Are you and I bigger contributers to the global carbon footprint than we thought?

Here’s a wee question for you.  Can you tell me one the most destructive industries on the planet in terms of carbon footprint?   I’m sure will come up with many answers.  I bet one of the ones you immediately thought of was air travel.  It’s a real baddie, isn’t it?  Right up there as being a terrible impact on the environment.  Big carbon foot print.  You can understand why many protesters focus on air travel.  They vent their anger on social media.  They use web and cloud based technology to really hammer home their point.

Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish activist who, at age 15, began protesting outside the Swedish parliament in August 2018 about the need for immediate action to combat climate change, is one of the people who makes really good use of channels like Twitter.  

But hang on, it seems when you dig into it, the web industry is really one of the worst of all.  

Yes, it’s true.  The data industry is responsible for more global carbon emissions than the entire aviation industry.   

How on earth do I come up with that idea? Well, turns out that all this data stored on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, YouTube, WhatsApp, is piling up.  Fast.  And the Cloud, or to be more accurate, 6,911 massive data centres located around the globe, are hungry for power. Very hungry.  They need massive cooling systems to keep them cool.  They really do eat up energy.

So next time you go on to Facebook or watch a video on Netflix or YouTube, it turns out you, like Greta, are actually contributing more harm to the environment than air travel.  Not sure young Greta has quite worked that the very medium she uses to promote her message has in fact the biggest carbon footprint of all industries.

Minister resigns.

What kind of democracy does Alan Duncan believe in?  It was he and his fellow MPs that chose to put Mr Johnson into the last two.   

Now he won’t accept the vote of the Members of the party.   

Typical Remainer.

A bargaining chip.

A UK flagged oil tanker has been hijacked in the Gulf by Iran and everyone is getting very excited about it.   

But why the excitement I ask.  This is, after all, simply the next instalment in a chapter of an ancient book that goes back to Biblical days.  This current instalment began 48 years ago when I was still at school in 1971.  Back then Iran were our best friends, sort of.  So good a friend were they that we agreed to sell them 1,500 Chieftain tanks.  Quite an order.  And the bill for the Shah of Iran was a cool £650m.   Adjusted for inflation that is a heady £4,103m in today’s money. 

But then things began to go a bit wrong in 1979.  And before we knew it the Shah was no longer ruler of Iran.  The new boys in town were headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini.   To popular acclaim by the people of Iran, (at least, that’s how some write the history of the period), he was back on an Air France flight from Paris where he had been in exile.  

This provided the UK with a bit of a problem.  The Ayatollah really wasn’t our kind of guy.  So we decided we wouldn’t give him the balance of the tanks we were yet to deliver.   The contract was cancelled.   Britain had managed to deliver 185 tanks to Tehran up to this point.  Unfortunately for Iran the Shah had paid it all up front, rather than on delivery.  Not surprisingly Iran said “Ok, give us our money back for the tanks you haven’t delivered”.  Reasonable?  Not to the then UK government. So we refused to give them back the balance of £450m for the undelivered tanks.  That is £2,840m in today's money. Add to that any interest that could  be also added and you have a pretty big figure.

Iran won an arbitration case at the Hague-based International Chambers of Commerce in May 2001 for repayment of the fund, a legally binding judgement.
  
So all of a sudden the oil tanker makes sense.  So does the jailed journalist Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.   Iran is owed a lot of money by the UK.  

The Iranian authorities have never made an explicit link between the outstanding payment and the fate of Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who is serving a five-year jail sentence for espionage, but in private Iranians cite the money owed as one reason for the lack of trust between Tehran and London.   

So today they have added a bargaining chip to their armoury to fight for the money they are legally owed.  An oil tanker.  

Who can blame them?

How to defeat democracy.

Mr Hammond, like all hard-line Remainers, has simply never accepted the democratic mandate given to the government to leave the EU.   

He also has never accepted that he, like 80% of the current intake of the House of Commons, was elected on a manifesto that said it would deliver Leave.   

Furthermore he hasn’t accepted that MPs themselves set the law which set two different departure dates.  All that means nothing to him.   

