CV-19: The continuing War on Bugs

Following my earlier ramble here are some more thoughts:-

4. Globalization is bad.
If one lesson can be learned at this early stage it is surely this.
The outsourcing of essential production to foreign manufacturers has historically been seen for the folly that it is, but outsourcing almost everything to countries half a world away is closer to insanity than stupidity and we are witnessing how big the resulting potential for disaster is.

In particular, for the manufacture of basic medicines and supplies to be handed to foreign actors is inexplicable, no matter how many pennies it pretends to save. Given the size and structure of our NHS who compete with nobody and spend taxpayer's money, there is no excuse for allowing the nation's health to be put in such jeopardy.

Regardless of how quickly this pandemic is contained, we can all see just what is almost bound to happen in the future if we do not reverse the current madness.

5. Globalization is very bad.
The abdication of responsibility from elected national government, to global 'institutions' and corporations is the unpaved road to disaster, and it gets bumpier and more dangerous every time it is travelled.

When unwillingness to challenge our Chinese 'partners' over their claims about the outbreak for fear of upsetting those on whom we are so dependant, was clearly instrumental in not taking early and adequate precautions, we should reconsider this state of reliance and trust in foreign entities, especially those whose priorities are to save face, and maintain control of their population.

It may well be that this virus needs to simply run its course, and we should just try to slow down the infection rate to manageable proportions, but another strain may arrive far more deadly and infectious, and in that circumstance borders will need to be shut quickly, but it appears this is not the way we do things any more. Our government must abandon this nonsense and protect our interests, not those of people whose interests we do not even comprehend.

6. Globalization is very, very, bad.
How can any government plan effectively for a national emergency or epidemic, when it doesn't even know how many people reside here? And this is not a question of being out by a few hundred thousand, or even a million, because official figures may be out by anything up to 10 millions.

Imagine living in a house and paying for the food and services, but not knowing who or how many people were living upstairs, and it being illegal to ask.

The mindset that pervades the Globalist ideology is damaging to the extent of producing a form of collective mental illness that prevents rational thought and overrides even the most basic self interest of preservation for ones own being, or family, friends or country.

CV19: The War on Bugs

It is seldom wise to address something as fluid as the COVID-19 outbreak at this early stage, but if we can't get a decent vision of what's happening in 2020, when will we be able to?

There are already several interesting points to note:-

1. Newts.
Fake news has moved over the years, from the on-line fringes to the Mainstream broadcasters who seem now to have developed an aversion to objective truth. It appears that they no longer lie just to bolster their socio-political aims, but because they are no longer capable of telling the truth, such that we can confidently predict that reported events are Never Ever What They Say, and the problem now, as the pandemic takes hold, is that if MSM presented us with concrete evidence that it was under control, who would believe them?

2. Social collapse is dangerously close.
For many years we have been assured that diversity is our strength, but what has been promoted as diversity has been nothing less than creeping genocide. In a world where order and cooperation between nations is vital to the flow of goods and services, and very few countries are self-sufficient in the essentials for their survival, we are now so dependant on infrastructure and electricity, that interruption of either would lead to dire and completely unpredictable consequences.

Civil society has taken centuries to get where it is today, and it is built on trust and consent, but importing large numbers of people from places where aggression and intimidation are used to control populations and maintain patriarchal supremacy, has had a devastating effect on much of western civilian life and continues unabated via the studious non-reporting of facts.

Anyone worried by the levels of vicious and wanton violence on our streets today, should consider what these knife-wielding, acid-throwing gangs and their enablers would do if there is ever a shortage of food and water and our fingernail painting police are all that separates them from us.
Which brings me to another point highlighted by CV19.

3. There are too many people in the world.
The proverbial elephant in the room is really more akin to an alligator in the swimming pool, and there are few in the public eye, and far less in authority, who will even make this observation much less attempt to deal with it. Using Western countries as a form of overspill car-park while we wait for the world to become unviable is not the solution, any more than is paying billions of dollars to corrupt and despotic 'leaders' to keep them in power and privilege.

The greatest tragedy for the Third World, is that, while education is the first step to improving their lot, it is their educated few who are most able to leave and who we are most often willing to receive.

UK: The art of the (no) Deal

With Tory backbenchers defeated for now, Boris is able to plough on with including Huawei in UK's 5G infrastructure, and while I would usually be against such a move, this time there is much more at stake.

During the whole Brexit debate and following stand-off, a trade deal with America was touted as both easy and so essential that Barak Obama came to lecture us while threatening to relegate us to the back of the queue if we dared vote Leave.

Trump has reversed this nonsense, but do we need or even want such a Trade Deal? 

