Already, it’s many months since the referendum and perhaps now there are even more discussions and arguments dissecting and analysing the purported pros and cons, than pre referendum days. We are told that the UK voted to leave but did they? Apparently the leave total was greater than the remain voters but what about those who didn’t vote which was approximately 30% of the people who are entitled to vote. Surely these people should be taken into account, after all, they will make up a large percentage of the generation that has to deal with the ultimate results, good or bad. With such a significant change of direction and the consequential emerging character of a nation state, those who participate should represent all those who have the right to vote. If that had been so, the result might have been different. Perhaps it is time that the UK adopted the Australian election laws where it is illegal not to vote; if people don’t, they are fined. That way, there is a more genuine interpretation of the will of the people; obviously, putting a cross on voting cards is preferential to the payment of a fine.
On the subject of Brexit, two days ago I heard a representative of the European Community argue that because the UK wanted to leave, its parliament didn’t have the right to alter club rules. Fair enough, but didn’t the original nascency of the European Community add new rules and treaties after the original document was signed in 1973? When Westminster signed to join, they were signing away numerous rights that belonged the the English natives ( eg trawler fishing in Cornwall). The politicians accepted a way forward with little concept or understanding of things that were to come and the non political people were neither aware of the covert plans of the European community nor did they accept anything that reflected today’s function of the Euro government in Brussels. Possibly, the lack of quality leadership exhibited by people like Sir Douglas Hume, who was an important signee at the ceremony, strongly indicates why the UK joined the common Market without working out and changing what needed to be changed; where was the democratic government when Heath and Thatcher, motivated probably by their own desire to be go down in history, signed treaties, willy – nilly, without giving a genuine clarification to the general public who simply didn’t understand what was at stake. It could be argued that joining the European Union was democratically flawed because the people thought (including numerous politicians) that they were simply signing up for a European Market place where goods could be sold, imported and exported without the pre 1973 border/ customs complications.
If Westminster cannot ask for changes to the structure as Brexit goes forward, then such matters should have been taken into account as part of the negotiating before final signatures validated UK’s European membership. Unfortunately, English politicians were suffering from the anti British attitude adopted by General de Gaul who had a personal agenda for excluding the English. It is muted that this was related to the WW2.
I respectively suggest that such flaws were the result of the mediocrities in charge who didn’t think laterally any more than Tony Blair did, when he spuriously condoned weapons of mass destruction as justification for the Iraq war against the wishes of hundreds of thousands of people who marched through London on a “no war” demonstration. Not only were the people of the UK protesting but also the Americans and millions all over the globe, all of whom expressed what they understood to be their democratic rights. Rights that were ignored by the two leading western democracies whose members were cajoled by their dictator style leaders to condone what can only be described as lies. Both the UK and the USA, (the two main bellicose participators) deliberately ignored the will of the people when they coerced the politicians into accepting the distortions of truth. Notwithstanding, Blair has come out of it well as a genuine socialist multi millionaire but not so the families of the soldiers who returned home in body bags and the men women and children of Iraq who have been murdered by the several super evil groups that took over from the comparatively mild evil regime of Sadam Hussein. Incredibly, Blair still maintains that he was right to make war and dismisses as unimportant, the accusation that he didn’t have a post war political structure worked out. Indeed, he is incredibly lucky that he conveniently converted to Roman Catholicism and was able to seek expiation in the confessional booth!
