment of our capability and our confidence.

Obviously not a Sunseeker or Princess Yachts' jelly-mold; nor a MacDuff shipyard trawler. These things are currently built in Germany or Holland or Italy. Usually with MTU or Caterpillar engines.

We'd need to do better than that for our Royal Yacht. It would obviously have to be British built. Could we do it? I think we could. Vospers? Babcocks? Harland & Wolff? Might just help to kick-start our national shipbuilding strategy too.

Not ostentatious, not something Abramovich would own. Something the Queen, or actually, the UK would own.

I'd go for something like this personally.

Essentially a floating advertisement for our nation. A place used by the Queen on state visits but also a floating conference & trade facility.

In short, a facility for impressing the fuck out of foreigners.

And which can be built without costing the UK taxpayer a bean.

What's not to like?

Thanks for reading.

We won't get an acceptable EU deal, but that doesn't really matter

Having said for ages that we'll get a great deal with the EU when we leave (mainly to piss off Remainers), I don't actually think we will do so. Shock horror, but bear with me.

And it doesn't matter all that much anyway. What matters is that we're leaving the EU. It's always been about that - and for me, it's actually a bigger picture thing: I am much more anti-EU than I am pro-Brexit, although Brexit is a very welcome by-product, particularly for the future prosperity of the UK.

Brexit will almost certainly mean the end of the EU project and that's the best news for Europe since VE Day. Because it will allow proud nations like France, Spain, Italy et al to once again be sovereign and stand on their own two feet rather than being taken over by Germany (which is what the EU project has really been about from the start).

I must say that it was absolute genius for Germany to mount its take-over bid so soon after the last unpleasantness and get the rest of Europe to actually pay for that take-over process to happen. Utter genius. But thankfully we have woken up to it just in time. (I think).

Anyway the deal. Two years they say. A decade at least, they say. The basis of our (UK's) deal with the EU will be clear after about an hour of negotiations. Our starting point is that we want free trade on the current basis, we want our fishing grounds back and we want to continue to be good neighbours in terms of security, environment and residents' rights. But the main thing is free trade.

The question is, can you (the EU) accept this or not? If not, (and remember this is a day one question), we walk.

And if they say yes to this, that's great and we then go into the two-year period of 'colouring in' to sort out the details, but the deal has effectively been done on day one.

The reason why this won't happen, why we won't get this 'deal' (which would, by the way, be the best thing for all concerned on both sides),  is that we will go in on the basis of wanting a professional, rational and above all fair solution for everyone involved and the EU will not. Because it is not professional or rational; it is a rag-bag of 27 countries all of whom have views and few of whom actually understand the damage that an unfair deal (which causes us to 'walk') will do to their economies. Many have nothing to lose and so very little to gain. Many will delight in being seen as being important on the world stage for the first (and probably last) time.

You see, the thing is, this is not about us trying to sell a deal to 27 disparate (and not a little desperate) members of the EU. That's what the media and Remainers would have you believe. But it simply is not. This is about us making a single, simple offer to the EU about our future relationship. Bearing in mind that we are the EU's biggest customer on the planet. It then becomes the EU's problem to sell that offer to its 27 members. If it can't do that, then it's the EU's problem. Not ours. Because if (I think when) we 'walk' they have a massive problem.

Let me just repeat that for clarity. Selling the deal to the 27 EU member states is an issue for the EU, not the UK. It's up to them to do the deal with their members not us. We are negotiating with the EU. Not each and all 27 members. That's for them to do.

If they can't do this, if a situation of non-agreement does arise then I think German industrialists will call Merkel in for a quiet chat and the problem of the deal may be solved. If you seriously think the Wallooons or some other fucking widget farmers from Slovakia will stop an EU-UK trade deal from happening, then I think you're mad. But, such is the unpredictability and desperation to punish the UK to try to stop other countries from leaving when they see us do well outside the EU, that this could conceivably happen. Particularly given the fact that the Eurocrats have nowhere else to go and have already been seen, time and again, to favour the EU and their solid gold remuneration packages over the countries they're supposed to represent. See Mandelson, Kinnock, Heseltine etc just in the UK.