Free Trade sounds great, but most know that anything worth having is seldom free, economically at least, and, while TTIP contained many onerous demands, ISDS alone was enough to scare the pants off any self-respecting democracy that values its own population's interests over international corporation's profits.

One driver for voting Brexit, was seeing how EU attempted to bring in TTIP without any discussion or scrutiny, and only a series of leaks and public resistance prevented this tyranny, so why would we leave EU and then sign up to an even worse deal, because President Trump is a tough negotiator and he will ensure that his US benefits from any future arrangement will far outweigh anything that we can hope for.

So Boris is left with a conundrum, after placing such store on a Deal with Donald, how does he now get to walk away without receiving a savaging from the hostile press at home...enter Huawei.

By accepting Chinese involvement despite US objections, he may yet manage to scupper any phony Free Trade Deal, and let Trump take the blame.

UK: Whose side are you on?

The drive for change that saw the Tories sweeping to victory in December and Brexit enacted at the end of January continued into February with the launch of Hearts of Oak, a non-political and unashamedly populist movement, which sees the erosion and subversion of our freedoms as possibly the greatest threat that Britain and the World faces today.

I covered the event for Going-Postal and this is a short postscript to that article, because two days later Tommy Robinson was arrested for assault after allegedly striking an 'accidental' child molester during an altercation which occurred when Tommy attempted to perform a citizen's arrest on the man who had admitted indecently touching his 8 year old daughter.

My purpose here is not to redress the imbalance in the way this incident has been reported, because most people will have their own opinions which are unlikely to be changed by me, but to talk a little about someone who has become the personification of all that's wrong in today's UK, and this is true whether you love or loathe him.

To the Left, he embodies the political Right-wing, aggressive and outspoken with views that they find uncomfortable and intolerable, but contrary to what you might expect, many on the supposed political Right feel exactly the same, because with Tommy, the issue is not so much Right or Left, but right or wrong, and the question we should be asking about him, is not how nice a guy is he, or whether he likes Islam or not, but, does he speak the truth?

What the media omit when they delight in reminding us that he is using an assumed name, is the reason Tommy had to change his public identity. They choose to ignore the death threats by the so-called religion of peace, the threats against his livelihood and his family and the constant harassment he endures from all sides.

When we spoke briefly after the Hearts of Oak launch, I voiced my concerns for his safety, especially during his all too frequent incarcerations, and he simply shrugged and said "What can I do?"

This was not a cry for help (as it would be with most people in his position) but an acceptance that the next spell in prison might be his last, and if the state wants to get him, then get him they will. As Julian Assange can testify, Tommy's acceptance of awards for journalism is no guarantee of acceptance by our mixed-up and messed-up society.

But there is hope for Tommy, the reception he received when called to speak showed the regard in which he is held by many, not just in Britain, but around the world, and the growing demands that this persecution ends.

The general refusal of our media to explain why the police were called to Centre Parcs, or ask why they then let a child molester leave the scene whilst at the same time arresting the assaulted girl's father, does not bode well for the rough diamond that is Tommy Robinson.

It seems that the most difficult thing for our would-be elites to understand, is that Tommy Robinson is not an individual, he is a phenomenon. 

I have met many Tommy's over the years, on jobs and in pubs, at football matches and on the streets and you can see images of their forebears in every photograph of those who fought for the freedoms which many of us now are prepared to throw away.

He's not everyone's cup of tea, and there are many things we might try to change about him, but only a lazy coward would deny that he is brave and determined. The point is that you don't need to like Tommy Robinson to listen to what he has to say.

Brexit: Agreeing to leave

Just spent some time perusing the Withdrawal Agreement and (Original) Political Declaration, and have some layman's observations:-

They're not as bad as portrayed.

Yes, there are lots of protection for EU interests, but why wouldn't there be? It's their club, and they're making the rules. The main objection to May's deal was that the 'Irish backstop' left us without a proper negotiating position in the following trading arrangements which had to be agreed before the Transition Period could end (and this TP is very heavily weighted in favour of EU as already noted), so Britain could have been disadvantaged for a very long time.

From what I can see, after the TP finishes we're out, with or without a Deal, and yes, that is the Deal which actually matters, the WA is just setting the ground rules and the more slanted they are towards the EU, the more incentive there should be to conclude the new FTA as quickly as possible, and there appears to be an honest emphasis within the documents, that both parties should negotiate in good faith.

There are legal ties and protections which stay in effect after Britain leaves, but they are mostly mutually agreed, beneficial and necessary, or purely to conclude disputes and other matters arising, and these do eventually disappear with a minimum of 8 years (seems a long time, but it's already more than 3 years since the referendum).