And now he even rubbishes his own political party and their internal democratic system of electing a new leader by saying he may not support the new leader that emerges from the two candidates that Conservative MPs themselves presented to the party as their two options.  

The sooner that Mr Hammond and his ilk are recognised as the political failures they have become the better.  

In Plain Sight.

As we near the exit of the May/Hammond axis of power we are beginning to see that they were not Conservatives at all.    

Just look at the direction they have taken our economy, our army navy and air force, our taxation system, our law and order.  

In each of these areas of responsibility they have, in plain sight, overseen the diminution of its entrepreneurial spirit, the inability to protect ourselves as a maritime nation, the ramping up of an economic wet blanket taxation system and the effectiveness of justice.   

They leave our nation far worse off than when they came to office these three short years and ten days ago.

Be Prepared.

The motto of the Scouts.   Always a good way to live your life.  So it is encouraging that the BBC is reporting that the Bank of England says the UK banking system is still resilient to the financial impact of a worst-case disorderly Brexit.  Or put it another way,  a WTO alternative to an agreement with the EU.  

Note the words of caution in the report.  A worse case disorderly Brexit. 

Now in reality we know that this is all about politics, the creation of a European Super state as evidenced by the new people at the top pf the EU tree who have affirmed this as the EUs goal.  

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, nominated by the European Council as their candidate for President of the European Commission (just think that sentence through for a second, no democracy there), has called for the creation of a European superstate. "My aim is the United States of Europe..." she said in an interview with Der Spiegel.  She has also called for the creation of a European Army.  It's worthwhile checking all the other nominees for the EUs top posts.  Not one of them will be democratically elected.  

But do we really expect businesses to allow political posturing get in the way of trade?  I don’t think so.   Lorries will be flowing across La Manche.  We know that because on the other side of the Dover Straits they have put in the infrastructure ready for even the worst case of leaving the EU without a political agreement.   

One hopes that in the three years the UK has had to get its house in order it has done the same as our friends across the water.  If not, who’s going to be in court on Misconduct in Public Office charge?    

We’d have to go right back to Amber Rudd as Home Secretary an all the others who have run departments and ask, "did you start preparing for leaving with no political deal on day one?"  And follow that up with: "If not, why not?".

Major has short memory.

So, Sir John throws his tuppence worth in the ring again on whether Parliament should be prorogued.  Indeed, he is threatening to take a future prime minister to court to stop them doing just that.

But hang on a moment.  Didn't Sir John do just that himself back in 1997?    Back then it was to delay the publication  of a highly embarrassing report into the “cash for questions” sleaze scandal when he was prime minister.  But suddenly Mr Major, who didn’t have such a problem of parliament being prorogued back then, now feels he's got to stop it happening again. 

Should it not be Sir John that is being taken to court for Misconduct in Public Office for signing the Maastricht treaty in the first place without consulting the people?   Now he is trying to overturn the democratic wishes of 17,410,742 people of the UK who decided he was wrong to sign the treaty of political union in the first place.

Perhaps Sir John should remember that MPs already voted in favour of No Deal Brexit when they set it as the legal default by passing the EU Withdrawal Act a year ago.

Swamp.

If the report in the Times today that “Philip Hammond has told Theresa May that he will fund her legacy plans as a trade-off for her allowing Tory MPs free votes on efforts to stop a no-deal Brexit” is true, then we really do have a swamp to drain in Westminster.   

Not only that, I think it is fair to say that this could be construed as Misconduct in Public Office as he is undermining both the prime minister and the majority of the people of the nation who voted for us to Leave the EU.    

That is far more serious than the numbers on the side of a bus which the judges subsequently ruled were actually ok.

Who?

If I were to ask you, "who is or was our Brexit Chief?", who would you come up with?

I suppose you could come up with a number of answers.  You could name a politician, David Davis, Dominic Raab, or the current incumbent as Secretary of State, Stephen Barclay.  You may even say Theresa May herself was the Brexit Chief.   

Or you may name a Civil Servant.  Olly Robbins has been at the helm for Mrs May.   

So I really was expecting a big name when I read the headline, “Former Brexit chief: We should all worry about no deal”.  Which of these people could it have been?   