So, we have three choices: We say to the EU - this is our offer, you sort it out or we walk, and then we leave the negotiations within the 27 EU members to them... or: We walk away from the negotiations with the EU and actually target those countries - Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Low Countries, Scandinavia - with whom we do want to trade, on an individual basis, deal by deal and exclude the EU... or: we revert to WTO rules and effectively consign the EU to the history books overnight - because that option will fuck them and empower the UK to trade on its own behalf with the rest of the world.

That's the choice facing the UK and the EU. I know where I'd rather be.

Thanks for reading.

Special steak & pancake recipe just for you

Just wanted to share my extra-special Steak & pancake recipe with you:

Take a good thick fillet steak & crust both sides with sea salt and freshly-ground black prepper. Heat a griddle on max heat for about 4 minutes so it's really hot then cook the steak for 2 minutes on one side and 1 minute on the other side. 

Leave it to stand (rest) for 4 minutes; then serve with English mustard and a side-salad.

What about the pancake? I hear you ask.

Who wants a fucking pancake when you've got fillet steak? 

Sorry. :)

Thanks for reading

Would you really throw open your doors to strangers without asking any questions about them?

Would you, seriously, open your doors and take somebody into your home without asking to know anything about them first? Given that you may have young kids, vulnerable older people, women, living there.

I think you'd want to know a bit more about the newcomers before you just let them in. I don't think you'd open your doors just on the basis that they were members of the same species as you.

But it's not even as simple as that is it? We're not talking about incomers about whom you know nothing are we? They have a track record which makes investigation even more vital.

You know that incomers, from the same place and having the same moral compass as supplied by their religious beliefs, who moved into your Western neighbour's house next door, have now made that place much worse than it was before.

Their previously happy home has now become a conflict zone, with areas of it no longer accessible to them. The incomers have taken over parts of the house and established their own laws and rules and are now unwilling to negotiate any kind of compromise or abide by any of the former house rules - rules which had, hitherto, meant for a stable, safe and prosperous environment in which everyone was very happy to live. And your neighbour is now advising the women in the household not to wear fashionable clothes or to go into areas of their former home on their own, because they're likely to be attacked, molested or raped by the people to whom your neighbour showed such generosity.

So, knowing this, I ask again, would you simply open your doors and welcome anyone in without wanting to ask some questions about their motivations and values and without making it clear that abiding by your 'house rules' was a fundamental requirement of your generosity?

I think if you would do that, you want your head examining.

What Donald Trump is advocating, is finding out the motivations and values of these potential incomers to find out how they might fit successfully (for you and them) into your home. Finding out (before it's too late and they have already settled in), whether they will play a positive part in the household and live by the rules that have made the 'house' so attractive in the first place, or whether their beliefs and values ought to preclude them from coming into your home because they would make it the same kind of hell-hole that exists next door and also exists in the lawless and terrible 'homes' from which they're fleeing. Where women in particular, are treated as third class human beings at best, where the victims of rape are prosecuted, where gay people are not just prosecuted but executed and there is a distinct lack of respect for anyone not sharing their religious beliefs (to say the very least).

I think Trump is right to want a pause in the influx so that we can ask these questions and establish the facts of the matter so that we can then take an informed decision on whether we should be welcoming these people into our homes or not.

is this what we want to happen in the UK? The US? It is happening in Germany & Sweden already

For what it's worth, I think we should be trying to help these people: We (in the guise of Blair, Bush and others) have contributed significantly to the creation of the hellish war zones from which they're fleeing. But we didn't effect the lifestyle change illustrated in the image above, they did that all by themselves. Because unscrupulous men made use of a set of archaic religious 'rules' written by an illiterate goatherd in the C7th when they thought the earth was flat, and whose medieval doctrine has always been oppressive of women and advocates an expansion of the religion through violence.

So we need to find a way in which we can welcome these oppressed people and which will allow them to be safe in, and contribute to, the West. We cannot do that without engaging and finding out what motivations and bullying doctrines need to be addressed before that can happen. Which means that just opening our doors without finding out what we're dealing with, just because we want to be seen as 'nice' people, is utter madness. It is also an approach which is leading directly to the loss of thousands of lives in the Mediterranean and the growing success of the totally evil people-traffickers. That's what our 'kindness' is actually doing.

It's time someone stood up for our Western values and our way of life and, given that the UK and European governments have so far proved to be doing anything but standing up for 'us', who better to take this much-needed stand than the President of the USA?

Those who are marching and protesting against his actions are effectively advocating that we open our doors without asking questions. But they wouldn't dream of opening their own doors if the situation arose. This makes them not just useful idiots, but dangerous idiots as well. It makes it imperative, for the very survival of our relatively free and fair lives in the West, that their stupid liberal views do not prevail.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks for reading.

The EU, Germany, and the real reason why we voted to leave

We're far too polite in the UK. Thankfully, for you, I'm not.

The EU project, certainly since 1993, but the origins are much earlier, has been the continuation of Mr Hitler's project. It has been about the Germanification of Europe, pure and simple. This time it has been about banks not tanks, but the overall objective is exactly the same. A Europe with a single government, army, currency, flag, anthem etc.

A German government. A German Europe. And this time, instead of opposing it, we - and the French, Italians, Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians etc - have been suckered in to paying for and supporting it. How brilliant is that from the Germans' point of view? And so soon after the last unpleasantness? Quite a feat for them and quite a shambles of inteligence and far too much politeness from us.

And while you might argue that this is about the Brussels-based EU, it's really Germany, isn't it? Think about it? The EU doesn't do anything without Frau Merkel's say-so. France is entirely impotent. Italy is fucked and Spain doesn't really know what day it is.

So the British referendum vote was about sovereignty. And a bit about immigration, but more about control of immigration than about us being anti-immigrant. I believe that and hope that it's true for my fellow Brexiteers. It may not be 100%, but I have the luxury of not being adversely affected by immigration while many aren't in that position. And there are some places in the UK where immigration is making life difficult for the indigenous population, even if the BBC and other media won't admit it.

In any case, that's what the polls tell us: Sovereignty - laws made by people who might actually have heard of where you live and who you can kick out at an election if they don't deliver, was the biggest issue for voters in our referendum. Or was it?

How do you plan and provide the infrastructure needed for a population the size of
Newcastle every year? Especially if you don't actually know what numbers you're dealing with?

I think there was a bigger, but perhaps more subliminal issue involved. I think it was that the Brits recognised that this EU thing is about a German take-over of Europe and that brings two issues into play: One is that we don't want the fucking Germans taking over the Europe that our predecessors fought and died to protect, and the other is that we do actually care for our fellow Europeans, French, Italians, Spanish etc, because we know them, we holiday there; we like them and what they have to offer. And, simply put, we want Italy, France, Spain et al, to continue to be Italy, France & Spain, not fucking Germany-by-the-sea.

In short, we like what Europe has to offer; its diversity, culture, food, music - well actually not so much the music - but the lifestyle and attitude of its different countries. In many ways, because they're not the serious, unfunny, austere, frankly pretty boring Germans. We actually want the Europe that we know and love to continue to be there; quirky, interesting, diverse, relaxed, friendly, warm rather than regimented, uptight, austere, domineering, cold, northern. 

Yes I have worked in Germany and have German friends - they'd laugh at this description but probably also admit its veracity in some ways. In many ways what I'm describing is the behavior of a country rather than the individuals who populate it.

And if Germany takes over, the Europe of the future simply won't be as fantastic a place as it is now.

What passes for 'Cuisine' in Germany :)

We also have an inherent dislike of bullies - and one of the founding principles of the EU was that it would protect the smaller, weaker nations from the larger, stronger ones. How's that working out? Exactly the opposite is what has actually happened. Germany has used the EU and its rules to impose German rules and standards on the place (which is why Greece and Italy are in such a mess) and has also taken advantage of a much better currency exchange rate than it could possibly hope for with the Deutschmark, to give it an unfair international trading advantage - something I've been complaining about for years but which has only, in the last week, been picked up by the USA as a major issue.