Committed Brexit campaigners have painted the EU as a vicious and Machiavellian conspiracy, but my main objection is merely that it is Globalist and Expansionist in nature, a bureaucracy which feels it cannot be faulted or questioned and that is why leaving is important and why the time taken is well worth the effort.

Most of the objections to this WA (DUP aside), are from those with unrealistic expectations on the speed and completeness of leaving the EU, and those whose only intent is to stop Brexit from happening under any circumstances.

UK: Is Boris big enough for Brexit?

The installation of Boris Johnson as UK Prime Minister was a unique event in my lifetime - a new and truly popular Conservative leader. But what about Mrs Thatcher? [I hear the squeals, but she was initially extremely unpopular and only achieved popular approval courtesy of a certain Generalissimo named Galtieri.]

And, let's be honest, what's not to like?

A big, bouncy, blonde in No 10 is surely a welcome change from the humourless inhabitants that we have had the misfortune to have govern us in recent times. But it is this very popularity that now threatens him.

The forces are rallied and ranged in their lines of attack, and the suddenly sainted Scottish Judiciary, having declared open season on the British PM, have allowed the BBC to abandon all pretence of impartiality and join those clamouring for Johnson's head. Yet the northern judges are themselves guilty of the most egregious projection we have witnessed in many years, claiming the government are unlawfully "stymying parliament".

But just who is stymying what? 

For more than three years Parliament has stymied those trying to enact the referendum result, and these 'judges' are now complicit in that criminality. With barely pause to catch their collective breath, they have branded the British PM a liar and usurper of parliamentary privilege and they have attempted to foment constitutional upheaval. If they really believed the PM was guilty as they charge, they should demand that Parliament be dissolved and a General Election called, but of course, that is not on their agenda.

Where does this all end, with Brexit on 31st October as planned, or a further extension or worse?

We shall have to wait and see, but one thing is becoming very clear, the opposition to the people's decision is now so entrenched and unwilling to accept anything less than capitulation and Remain, that only an immediate and absolute clean break will be workable, when the time comes.

Anything less, any sort of slow or 'soft' Brexit will be met with such obstruction and institutional malevolence, that progress will be impossible and we will be confined in a perpetual state of conflict until we limp out, or are returned to the EU, weakened and divided, no longer an island Nation but a chastened province, a coastal state of the European Union.

UK: What the state has done

Yesterday saw a veteran's rally outside Broadcasting house in London.

Whatever your views on politics or war, the message was clear that the old order has changed and ever more people are waking up to the reality of how the establishment regards us all.

Brexit: It's all in the mind.

You are excused if you do not know that there is a legal challenge to Teresa May's attempted delay of Brexit, when she requested an extension to Article 50 date for leaving EU, because none of the regular media outlets seem to know anything about it either, if their lack of coverage is any indicator.

Even following Gina Miller's successful challenge, I, among many, will be surprised if our judiciary are sufficiently independent to overturn the assumed position now, and declare that Britain did, in fact, leave EU on 29th March, but hey, stranger things have happened (or so I am reliably informed).

Whatever the outcome, this situation does raise an interesting point.

If the extension was illegal, and we are no longer members of EU, then all trade carried out since 29th. was conducted over the Brexit cliff edge that we've heard so much about. Indeed, we are all now tumbling, or have already tumbled, over said precipice.

Now, this really is interesting, because all those medicines that were to be in such short supply, and flights that were to be cancelled and every other disaster that was to befall us, never happened of course.

The Irish 'backstop' and border, didn't interfere with anyone or anything, and all those illegal transactions that took place and tariffs that weren't collected, will just have to be adjusted over the next weeks and months, prices changed, books accounted and forms filled, just as businesses always do. In truth, that's exactly what they always do.

Every time that production costs, regulations, the price of fuel, VAT or any other tax, changes, then businesses adjust and prices reflect those variations. It's what happens.

If prices rise too high, less is sold, or different suppliers are sought, that's also what happens.

The point is, that these are all man-made or market obstacles, with man-made or market solutions, and there is no cliff-edge outside the fevered imaginings and machinations of the EU and it's complicit comrades.

Brexit: Just say no WA

In all the Brexit shenanigans, the fact remains that if the people want to leave the EU, then eventually that is what will happen.

All this talk of May's deal or no Brexit is nonsense. May's deal is no Brexit, because it is the only scenario in which Brexit is guaranteed to fail.

Look at the alternatives and you will see that there is not a thing called 'no Brexit'.

There are only two ways to thwart Brexit:-

• Extend Article 50 to allow for another Referendum, or a General Election.

Or

• Revoke Article 50

And neither path forces us the remain in EU if the people really want to leave.