As it turns out, none of them.   It was a Civil Servant, Philip Rycroft, who went on to say for the BBC Panorama cameras that everyone should worry about no deal.  

Quite what a Civil Servant was doing speaking to Panorama I’ve no idea.  If that is not undermining the current and future strategic direction of negotiators, I’m not sure what it is.  Perhaps he forgot the real title is not the Brexit department, a word so meaningless its use by Remainer Deniers says all you need to know about what they are trying to achieve. The department he was working in is correctly titled The Department for Exiting the European Union.   A bit of a clue in the wording there I think.

But it is the headline of the article, prominent on the BBC web site that gets me.  Once again another less than subtle apparently deliberate attempt to undermine the democratic wish of the people. 

Remainer deniers.

I really struggle with Remainer MPs like David Gauke.  A Conservative.  He and his fellow Conservative MPs, in what was entirely conducted by the rules of the party, selected two candidates to put to the Membership of the party, the people that do the foot slogging for their selected candidate every election.  It's tough work foot slogging.   I know, I've been there.

The Members of the party will now select the new leader of the party.  But such democracy means nothing to Mr Gauke as he has said he would have 'to resign' if the next PM backs a so called no-deal Brexit.  What of course he won't back is a WTO alternative to an agreement with the EU.  He doesn't beleive in Leaving.

There is no such thing as no deal.  We actually don't need a withdrawal agreement, as we all well know.  There is a deal, it is just not a withrdawal one with the EU.  And that is something totally different as people like Martin Howe, QC keep pointing out to deaf Remainer ears.   

Not that any Remainer who denies the EU referendum result would admit to that.  So be part of an election of a leader who has clearly stated exactly what he will do.  Then throw your toys out of the pram when he says that he will do in office what he said he would do in the election for leader.  

Like all Remainers he sees no irony in his positon.  Another person who thinks his opinion is worth more than the majority of people in the nation who actually voted to leave the EU. 

Marcus Ball vs Boris Johnson.

Well, the judges have spoken.  Or written to be entirely accurate.  Yes, Mr Balls case against Mr Johnson was thrown out a few weeks ago.  But its taken to now to see the written reasoning of their judgement in the Marcus Ball vs Boris Johnson case.     

Now we can see why.  Boris’s favourite number was ok.  Yes, the judges said £350m was ok.   “The alleged offence set out in the Application for Summons is that the Claimant “repeatedly made and endorsed false and misleading statements concerning the cost of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union”.  It appears that if the Claimant had said/endorsed a figure of £350m per week gross, or £250m per week net, there would have been no complaint.”    

Pretty clear from the judges.  And given Boris always said the £350m a week was the gross figure, there really was no case to answer.   

Mr Ball is the poorer now for not having taken time to read and listen and watch all the comments Boris made.   

Makes you wonder exactly what he was doing with his time, funded by his crowd funding campaign, that he said was being dedicated to bring those who told lies to court.

One.

Don’t Remainers ever stop and think what are the objectives of the EU?   

One currency. 

One flag. 

One anthem. 

One army. 

One taxation system.   

One foreign policy.   

All that equals one thing.   

One country.
And that is what they voted for in the Referendum.

Tactics

Will Ms Sturgeon be so keen on taking No Deal off the table as a negotiating tactic if she ever has the opportunity to negotiate Scotland’s exit from the UK?   

Don’t think so.

To have Sovereignty or not have Sovereignty. That was the question.

There are two kinds of people in the debate about the EU.  Those who seek to have a conversation based on facts and the law.  And those who seek to sloganize.  Both sides have their fair share of both it has to be said.   

But if we get away from those who cry leaving the EU will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and those how talk about a cliff edge disaster, we can move on to territory that actually is productive.  And at the heart of the debate we find that it all comes back down to the question on the ballot paper three years ago.   Should we stay or should we go?

Just remember, the question was one that the Electoral Commission, the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK, said was good.   Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission said, “Any referendum question must be as clear as possible so that voters understand the important choice they are being asked to make. We have tested the proposed question with voters and received views from potential campaigners, academics and plain language experts.