International problems tend to shift with variable perspectives created by the personal subjectivity of eminent individuals as opposed to ones with wisdom and political intelligence. January / February 2017 London/ Houston, we have a problem; Theresa May appears to be becoming more authoritarian as the weeks go by. Thankfully, at the moment we could get rid of her should her ego develop megalomaniac proportions but one can never tell. Past democracies have often been shifted subtly by adopting legislations of prohibition. Theresa May has dug in at No 10 and has no intention of leaving which isn’t exactly a hundred percent democratic. She was neither elected by her peers nor the bulk of the voting members of the Conservative party. In my opinion she has changed from a woman who exuded an attractive deference to a cocky middle class person who has got the power bit between her teeth. Already, she has held Trump’s hand on the steps of the White House; gimmick or a necessary obsequious ploy to ingratiate with Trump with chameleon style negotiating. I suspect that her trip is partly like her red shoes; an aspect of her vanity that says “look at me, look at me!” Good timing though; she got in first when the world was holding back condemning Trump and I am certain that Trump was effected by her friendliness. Outsider as Trump is, even outsiders need the empathy and sympathy of a friendly person who is prepared to hold the hand in the hour of need. The intention is there but I don’t think Theresa May has the empathetic negotiating skills or a natural charm that makes such tasks easier. Obviously, she is capable of using the charm of the oldest profession in the world but apart from the speciousness of such relationships, it often lacks the sincerity that is essential for a much desired global democracy and peace the world needs for the ultimate survival of the human race. On the recent Andrew Marr interview TM the PM, proved that she was no better than other dodgy politicians. Andrew Marr asked her whether she knew that an unarmed missile had been fired, a few miles from the American coast and had deviated from its set course and headed towards America. Imagine the possible consequences. Ms May refused to answer the question four times! That is very frightening; was it because she knew that the truth would influence the debate and would justify the mega cost of constructing the latest, state of the art, atomic missile firing submarines? Right at the beginning of her No 10 status she was quoted as saying that if a rogue country should despatch an atomic missile towards the UK, she wouldn’t hesitate to retaliate with a UK atomic weapon. Such an attitude is tantamount to global annihilation of the world; as for money well spent, wouldn’t it be better to spend billions of tax payer’s money on systems that would warn England of an alien missile’s approach and destroy it before it arrived at the shores of England?
May’s attitude was analogous to North Korean’s cloak & dagger style when they launch their missiles. It also reminds me of the Bush/Blair promulgation of the phantom weapons of mass destruction and the death of Professor Kelly who tried, unsuccessfully, to tell the truth. Was Theresa May’s’ reluctance to answer Marr’s question motivated by her intention of spending billions of tax payer’s money renewing the atomic missile launching submarines? She was prepared to use “political mendacity” to justify her obstinate refusal to answer Marr’s question with a disingenuous style that Kim Jon himself would have been envious of. Apparently, she has every confidence in the situation. Interesting to know just how she imagines that she has sufficient military / defence knowledge to correctly assess military solutions of atomic warfare when she wasn’t even the possessor of a leadership survival badge of the girl guides.
To enhance her self evaluation, Ms May is visiting Trump as the first international politician to make what could be described as a sycophantic visit. Apparently, she intended to tell him that he must stop his misogyny which, I imagine, he might have already decided and I wonder if she told him off for that misdemeanour. I doubt that anyone would be stupid enough to entertain females a la Clinton, in the Oval office!
Theresa May should never have been able to take up residence in Downing Street and if it hadn’t have been for Cameron’s pusillanimous exit from politics, she would not have had the chance to live the politician’s dream: - No 10 with all the perks! However, there is an aspect of Theresa May that has already come to the fore as to whom or what she is and what she represents apropos her personal integrity and philosophy, if she genuinely has them. Her role model image if I may refer to her, is the Queen herself. Whether it is backtracking on Princess Diana’ behaviour or condoning her son’s very safe marriage to a very ordinary member of the public, agreeing to royal divorces, or even calling hounds dogs, to curry favour with the anti hunting people, she takes first prize for the chameleon factor.
And, shifting to our self proclaimed prime minister who has already proved her chameleon qualities; stay in the European market then fight to ratify Brexit ASAP; book a ticket on the first plane (private or public ?) for the USA to hob nob with the Trump with all that implies ( including holding hands) then take off immediately to Turkey to fraternise with a president whose reputation of dictating a democracy by imprisoning just about everyone who says a sentence against his regime ( including journalists). Nothing could be a louder “de Prufundis” cry for a democratic election to elect a new president that represents the will of the people.
With all the recent political shenanigans, I am reminded of the Duncan Smith’s Conference threat when he warned the faithful not to underestimate the words of the quiet man. I thought that his words were more appropriate as a joke than a political statement. Whatever it was, like so many policies of self appointed leaders, it was not efficacious and had no connection with true political leadership. In a matching “Theresa May style” it is significant to consider that she didn’t make her recent “Brexit” speech at the House of Commons, probably because at Westminster, and in the name of democracy, she would have been drowned out with howls of disapproval and derision. At Lancaster House, the audience listened politely and the howls of derision were left to the press for the next day’s editions and the editorial leader articles of disparagement. Was she avoiding the conservatives dissenting voice by not making the speech in the House of Commons and thereby establishing another notch on the political bedpost of Conservatism?