The popular thinking, that a second referendum will easily overturn the previous result, is grossly mistaken.

When/if it is called, the media must return to fair and balanced coverage of the debate, and the British public are far more aware of the issues and deceptions than they ever were before the last vote.

Both sides will have their cases scrutinized in depth, and previous lies will be exposed remorselessly.

What effect will that have?

Well, the Brexit bus will need to remove it's £350 million per week, and replace that with £20 million per day or whatever, perhaps less dramatic, but hardly a deal breaker, and undeniably accurate. True the remainers will also point to the difficulty of negotiations, but an electorate that has watched events over the last two plus years, will know that uncommitted and weak negotiators were to blame, and they will demand a tougher, more determined team; in effect, they will want more Brexit, not less.

And what of the Remainers case? 

The true face of EU has been revealed over the last while, and Brexit exaggerations will pale against the downright lies of Remainer rhetoric:-

• No EU army. Lie 
• ECJ does not supersede UK Courts. Lie
• EU is for Internet freedom. Lie
• No plans to make UN migration pact EU law. Lie
• EU is honest broker and will not seek to punish UK. Lie

An early General Election would probably result from either of these attempts to halt Brexit, and the results of this would be carnage for the main parties, resulting in a solid Leaver Parliament, with a firm mandate to get us out of EU forthwith. It's ironic, that the only person who might scupper this outcome, is the very one who did most to deliver the first referendum: Nigel Farage.

If Nigel allows his ego to trump Brexit, and splits the Leave vote, then history will judge him very severely. Should he choose to work with the other Leavers, the Brexit parties can concentrate their efforts and resources in constituencies with remainer MPs, by also agreeing not to stand against MPs who have a consistent voting record in favour of Leave.

The only people who should have anything to fear from a GE or 2nd Referendum, are those who have deceived and delayed during the past nearly three years; and the voting public know who they are, in a way that they have never known before.

What happens after the WA is finally voted down may not be entirely predictable, but if the people still want to leave, then it most certainly does not mean no Brexit. But, regardless of what the people want, voting for Teresa May's deal means that negotiating a beneficial Brexit would be virtually impossible, because the threat of backstop and remaining tied to the EU during negotiations, is the actual catastrophe that No Deal is supposed to be.

The EU have already demonstrated their lack of respect for Britain, and that was before they held the upper hand, and May's Wretched Agreement gives them that whip hand, while tying ours firmly behind our backs.

Just say NO way, WA.

UK: Brexit lies and statistics

As the anti-Brexit forces gather on the streets of London, estimates of their number will be growing exponentially on the various pro-EU news channels, it might be a good time to see what 'facts' are flying around today.

Yesterday, in conversations on Going-Postal, about the petition to revoke Article 50, the origin of those voting and the number of votes they were casting,  was guided how to capture the source metadata and this is what I found:-

{"name":"United Kingdom","code":"GB","signature_count":1261367}

At that time, the total was a little over 3 million votes.

Today, hearing that the vote miraculously approaches 4.5 million (did nobody sleep last night?), I decided to check the numbers again [bold type is mine], and, hey presto:-

{"name":"United Kingdom","code":"GB","signature_count":4171187}

Miraculous indeed.

Whoever said Lies, damned lies and statistics, they were undoubtedly highlighting the way that figures can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose, but what what see here is the manufacture of numbers that clearly cannot exist, because either the first or the second is false, or perhaps neither is true.

Either way, the data is contained on Parliament's own website, which takes the deception/stupidity to another level of deceit.

Brexit: 13th March, a day of infamy?

With the second defeat for Teresa May's Wretched Agreement, our esteemed Members of Parliament now have the chance to finally support the referendum result of July 2016.

Today they can vote for a clean, uncluttered, un-fudged exit from the European Union, but that is the least likely of today's possible outcomes, and we will almost certainly move on to a debate tomorrow, on whether to extend or repeal Article 50 (which allows us to leave the EU on 29th. March, about 16 days from now).

The greatest tragedy of this obstructionist and undemocratic rejection of the Will of the People, is that it will leave our future negotiators desperate to sign any and all trade deals that are dangled before them, probably resulting in the abandonment of all of those promises of worker's rights, food safety and environmental/pollution protections, that we have been assured would be paramount.

This display of disunity, and our abject inability to negotiate Brexit with the EU, has also left the UK weakened as a viable trading partner and potential ally for those in the rest of world at large.

Brexit: Preparing for the worst

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst - sound advice, and in that spirit, it's worth examining what is the worst could be.

We've all been told about the 'cliff edge' no deal scenario, which is in truth a well understood return to WTO terms and conditions, so there is nothing much to add here as by now we should all know where we stand and where that is likely to lead.

There is also a variety of referendum reversal scenarios, requiring an extension or withdrawal of Article 50, and a 'people's vote' (though who these 'people' are and why they didn't vote last time is not explained other than bringing inexperienced and impressionable youth into what is an already confused and uncertain debate).

But the one scenario that has not been addressed, because it is currently seen as the least likely outcome, is actually most pressing at this time, and, as such, should not be ignored.

What happens if Mrs May's deal is passed in parliament?

With the initial failure of her WA almost assured, May is already talking to others about linking UK labour and environmental laws to EU regulations, and if she could manufacture an Irish fudge, it might only take Corbyn to allow a free vote, for the resulting abstentions and defections to swing the commons in her direction.

So what happens then?

In a word. Disaster.

Brexit in name only, NI backstop. End of sovereignty, the list goes on, and, unlike the scaremongering we have previously seen, this list is real.

And the effects will be equally real. 

Expect early disturbances in Ireland, with the Unionists taking to the streets almost immediately, and such street displays will only increase in frequency and intensity until the official summer Marching Season arrives. How violent these become will largely depend on events outside the North, but bombs and bullets will certainly be on the agenda.

Many Unionists are unhappy with the Belfast Agreement, and with demographics moving against them, this will be seen as possibly their last opportunity to take back control of the province, and unlike the IRA, they have well known and established links to the police and military, so that a Protestant insurrection will take a shape and scale that we may not yet comprehend.

I doubt that the British mainland will also descend into extreme violence, although there will be ugly scenes and much discontent, but things can change very quickly, so, who knows; but the UK government will surely fall, quickly and decisively. 

Disgusted politicians and voters will leave the Tories and Labour in their droves and if May doesn't choose to go to the people, the defectors will indeed force her hand. Expect UKIP to become a major force in British politics, probably even the leading party, not enough to win an outright majority, but enough to completely change the composition of the House, and what then: A Conservative/Labour coalition? Unlikely yet almost certain in the name of keeping out the 'Far Right', for which the ground is already being prepared relentlessly in the establishment media.

And all the time that this is going on, we will be trying to negotiate a future Trade Deal which prevents the Backstop from being implemented, while the EU will be blaming Brexit as they squeeze and choke their advantage over us. Expect Gibraltar, Fishing, Financial Services and everything else that they covet to be on their agenda, with only a split and impotent bunch of negotiators opposing them. 

Just how bad can Ireland get?

If they take hold, then the new Troubles will undoubtedly spread, not to the British mainland this time, but south, into the Republic where pressure to impose a hard border will be Unionist strategy, thus causing the WA to be null and void. What will Varadker do; will he call for help from the EU and ask for them to assist as 'impartial' peacekeepers?

We do not know what will actually happen, but one thing is certain, whatever occurs, Brexit will get the blame.

UK: Re-lying on others

Question: What do liars do when people no longer believe them, do they:-

1. Stop lying and begin speaking the truth, however inconvenient and/or incriminating
or, do they:-
2. Enlist/cajole/coerce others to lie on their behalf?

By definition, a liar is one who tells lies, so the 2nd answer must always be true, because, if they cease telling lies, they can no longer be accurately called a liar.

This phenomenon can be seen in all manner of people, from serial killers to naughty children; a lie is immeasurably more potent (and believable) when it is supported by a third party, especially one who is otherwise regarded as being truthful.

The methods of manipulation can vary from deception to bribery, strangely though, the moral argument is often employed, 'it's for the greater good', 'that person deserves to be blamed' etc. This moral justification is most odd, because by knowingly joining such a subterfuge, the previously honest party becomes a liar too.

There is an added bonus to the tactic of enlisting others to confirm an untruth.

Responsibility for the lie can then be diverted towards such a collaborator, as if it was they who first initiated the falsehood.

As we approach four months from the Skripal poisoning, Boris Johnson has finally got OPCW to join his scheme of apportioning blame for chemical attacks, rather than simply confirming they took place. His previous attempt at garnering support from Porton Down, for the party narrative did not succeed particularly well, but politicians have a habit of ignoring history.  

Determining who is guilty of using chemical weapons is a fine a laudable notion, but the OPCW track record is poor at even establishing if such events have occurred, much less at who might have carried them out. They appear to accept 'open source' reports i.e unattributable hearsay; as evidence and even regurgitate statements from al-Qaeda's white helmets, as though they were credible witnesses. 

The most ludicrous piece of 'evidence', which shows a roomful of supposed victims piled on top of each other, is laughable in it's naivety. Chlorine is an extreme irritant and the notion that people would lay down and wait to die with eyes and lungs burning, and not run to clean air, is as unbelievable as the assertion that Assad would use gas when the battle was already won.