‘Whilst voters understood the question in the Bill some campaigners and members of the public feel the wording is not balanced and there was a perception of bias.  The alternative question we have recommended addresses this.  It is now for Parliament to discuss our advice and decide which question wording should be used.’   

And that revised question was the one that MPs approved.    

That’s the legitimacy of the question out of the way.  In the biggest ever plebiscite the UK has ever seen 17,410,742 voted leave, a majority of almost 4%.   Even the late Paddy Ashdown said one vote was enough.

So, on the question, the Electoral Commission said was ok.  The voters voted to leave.  Yet some still say we didn’t know what we were voting for.   If I asked you, using the same wording as the referendum question, “do you want to remain a member of your golf or leave the golf club”, I think you would agree the question was pretty straightforward.  In other words, it was about one thing only, Sovereignty.

“Tesco faces Brexit deadline headache”.

So said the BBC headline as Tesco's boss who noted that planning for the new Brexit deadline is "more difficult" because the supply network will be full of Christmas stock.  

Dave Lewis told the BBC that the new deadline of the end of October meant there would be "less capacity" for stockpiling longer-life items.    

A no-deal Brexit could mean tariffs and delays at the border that interrupt supplies of some food, he said.   

Like all prudent business leaders Mr Lewis’s business was ready to leave the EU on March the 29th this year.  When it didn’t he, like all the others, probably just shrugged their shoulders, accepted the massive waste of money and time they had spent preparing for what the government had said would happen, as just the way things go, and moved on.

Perhaps he should have sent a bill to HM Treasury for the cost of being prepared.   

So his issue is all about problems of distribution, not about leaving the EU.  Tucked away in the article a single one liner when Mr Lewis said that leaving the EU could also provide opportunities for the UK.  

I’d like to see these words, from one of the UKs biggest companies, feature rather more prominently in the next story the BBC do on Tesco.

Is this man for real? He just makes up numbers.

Attempt at a coup d'état?

Rory Stewart Roderick James Nugent Stewart, OBE FRSL FRSGS is one of these people that would be fun to have as a guest at a dinner party.   

Entertaining, full of stories, some exaggerated to make it more exciting perhaps?  But I suspect people would begin to tire of him as he became more and more unbelievable.  His claim that he is actually the main challenger to Boris in the leadership campaign is truly remarkable.  But he clearly believes it.

Indeed, such is his self confidence that he is threatening / promising to lead a coup d'état, should Boris win the leadership contests.  Yes, he proclaims he would up an alternative legislative chamber if Boris prorogues Parliament.  You can read on the offical UK Parliament web site what that actually means.  So if it is on the offical Parliament, it's not illegal.  Far from it. Indeed, there are very good reasons why it has to be an option available for a prime minister.

I suppose a legitimate question is, why would anyone wish to prorogue parliament?  I think the answer is Prorogation would only be considered to ensure that the democratic process of implementing what the people of the UK voted for in 2016 is implemented.   

Indeed, it can be argued that it could be used to implement what MPs, including Mr Stewart, voted for when they voted to overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.    

Oh, and let’s not forget about implementing the manifesto commitments of the Conservative party at the last general election.  (Perhaps he never read the manifesto like he may not have read the Article 50 legislation that he enthusiastically voted for).   

And as a method of delivering government policy it has recent use in spite of all the wailing.  Take Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2010.  Or further back, Clement Attlee in 1948.  Now, given MPs voted to implement Article 50, it’s only right that the government makes sure that it is implemented to its conclusion.     

Some have noticed Mr Stewart's selective approach in his faux outrage on democracy as it does not seem to stretch as far as reneging on a legal referendum duly authorised by him and Parliament, where by the winners polled 17,410,742 votes.  Clearly of the Liberal Democrat school of thought, democracy is everything, as long as I win, Mr Stewart should think carefully before threatening to establish an "alternative parliament" because that could well be outside the law: it sounds dangerously close to sedition whereas to prorogue Parliament is not illegal.    

Is Mr Stewart an egotist beyond measure?  That's for you to decide.  But I suppose you could sum up our dinner guest as a typical hardliner Remainer who won't accept the democratic will of the people in a referendum, the will of the House of Commons in which he sits when it voted for Article 50 or respect a secret ballot for leader of the party.  His vow to bring down the democratically elected leader of the Conservative Party down because he didn't win the argument is really the worst case of throwing your toys out of the pram.

We've actually left the EU already.

"Whichever way one looks at it, the Agreement was either unlawful or made for an unlawful purpose or ultra vires.  That means that the UK left the EU on the 29th March 2019 by default as there was no valid or lawful impediment to prevent it."   

So says Stanley Brodie QC in an article.  He recently retired from practice at the Bar of England and Wales after over 60 years, including over 40 years as Queen’s Counsel.  He practised at the commercial Bar from Blackstone Chambers, being instructed in a wide spectrum of cases. He is also part of Lawyers For Britain.   Quite a smart chap then.   

So bearing in mind his legal view, perhaps the next Conservative Prime Minister could find it useful to say on Day One of his or her time in office that, since we have already left the EU legally, all we can do is negotiate our relationship for the future.

Who owns the constitution? The Speaker or the People?

John Bercow’s comment that the prorogation of Parliament is “simply not going to happen” is remarkable. It may be unpopular, but it is a perfectly constitutional position. 

The Speaker clearly thinks “one rule for you, another for me” is an acceptable approach, until he finds parliamentary process can be used to thwart his will and instead implement the will of the people as displayed in the referendum of 2016.

Fabric of society undermined by non democrats.

Just look at the contorted nasty face of the woman shouting "scum" at an American.  Like those around her in that melee, she is a Remainer that can’t stomach the fact that the people of the UK voted in a way she didn’t like.  Welcome to the nasty side of Remain.

And that is the problem with all those that say we shouldn’t "normalise" Trumps behaviour.   They can't see the plank in their own eye.

So we shouldn't accept that people like this woman are trying to "normalise" Liberal Democrat policy that says that we should over turn a democratic vote just because they don’t like it.   She clearly is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a democrat.  Nor are the Liberal Democratic Party candidates standing to be the leader of their party.  Every one of them seeks to overturn a democratic vote by the people of the UK.  Democrats?  You kidding?

I’m not too sure which is the most appalling. Trumps behaviour or Remainers undermining democracy.  I do know which will do the most lasting damage to the social fabric of our country and the families who live in it.  And it’s Not Trump.  

Protest about the right things.

Let’s see.  Current leader of the Labour party.  Supports dictatorships that destroy their nations hopes, and their economy. Nicaragua.   How about previous Labour leaders who got to be PM.  Lump Mr Brown and Mr Blair together as they were in it together.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.   Illegal wars.

Now, love or loathe Trump as person, as far as I can see he is the only USA President who hasn’t actually waged an illegal war, killed innocents by the thousands and whose only fault was keeping his campaign promises.  Some people might not like some of his promises, but that's why we have democracy. Elections.  Let the people choose.  Even President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war.   Indeed, in all of his eight years in office, the USA was at war somewhere, a rather dubious record to hold.

President Trump is actually is keeping he promises he was elected on.  There’s a novelty Mrs May might like to have a wee chat with him about. Though we won't be seeing many pictures of the President and the Prime Minister.  Would you really want to be photographed with the captain of a ship that has just had to leave their post as they were steering the ship on to rocks?

That the people of the USA democratically elected him says as much about the USA as it does about their president.  But, even with all these reasons why people don’t like him, the ridiculous fuss Trump Haters are churning out is remarkable.  He is being treated worse than the Chinese President or the King of the House of Saudi.  Now these are two gentleman with the human rights records as of the countries they lead, that is worth protesting about.   Let’s not forget Tiananmen Square. Or the oppression of women in Saudi.  

These are things to get angry and protest about.

When in a hole CBI, stop digging.

Remember Carolyn Fairbairn? Only a few months ago the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry announced that only 4% of her Membership were ready for the so called no deal BREXIT.  Three years to prepare yet 96% are not ready.  What an admission.   

Considering the Bank of England reckoned that 80% of UK businesses are ready to leave with the WTO alternative, she sounded a bit out of tune.  