Anyway, as usual, the Germans are making a right fucking mess of their own country and of Europe. Without the UK the EU will probably fail quite quickly, but in any case, once they see that we are thriving outside their protectionist 'club' many more EU member states will want to leave too. And then we'll be back to a Europe of independent nation states, able to re-balance their economies by devaluing their currencies and able to continue to be great places in which to live, work and play. And then, for the 3rd time in 100 years, the actions of the Brits will have foiled Germany's expansionist 'habit' and will have saved Europe form itself once again.

Of course by then, the way Frau Merkel is going, Germany and Sweden might be majority Muslim countries - and Islam doesn't have the best track record for creating free, open, tolerant, mixed, modern societies. But that's another issue for another time.

Thanks for reading.

So, what's to negotiate?

Amid all this bollocks about who represents the UK, whose interests they have at heart; will it be a hard or soft Brexit? There is an issue that no-one seems actually be talking about:

What are the negotiations really about? What is on the table?

There's talk of it taking 10 years to negotiate our departure from the EU. Everyone one hears talking about the issue says it'll be difficult and complicated and technically challenging and time consuming. A lot of effort. Is it really worth it?

'Why don't we just stay in the EU and give ourselves a break. It'd be better for us all in the end after all.'

Seems to be what they're saying.

This is all utter bollocks of course.

Firstly, let's just get the EU stuff out of the way: The EU has been a disaster for every single member of it except Germany. And what a surprise that is. The EU is about the Germanification of Europe. Making everywhere a single place with universal laws, flag, anthem, army, tax laws, employment rights, retirement laws, working time directives, food and environmental standards.

It sets out to make everywhere Germany. And if you like food or culture or fairness or history or music or fun, that is really bad news.

Hitler wanted Europe to be a single place with its own flag, anthem, government, laws, currency, army, rulers.. whereas the EU.... oh hang on a minute...

Not convinced? Think about it. I mean really think about it.

What makes Europe a fantastic place is its diversity, the identity and culture, cuisine, and place that each individual country has to offer. Their history, their people, their silly traditions. All of which are under threat from a controlling and centralising EU.

And you'll hopefully note that I have not even mentioned their economies which have been reduced to basket-case status by the EU. That is a really really bad thing, but it's not the main thing.

Take France, just by way of illustrating my point. France has a traditional, almost subsistence farming culture. Its agriculture could not be described as efficient or financially sound. But it has created a wonderful way of life for millions of people. A way of life I admire and I would love to go and live there. But, and here's the rub, it is not sustainable. And it cannot be financially afforded by the French economy.

So here's what Germany has done. It has arranged to subsidise this French agri-based economy - that France cannot afford but which can be funded if the rest of Europe pays into the pot - in return for France becoming subservient to Germany in the guise of its puppet Brussels and the EU. Which has happened. Hasn't it? When was the last time France opposed anything the EU proposed? It never happens. The CAP is still 47% of the EU budget. Because it subsidises the French way of life. And we pay for that. France keeps its fiesty farmers on-side and Germany gets to make up the EU rules as it goes along without any protest from France.

Ask young people in Southern Europe if the EU has been a good thing. Ask yourself if you really want to go to Italy or Spain if they're basically Germany-next-the-sea in the future?

So the EU has been a disaster and needs to fail. Brexit is good for the UK in my opinion; bringing back sovereignty and control is a good thing. But for me it's not just about Brexit, it's about the demise of the EU and the resurgence of every European country (except Germany) back to its former status, economic prosperity and place. That's what this is all about for me.

I am European, to my boots. I am not 'just' English. (half Irish actually since you ask). I love Europe, have lived and worked there, worked in most European countries, and being opposed to the EU is my way of trying to preserve the outstanding qualities that Europe has to offer and to which the EU is a massive threat.

OK EU rant over.

So what's to negotiate as far as Brexit is concerned?

As far as I can see, everyone is talking about the upcoming negotiations, but no-one is actually considering what is going to be negotiated. Everyone seems to accept that the negotiations are terribly complicated and will take oodles of time to complete.

I don't. At all. It is just not that complicated.