Chlorine is also a heavy gas, so how did it find a way up into these apartments (unless the chemical was already stored there).

The outrage and ridicule that resulted from the preposterous claims of Western governments was no surprise to many of us, but Boris & co are nothing if not persistent, and as a way of preparing for the next 'chemical attack' and the subsequent strike against Syria, enlisting the collusion of OPCW is a steady preliminary move, but I still prefer option 1. 

Stop telling lies.  

EU: It's us or them

So Teresa May is about to sign her wonderful transition deal in Brussels.

It must be some relief for her, after all those threats and accusations against Putin and Russia, to be among friends and those who only seek mutual benefit in the these latest talks, and yes, I am being sarcastic.

With UK fishing as the latest offering, she is hopeful that we can perhaps be allowed to take the upcoming beating, without deriving too much scorn and ridicule. She has the manner of someone on the receiving end of a lashing who cries 'Not the face', so as to minimize the injuries by allowing them to remain hidden.

But time is running out, and if the ill-intentions of our EU counterparts is not yet obvious to her and our team, then we are in for a very rough ride.

One fact is simple: a successful departure from EU will leave that body so weakened that it will likely not recover, so what on earth does she expect from a Brussels bureaucracy that desperately needs to prove itself and intimidate others into acquiescence?

With Poland only one example of internal dissent, EU authority is under constant challenge, and why would it not be, for what does it offer and what tributes does it demand from its provinces?

• Forced acceptance of unemployable, uncooperative and potentially seditious migrants, who no longer even pretend to be refugees and quickly cluster in ghettos of anti-European zones of occupation. 
• Fiscal policies that favour only Germany and continual removal of all democratic processes and all notions of independence and National sovereignty.
• A money grubbing and self-serving administration that seeks only greater authority for itself and does not even try to hide its disdain for those on whom it depends.
• The destruction of Europe's very essence and historical place in the world, such that our eventual fall to the horrors of islamic conquest, resisted for some 1400 years, looks increasingly likely and even, as they would have us believe, inevitable.

The list goes on, but I'm frankly tired of even thinking about that discredited stain on our once great civilization.

Negotiations are over, and it's time to take sides. So, Ms May, are you with us?

Just over 40 years of membership has left us politically and diplomatically dependent. We no longer seem to have the knowledge or the will to negotiate anything that even resembles an acceptable deal with those arch conspirators in Brussels, so take your gloves off, and start fighting to win.

Ireland was the only realistic party that could make the transition harmonious and possibly beneficial with the requisite amount of give and take, but they are lead by a man obsessively engrossed in the new liberal ideologies and life-choices so popular in European circles, that, rather than seize this chance to become a focal nation in European affairs, they have chosen to remain anonymous, a minor member of EU27, as they now quaintly regard themselves.

After so many years fighting for Statehood, Ireland has again found the challenge too daunting, and, just as in 1800, where they signed away the independence gained in 1782 , they have now thrown away any chance of proving themselves a major diplomatic force in Europe, and instead, taken to settling old scores and wallowing in petty prejudices.

So what's to be done?

Fight. If Freedom is worth fighting for, then fight for it. Tell us all:- What should Europe look like?

Lay out the plans for the sort of European Common Market that we thought we were joining, and describe the sort of Europe we would be proud and happy to live in. Let those other states, the V4, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Germany, let them know what a real European future can hold, and watch the discredited and false EU crumple.

We need allies, not handouts.

The EU has made it clear that we are to be punished and defeated, nothing more than collateral damage in their shameful attempts to coerce and cajole their members into accepting their own (and our) demise, so we have nothing to lose except our heads, and everything to gain.

The time has come, Ms May, it's us or them.

UK: A walk in the park

For anyone who does not know about Tommy Robinson, I suggest you watch his appearance at the Oxford Union, to find something of what has brought Tommy to the public's attention.

For the rest of us, yesterday's Free Speech event marked something of a turning point in the political awakening for many people who had previously been sleep-walking towards the end of Western culture and freedom.

And that is no exaggeration.

That London even needs a Free Speech movement, should be all the clue we require to assess how dire our situation has become.

The fact that small gangs of 'activists' tried to intimidate those attending and prevent Tommy from speaking, is further proof of our predicament, I personally did not witness the altercations, but there are videos circulating which appear to have been shot before Tommy's arrival, and show at least one gang of Asians (that's their official name, btw) attacking attendees.

Anyway, Tommy arrived to great applause and general excitement and those Asians, and their Antifa accomplices, quickly disappeared among the crowd or off to skulk in the background, such that many people had no clue they had even turned up. But they will be back, and that is all we need to know about them.