But one thing you have to admire her for is perseverance.  Yesterday it was reported that she sent a letter to all MPs standing for the Conservative Party leadership outlining her views that a no-deal scenario would do "severe" damage to businesses.   And they are her views as not all Members of the CBI agree with them. 

She warned them that smaller companies cannot afford the necessary preparations for leaving without a plan.  

Three points.  One, CBI don’t represent smaller businesses.  Try the FSB for that, the clue is in the name.   

And second, as Mark Carney admitted earlier this year, 80% of business are ready to leave on WTO rules.   

That leads to the third point, and that is the implication that the CBI seem to be unable to grasp is there is no such thing as a cliff edge, just an alternative to the deal the EU are forcing upon us.  

When the biggest manufacture of hole diggers, JCB, decided to up sticks (or should that be digger buckets) and leave the CBI 'over its Brexit stance, Ms Fairbairn never understood the irony of JCB leaving and the the old adage, when in a hole, stop digging.

What's a porkie pie between friends?

Did Ms Sturgeon tell one in 2014?  Is it right to tell the people one thing one year and think it is ok to say the opposite two years later?  That's for you, dear reader, to decide.  

However, if we look at President of the European Commission, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, a man that Ms Sturgeon seems to be in enthral to, has never hidden his view that the compromises and deals being worked out in EU meetings or leaders or ministers need be protected from public scrutiny, by lies if necessary. 

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie" he said .    

On another occasion he said of the euro's introduction.: "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.". 

Welcome to the European Union.

Define a generation.

I seem to remember Ms Sturgeon saying that the September 2014 referendum in Scotland was a "once in a generation event". "This probably is a once in a life time opportunity for Scotland".   

Yet only two years later on 13 October 2016 she announced that an Independence Referendum Bill would be published for consultation the following week.   

So did she tell a lie saying it was once in a generation event?  Or was she thinking in terms of the generation of a hamster, not a human?

On which side of the fence is the Chancellor?

One does sometimes wonder about Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who’s side is he really on?     

The other day he talked about how he might find it difficult support a future Conservative prime minster that opted to leave the EU on an alternative deal to the one the EU have offered us.   

Some candidates have taken the balanced approach and suggested that if the EU chooses not agree to a deal that is less bad than leaving with WTO, then WTO it should be.  That is logical, though hysterical Remainers don’t seem to understand that.   

Anyway, not that everyone thinks that WTO is bad.  Far from it.  But the really odd thing is, Mr Hammond is apparently willing to put aside all logic and vote for something that would visit an even greater economic catastrophe on our nation.

Bizarrely Mr Hammond has refused to rule out voting against his own party in a confidence vote.   

Just think that through for a nano-second.  Our Chancellor, a man who is supposed to know all about finances, is in effect saying that leaving on WTO terms would be more damaging to the economy than a government led by Jeremy Corbyn.   

Is he having a laugh or what?  Or just being a scaremonger like he was at the referendum.  And all his scare stories then were, in the following months, proved to be utterly fanciful.

What this is really all about. A protectionist EU.

Amidst all the stuff about Deal and No Deal, those who don’t accept the democratic process like the Lib Dems are actually very cleverly shifting the narrative.  It’s all about confirmatory votes now.   So soft and cuddly.   

So perhaps we should actually remind ourselves what this is all about.  Why we wanted out of the costly, failing, protectionist bloc that is the EU.    

Austin Mitchell was Labour MP for Great Grimsby between 1977 and 2015.  In an article for BrexitCentral he spelt it out, clear and simple.    

As Mr Mitchell reminds us, once we joined, and particularly after John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty, there was no escape.  We couldn’t trade with other economies, get food on the cheaper world market or give state aid to failing industries and redistribute growth by an effective regional policy.   

Instead we were forced to trade in a protectionist bloc weighted against us, accept whatever cheap labour came in from Eastern Europe and all without help from the EU whose grants are our own money back with their costs taken out.   

That’s the problem. Our political elite likes it as a bigger stage on which to strut. The vested interests want to keep their cosy status quo and business lacks the guts to seize an opportunity. Yet the Brexit vote was largely triggered by the effects of austerity and slower growth on our people. Staying in an unchanged EU would do nothing about either. It seems more likely to increase the alienation which caused the vote in the first place.