The remainers want to suggest that it'll be endless and complicated and difficult and Brexiteers seem to have accepted this as gospel. It really isn't.

It's really quite simple. It's not complicated. It's about the principle of the thing. Yes there will be industries and people who will need clarity and deals and arrangements to be done going forward. There are 40 years of laws and legislation to be renegotiated. But the people who say it'll take years to resolve are completely missing the point. Our EU deal will not rest on whether we can sell a certain type of cheese to France. The signing of the deal will not be held up by trivia like that. It will be based on principles which can and will be identified and agreed upon very early in the negotiation process:

We have two simple choices to make in our negotiations with the EU. We either do a deal in terms of fundamental principles or we walk away and start again. I actually think walking away and starting again has many benefits but it is not the most likely outcome, although it needs to be a real and present threat to the EU if we are to secure the best deal for the UK:

When Theresa May goes in to bat for us at the beginning of our negotiations at the end of March - and I think it needs to be her not some proxy ambassador - she will (if she has any sense), state our position quite simply.

'We want free trade. We are the EU's biggest customer in the world, there is a £106.4 billion trade deficit between the UK and the EU in your favour and we come here offering to maintain that situation through free trade. We do not want to be governed by the EU and we will no longer accept the rules of the club that we are leaving, which means no free movement of people or sovereignty of the EU courts over our Parliament, but we do want to maintain free trade between the UK and the rest of Europe.

'This free trade is clearly in the interests of the UK and also of the EU. This is what we are offering. Tariff-free trade. As exists now. What changes is that we will no longer pay the membership fees of your club and we will no longer accept the rules of membership. We will control our own borders and make our own laws. But we will continue to be good neighbours, we will work together on security and other common interests, but we will not be governed by you.

'Free trade is what we are offering and seeking. If you decline this offer we will revert to WTO rules and if you impose trade tariffs we will respond in kind but with double the tariffs you impose on us.

'And we will not negotiate with 27 other countries. We will negotiate with the EU as their representative. The question is will you accept our free trade offer?

'If not, we need to know now and if not we will simply walk away from these talks and leave you to get on with it. If you are not willing to commit to continuing free trade in the interests of all EU members and the UK, (the key, big picture element of these talks) then we are not prepared to continue discussions on the minutia and will instead just sever all our ties with the EU forthwith. And in that case we will walk away and wish you good luck. You'll need it.

'Your call Mr Juncker'.

And that's it basically. If the EU does not accept the need for both sides to continue to trade freely I really don't see any need for negotiations on other issues. All the detail stuff will either follow the EU's acceptance of our position or we'll walk away and get on with our lives.

And then, if it survives 2017 which I think is in serious question, the EU will, in the end, have to come crawling back begging for us to trade with them. Either way, Theresa holds almost all of the high value cards in this game of poker and she, having set out her principled approach, has since kept her own council; has not wavered in her stance and has not missed any deadlines. While everyone else, on both sides of the channel have been flapping about, making threats and demanding to see plans and to have a say on strategy, she has just kept quiet - and resolute - about the whole process.

She's playing a blinder in my opinion.

Ten years? Two years? It'll take half an hour and then six months of drafting the main elements of the treaty. No longer than that. The minutia and the detail may well take longer, for each industry sector perhaps, but the main deal will either be done or discarded almost overnight.

In my opinion, if things look like not being resolved because of the intransigence of the EU leaders who have shown themselves not to give a shit about the economic suffering of people in member states particularly in southern Europe, the German industrialists will quietly invite Angela in for a chat and the free trade deal will be done very quickly thereafter.

I don't think these industrial leaders will allow a Romanian widget-farmer to derail what is the most important EU trade deal ever contemplated. However much Juncker et al want to bluster. In the end they need a good trade deal with the UK more than they ever have. We know it. They know it. They are simply not going to fuck with their biggest customer if they have any sense at all.

And actually the business leaders around Europe must be aware of this and will not, in my view, allow the failed politicians who populate the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg fuck this up because of their own egos and their own misguided sense of power. It just won't happen.

But that's just my view.

Thanks for reading.