Below is some hand-held phone footage which I hope gives an impression of the general good natured enthusiasm in Tommy's reception.

Those who deride the Tommy Robinson phenomena, would do well to remember that Democracy needs Free Speech to exist, for how else can we know who to vote for, or just as importantly, who to vote against.

Russia: Let the investigation begin

So Boris Johnson thinks it likely that Putin personally ordered the chemical attack on a Russian double agent, this after Teresa May said something similar a few days earlier, but, are you convinced?

Well, I'm not convinced, not yet, anyway.

The only vague consensus is that this attack was, in all probability, the work of a State actor rather than an individual with a grudge or financial interest. So lets start from that assumption, and, unlike the aforementioned politicos, I will refrain from putting a name to the chief suspect, but will instead leave you to draw your own conclusion.

Motive - Which State has the greatest incentive to discredit president Putin and turn the West against Russia. Is there any State currently in conflict with Russia or likely to be, if given sufficient support?

Means - The chemical compound used was developed during the Soviet era, so, which State, currently hostile towards Russia, was either in the USSR, or has access to Soviet era technologies and personnel?

Opportunity - The latest intelligence suggests that the nerve agent was planted on the ex-spy's daughter, possibly during a recent visit to Russia, so who among her friends and associates would have links to a State hostile towards Russia? It is fairly safe to assume that the daughter of a Russian defector would have few friends within the Russian establishment, but rather more likely among the activists and dissidents most disaffected with Vladimir Putin & Co. So which State speaks Russian as a first or second language and has easy access to Moscow?

Intractable as this issue seems, the possibility that someone got close enough and was trusted enough by Yulia Skripal, to fool her into accepting such a deadly nerve agent, could be the only reliable path to solving this dreadful crime.

UK: Russia's poisoned Cup

As International intrigue returns to UK with the attempted assassination of ex-spy Sergei Skripal, there appears to be only one suspect, none less than Vladimir Putin and his evil Russians.

This is not the first such news-grabbing incident and the truth may never be properly established, but the unwillingness to consider why or who did it at this time, is new.

When Alexander Litvinenko lay dying from polonium poisoning, speculation was rife and many fingers pointed to the Russian state, but there was some level of analysis; could it have been personal enemies or rogue agents? Whoever was responsible, it was a complicated investigation and one feels a level of confidence that the truth was sought.

So who might have carried out this latest act of skulduggery?

Establishing a motive for such headline grabbing act of aggression is easy because there are so many, and difficult, for exactly the same reason, but Putin's revenge does not figure too highly in my own estimation, can anyone seriously assert that he would sanction such an action, with the 1st round of Presidential elections starting just two weeks later, on 18th March.

With the World Cup just three months away, would Putin or any patriotic Russian, put their nation under so dark a shadow? I think not.

Remembering the winter Olympics of Sochi 2014,  there are some striking similarities to this World Cup, with objections and disparagement's surrounding both that and this.

But there are other, more sinister similarities.

It is almost three months to the start of the World Cup in June, and at about the same time before Sochi, we saw the commencement of Euromaidan, which resulted in the overthrow of Victor Yanukovyc just two days before the closing ceremony in Russia.

Using the cover of a prestigious sporting event to embarrass or distract an enemy is nothing new, but it is that word 'enemy' which bothers me.

We see arms sales increasing to that most unstable and bellicose administration in Ukraine, with their fascist armies recruiting on the streets of London, and now we have a small English city at the center of a dastardly plot to eliminate this previously little-known spy and again bring the world's attention upon the Russian State.

The use of chemical/nerve agents means this is unlikely to be a personal attack, but just who conspired to poison a middle aged man and his daughter will remain a mystery for some time to come, but the list of suspects is far longer than we are led to believe, and stretches from Washington DC all the way to Kiev and beyond to the gates of the Kremlin, but I sincerely doubt, they continue beyond and inside those walls, in any officially, or unofficially, sanctioned position.

Regardless of who carried out this act, my greater concern is that the people of the Donbass may have more to worry about in the coming year, than who will win the World cup.

UK: Talking about Brexit

As Teresa May continues to tout for business, 'today China, tomorrow the world' (or at least USA, with president Trump's state visit back on the cards) there is arguably greater potential much closer to home.

With the victory of president Zeman in Czech elections, the threat of further defections from EU looms large for the same people we are currently negotiating with for 'favorable' terms, and if such a scenario cannot be exploited, then the UK really is finished as an independent entity.

And it's not just the Visegrad group who are shaking the EUs wobbly foundations, Austria too has found refuge in reason and voted to end the nightmare of Merkel's making.

So why are we not talking to these nations as a priority?

I can understand the reluctance, given the general media bias against anything to the right of Marx or East of Berlin. But negotiating is all about menace, and the merest hint of alternative affiliations in and around Europe (especially those built on self-determination and self-protection, with trade and economic benefits for all participants), would greatly strengthen our position in dealing with Juncker & Co, and possibly even return us to the status of equal partner in the 'divorce' proceedings.

Could it be the Russian connection?

Well Poland is hardly pro-Russia, so that fear is largely unfounded, but anyway, Russia is also a large market and energy supplier, so what's not to like about that?

But this is all speculation, and the whole point about negotiation is to keep options open, and when confronting the EU (as we saw when they disemboweled Greece), there is no gentlemanly old boy's understanding, so if we hope to stay 'friends', we have already lost.

If the UK, V4 and Austria did split into some more reasonable trading group, who knows how many nations would seek to follow, and that is a threat the EU cannot contemplate.

First we need to determine just what a good deal looks like, and that's not just free trade of goods and services, but guarantees about Financial systems, then send our negotiating team to Brussels and the PM to Prague.

I believe that Ryanair have some pretty good offers at the moment.

UK:No time for tears

It was impossible to escape the media saturation coverage of yesterday's election as the results were confirmed this morning, but one moment particularly caught my attention.

A group of presenters were sitting around their TV studio, commenting on the contrast between the glum faced 'winner', Theresa May,  and the jubilant, though second placed, Jeremy Corbyn. A female reporter then elicited a little sympathy for May's puffy eyed demeanor by stating that 'She had obviously, probably, been crying', to which there was a respectful murmur, before the group continued their broadcast. All well and good, I thought.

 But now I feel compelled to ask: 

Did anyone, see, or was there ever even a suggestion, that Mrs May cried when she heard about the innocents killed and maimed in the Manchester bombing?

Did we witness those puffy eyes when she spoke of the London Bridge victims, or before, of those who perished and were brutalized, on the bridge outside and even at the very gates of Westminster?

This is not to be especially critical of May, or any woman in politics, for we saw the same when Mrs Clinton was defeated and when Mrs Thatcher lost her position, but we also saw a gruesome joy in the former's infamous giggle when she boasted of Gaddafi's demise, and a strange indifference to the death of more than 300 young sailors, by the later.

So what is it, do women in politics really need to be tougher than men, to the point where they cannot pretend any longer; or are tears even such a bad thing?

Perhaps if Mrs May had wept at the horrors of 7/7, she might have determined, that when she became Home Secretary she would actually do something to halt any further such atrocities and prevent other mothers, daughters and sisters from shedding their, altogether more innocent, tears.

UK: Sleeping on the front line

Most people in London are familiar with the sound of helicopters patrolling our night skies, and the occasional extended period of hovering overhead, central London all the more so, and the inhabitants of Lambeth more accustomed than most, so last night's events weren't particularly unusual, and the initial rumours of a stabbing in or around the station were nothing new for a warm Saturday night.

But news of what was happening just along the river added an altogether more ominous tone to the whirring above and sirens of emergency response vehicles passing below. Sleep, therefore, became a reluctant partner for many.

So this is what happens when ramadan comes to town?

Teresa May again called a halt to election campaigning, no doubt worried about the inevitable tough questions that she and her dhimmi cohorts will face. But, to be fair, she also seems genuinely bemused, after all, we have accepted sharia and dutifully pay the jizya, yet still these attacks keep coming with increasing regularity and violence.

 'Oh dear,' her sad little face appears to say: 'What are we to do?'

'Let's re-order the words a bit, maybe shift the emphasis a little', and thus she pulls a different face and changes the script a tad, anything it seems, except address the damned issue.

When she started talking about tackling the "safe spaces" of jihadis, I thought she was getting somewhere, but no, she wasn't talking about their mosks, but rather, some notional nooks and crannies of the Internet, where all this 'radicalization' supposedly takes place.

The weirdest thing in all this, is that she is probably not quite bought and paid for by the saudis (although their patronage surely contributes greatly to our government's mental frailties), nor is she willfully ignorant of the threat we all face, but that she really just does not get it.

This became clear when she claimed, with apparent sobriety, that the fake suicide vests were worn to create greater fear and confusion, as if anyone seeing a machete wielding muslim screaming his allegiance to lahlah, would not be enough frit, and that bystanders and victims would pause to check what the murderers were wearing.

Could somebody please advise her, and the political and police cronies who she is surrounded by, that the intention of those canisters was not to fool the public, but to ensure that the police would shoot to kill, thus expediting a fast-track exit to allah's absurd resting place, complete with bonus points for killing and being killed during this month of muslim 'piety'.