Negotiations about what exactly?

Lots of politicians don’t want us to leave the EU without a deal.  Fair point.  I think everyone would prefer a deal.  But a deal about what?   

There are two sides to this.   

The political.  There is really nothing to talk about as far as a deal goes.  The people voted to leave the EU. The EU is a political construct.  Leaving, as Remainers kindly reminded everyone, we would be leaving the Political arm of the EU including the ECJ.  That is what John Major signed us up to in the Maastricht Treaty.  Political union.  So we will become just like any other nation that trades with the EU.  Japan, Australia, Brazil, et al.  None of them allow the EU to dictate law to them.  So why should we if we leave the EU?  So what will any deal be about?   

Well, trade.  Now when we get into trading, no one in their right mind tells the people they are negotiating with what their own fall-back position would be.  If they did, guess what would happen?  Yes, the fall back would be the new starting point for your opposition.  No one in their right mind would do that.  And yet we hear cries from people demanding that we must not leave without a deal and saying what we must agree to.  Well, if you were on the other side of the negations, what would you do?  

Answers on a post card….

Just a reminder what the Lib Dems believed under Paddy Ashdown.

590,947 votes

That’s how many votes the SNP garnered in the EU elections this week.  A snapshot.  And yes, they did indeed get the most votes in Scotland.   

But statistics are an odd thing.  The SNP's total haul in the EU election is still half the number that voted Leave in the EU referendum.   I know, I'm juggling numbers.

Mind you, Ms Sturgeon is pretty useful at juggling numbers herself.  She keeps telling us Scotland voted to stay in the EU.  Well, on closer inspection it turns out not quite the whole of Scotland voted Remain.  Indeed, 38% of Scotland voted Leave. That is quite a chunk of the electorate that voted.  That was a total of 1,018,322 souls who voted to Leave the EU.  Hardly “Scotland voted to Leave”.

So, what of the last General Election?  Well, only 977,569 voted for Nicola and her SNP.   And yes, you are sharp eyed and you’ve noticed that her polling at the General Election was also less than the number of people who voted to Leave the EU in Scotland.  

You can't swing both ways Nicola. As Paddy said, "you either believe in democracy or you do not".

Simple.

It really was simple.   Mrs May had a mandate for the UK to leave the EU.  

She also knew what people had voted for because Cameron, Brown, Clegg and Osborne told us when we were voting what exactly we were voting for.  They told us if we voted Leave we would leave the single market, the customs union, the rule of the ECJ.   

So if Remainers were telling us that, we knew that is exactly what was being voted for.   Yet Mrs May contrived to lose it all and surrender all to the EU.   

Any new leader needs to go back to the mandate the people gave parliament.   

Leave does indeed mean leave.

Gallant? Not Junker.

Thanks, Mr Junker, for sticking the knife into Mrs May and her clearly stated love of her country. 

Not the most gallant thing to do was it?  No wonder we want to leave with people like that at the EU’s helm.

Propaganda. Pure and simple.

So there we have it, almost 3 years after the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union, we’re still in it.  Why?  Well, from where I’m sitting, there are a number of reasons.  But as I think it is becoming increasingly obvious the real reason is Mrs May never wanted us to leave.  Why else would she be trying to construct a deal that keeps us in the EU.   BRexit In Name Only.  BRINO.   

And it has meant we have arrived at the farcical stage where we are going to have to go through the charade of having elections to the European Parliament.  How ludicrous is that?   And it’s all because people have not accepted that we voted to Leave the European Union.  The simple question on the ballot paper.  

So it was interesting to take a look at what the European Union are doing as we fail to do anything.   Their PR unit is working flat out with their message of what they think the EU is.  At least they are consistent. This quite remarkable video is one of the products from their legendary and fearsome PR unit.  All soft and fluffy masking the true cold calculating nature of the EU.  With this kind for propaganda from the EU brainwashing us and our children, what chance have we got?  Its nasty implication that if you disagree with their project, you are destroying the future of children.  If you disagree you are climate change deniers.  Worse, you are a terrorist.  It's all there in the video.  Very subtly, but it's there.

What wicked tactics the EU are descending to.