Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2017

Brexit (noun)

British exit from the European Union ….utterances of which sends little Europeaners into paroxysms of rage. To the Brimoaners and Bremainers just what is it about the referendum question we w…

Source: Brexit (noun)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

British exit from the European Union

….utterances of which sends little Europeaners into paroxysms of rage.

To the Brimoaners and Bremainers just what is it about the referendum question we were all asked is so difficult to understand. Just to remind you

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

That’s it, plain and simple. No caveats, no qualifications.

The referendum result was to leave the European Union. In anyone else’s lexicon the word ‘leave’ is clear, unremarkable and whose meaning is self evident. Yet ever since June 23rd last year we’ve had a constant backlash from the left with all sorts of assertions that leave doesn’t also mean leave the single market or tariff free zone.

Well yes, actually it does. As has been succinctly remarked on many occasions, leave means leave – no ifs or buts.

I’m getting somewhat tired of the patronising self assured elite who think the rest of us were either misled or are stupid and don’t really understand what we’ve done.

Well get over it. We knew leave meant leave both the single market and tariff free zone. We knew that this would allow us to start from a blank slate and negotiate whatever deals and arrangements we wanted without all the baggage that would otherwise fetter us. All the talk at the time about negotiating a Norwegian or Swiss type arrangement was an irrelevant red herring, cynically brought up in an attempt to sow seeds of doubt.

With the High Court decision over who can trigger Article 50 now behind us the way forward is relatively straightforward. The government’s argument that no deal (on access to the single market) is better than a bad deal should be the watchword.

The one thing that has surprised me is the way the word has resonated around the world. It clearly seems to have echoes in other countries where people are starting to sit up and recognise something can actually be done to rein in the overbearing global elite who feel it’s their right to rule without actually noticing what their electorates want.

Shakespeare put it best – “The game’s afoot”

Vive le Brexit.

 

 

Read Full Post »

The sheer hubris of la Sturgeon beggars belief. So the SNP are to table 50 amendments to the Brexit article 50 Bill when it comes before the UK Parliament. Why stop at 50 and why such a round number? Why not 60, or 99 for that matter.

It’s hard to see how the short two line Bill that seems likely could possibly give rise to 50 amendments. There’s likely to be less than 50 words in the whole Bill.  I exaggerate to make the point that you can only amend what’s written.

Of course this is simply her way to shore up support amongst her falling SNP support at home and little to do with any real hope of success. She needs to be careful. I sense that there are many who are getting fed up at her strident and overbearing manner. Who does she think she is?

I’m coming around to the conclusion that P.M. Theresa May should call la Sturgeon’s bluff and say to her, ‘You know what, we know you’ll fail but we agree you should have another referendum on Scottish Independence and we’ll be introducing a Bill to set one up shortly.’, and then do it. Let’s lance the boil. There’s not a cat in hell’s chance she’d get anywhere near a majority given the Scottish deficit as a % of GDP is now over twice that of the whole UK. Which of course would be even more when income from the Barnet formula was lost on independence day.

 

Read Full Post »

Trident missile test.

I see the usual suspects on the left are signalling outrage that a failure of a Trident missile after launch from a British submarine on a US test range wasn’t reported to Parliament. Of cour…

Source: Trident missile test.

Read Full Post »

I see the usual suspects on the left are signalling outrage that a failure of a Trident missile after launch from a British submarine on a US test range wasn’t reported to Parliament. Of course it wasn’t, nor should it.

The completely synthetic rage is predicated on the fact that when tests are successful then these are announced and therefore by the same token so too should unsuccessful tests.

The twitterati and those Labour Party socialists who object to the whole notion of nuclear missiles completely miss the point. The whole point about defence systems is that the knowledge that they exist and are succesfully tested is in itself a deterrent. So of course successful tests are announced from time to time (but I doubt all the time), but what’s the sense in announcing to your enemies that there has been a problem.

Does Russia announce that the record tractor production or harvest yields of previous years has suffered a setback this year. Of course not for very good reasons. In the case of Russia because they need to keep the population feeling happy about the ruling regime. It’s exactly the same in not wanting to give succour to your enemies in announcing a failed test, thereby increasing the chances of a miscalculation and an aggressive action by them.

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: