Monthly Archives: September 2018

Article 50 Revocation?

A few days ago I spotted this article that had been tweeted and the day after read this article on the website: The Participator. Both articles relate to the fact that legal action has been taken with a view to clarifying whether it would be legal for the United Kingdom to revoke its notification to leave the European Union given under Article 50 of the TEU.

The first link, which appeared in The Guardian was followed by another in the Scottish Legal News on the same day. The second link in the preceding paragraph contains a most intriguing scenario as to what will happen when the European Court of Justice delivers its opinion, one which is due in December this year. read more.....

Why do we bother?

It is ‘party conference season’ yet again; the ‘season of the year’ when political parties promise Utopia for the electorate, were they to be elected to power

We have had the LibDems and Labour, with the Conservatives still to come and without doubt the idea of the ‘sunlit lands’ will be presented to us yet again, albeit in slightly different words.

Political parties are, presently, in the throes of promoting ‘rights’ to this or that group. But a question: If politicians and pressure groups believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights. read more.....


The more I look at politicians of any party, the more I fear for my nation whilst we continue to accept representative democracy.

We have a Labour Party that cannot make up its mind what they want where Brexit is concerned, coupled with a Conservative Party  having the same problem.

As I tweeted earlier today, the Conservative Party state the Labour Party are unfit to govern whilst the Labour Party state the Conservative Party are unfit to govern- and both are correct.

At this point I digress. I have long held the view that the only reason Members of Parliament  are required to stand when they wish to speak is because they speak through their rear orifice, because if they didn’t their voices would be muffled and they would end up sitting in their own crap. read more.....

Is this not treason?

According to Wikipedia treason is defined as:

…….the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s nation or sovereign…….. typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents.

Theresa May has stated that (starts 5:30) the Norway Option would mean:

  • Membership of the Single Market would mean we would still have free movement of people;
  • Still pay vast membership bills.
  • It would also involve membership of the Customs Union.

Let us deal with each assertion in sequence:

  • The EEA agreement (Art 112/113) allows any member of EFTA to imposes a halt, for societal reasons, on immigration; see also here.
  • Norway does not pay ‘vast membership bills’. Norway makes ‘grants‘. For the 2014-2021 period, the funding is €1.3 billion. In 2016, the UK’s gross contribution to the EU amounted to £19 billion. However, this amount of money was never actually transferred to the EU. The ONS reports that the UK government’s net contribution to the EU – that is the difference between the money it paid to the EU and the money it received – was £9.4 billion in 2016. So viz-a-viz Norway/UK, Norway pays vast membership bills???
  • Norway is NOT a member of the Customs Union! Perhaps Theresa May would like to quote ‘chapter and verse’ which shows the opposite?

I have hinted previously that our present government, some of whom voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, have hidden agendas; and thus will do anything to ensure Brexit does not succeed. That Theresa May ‘brooks no discussion’ on Brexit only adds emphasis to the quote from Thomas Sowell that ends this article. read more.....