All these problems have a tenuously related connection with the newly elected American president. Donald Trump, notable demagogue seeking attention or potential Republican tyrant? Whatever he is, Trump was voted in and has been inaugurated although there are still hundreds of thousands who continue to protest against his success and would have been happy to see him shot and replaced with Hilary Clinton. Feminist protestations continue globally with an international flavour; protests fill the streets of Washington and numerous international cities world wide. The democrats and other esoteric organisations have been supplying false information in an attempt to denigrate Trump’s persona, regardless of whether the spurious promulgation of such, so called, intelligence is fiction, non fiction or simply downright lies. The American Press continue to distort the truth. Using photos (pre inauguration?) to back up the claim that the crowds that gathered for the ceremony were smaller than those of Barak Abama which, even if it were true, is hardly significant. Even the BBC has low keyed and dissimulated when presenting the facts and they must know that their transmissions engender anti -Trump propaganda which is clearly the intention. Some sixty Democrats refused to attend the inauguration as a powerful protest and one famous black man attempted to disparage Trump with the claim that his right to be the president of the USA is illegal. So many people are jumping on the anti Trump bandwagon and it must be pointed out that it is an example of Trump’s potential ability that he hasn’t lost his temper and freaked out in the way that the opposition would prefer. A few hours before the inauguration, James Naughtie, of the BBC, was interviewing people who had lost their jobs in Trump’s defunct Casinos in Atlanta. Not exactly relevant but obviously an implication that Trump is not for the people as much as he would like people to believe. So many BBC journalists, give their opinions and present the facts with a personal subjectivity. Many of the presenters are desperately seeking recognition as politically esoteric personalities or wannabe authors who, as artists, write books of fiction, or as academics, produce non fiction publications. It also confirms the partiality of the BBC which favours the comfy political establishment be it American or the UK and upholds the inveterate antagonism towards the Russians.
Trump definitely has a wild quality with both his words and actions. He has just banned all Muslims from entering for a few months. The BBC program has said that this ban has been modified which implies success by the anti Trump people; but it could be a clarification by Trump as opposed to a modification? The streets are filled with protesters, but who are the thousands, nay millions who are thronging the streets? It could be the pro Hilary brigade who will be smarting for many months. As for the invitation to ban his invitation to visit the UK, one could say that there is an argument for this attitude like there was when the Chinese president visited the queen. Oh, of course yes, but that was different. The English wanted trade contracts with the Chinese in the same way that English politicians suddenly have a Nelson style blindness when it comes to selling arms to the super rich Arab states and similar countries. The world is run by many people who have under graduate student style idealisms when they enter parliament but which they soon abandon when they become involved with the reality of the role of the hustler seeking politicians who masquerade as honest and principled business men.
Personally, I make no claim about anything; like so many I don’t know what the truth is but I instinctively feel that much of it is a vindictive expression of jealousy. I also believe that such misogynistic attitudes are irrelevant to the present and future and belong to Trump’s bygone years. Needless to say, by continuingly attacking Trump with vicious denigrations, will only damage the image of America. Numerous organisations are trying to damage the newly appointed President; they want to destroy his confidence. As for the international protests, there are thousands of active feminists who are demonstrating against his presidency because of his apparent erstwhile attitude towards woman. I am sure that many men have or had similar attitudes of misogamy but their viewpoints have perspectives that relate to past decades. I agree with the women’s assertions if there is substance to their claims, but I have to wonder how such world wide mass protestations were organised, and indeed, who set them up with such precision timed context and continuity ready to be exhibited on the first day of Trump’s presidency. So many groups and organisations want to knock him off his newly acquired, but relatively secure perch. They were probably politically manipulated at a time when the superiority of women is making itself known in politically correct societies as they are slowly taking up the reins of government, academia, and the arts. Perhaps Hilary’s ambitions have finally been delegated to her personal political twilight but notwithstanding, a female will soon become the President of the USA. In the meantime, good luck to Trump and may he triumph and seek good advice before voicing too many inadvisable decisions that will be detrimental to his presidency. I hope he proves that the old order of a senile establishment will be proved wrong and he doesn’t perform his duties in a way that his enemies are hoping, so that the possibility of destroying his reputation, is increased. Two important ones that come to mind is his erroneous attitude towards climate change and the prohibition of abortions which is an outrageous subjective opinion on a subject that doesn’t concern men but actually has significance for the future of the world and the over populated populations !