REASONS FOR LEAVING..

OK, I confess.  I voted 27 months ago for the UK to leave the European Union.  There were many reasons why I did, some of which were perhaps bordering on the trivial - personal ones connected with my own and my late father`s military experiences  which rather made the idea of being a subject of a United States of Brussels less than appealing.

Other more substantial reasons included the chance for the UK to regain its independence following its loss of sovereignty and to regain control of our own affairs which, for an island nation, is probably more relevant than if you originate on continental Europe.  But there are bits of the EU way of doing things that are frankly utterly unacceptable.  Amongst them are things such as the fact that their accounts have not been signed off by their own auditors for over 20 years now and the sheer nonsense and vast expense of decamping from Brussels to Strasbourg each month in order to pander to Gallic hauteur.  

And another reason was rather quietly reported just today when the European Court of Justice decided that details of the way in which MEPs spend their expenses will remain secret.  Now  each Member of the European Parliament is entitled to spend £3,900 a month on `expenses,`  but the European Court has ruled that having to prove how that money is spent might breach the MEPs privacy.   In total, the annual cost of these expenses amounts to about £35million all paid for by the taxpayer, of course.

So it seems that the European Court`s decision means that I will never know how the MEPs spend the chunky amount of tax I have to pay towards their `expenses.`   Surely that is a breach of my own privacy in itself in that I think I should have a right to know where my money is going?  Not a sufficient reason of itself to vote leave, I grant you, but yet another nail in the coffin of any thoughts I might ever have to doubt the way in which  I cast my vote all those months ago.

Time to reset the privacy button, I think.

A JUMP OFF AGAINST THE CLOCK ?

Whilst munching my snacky lunch today, the BBC news came on and whilst they thought they should firstly report the story that the Met. Police are going to re-examine loads of rape cases, it was pretty clear that the BBC news editors could hardly wait to report the contents of the IMF Report into the UK`s economic prospects post Brexit.

With almost undisguised glee, the BBC mentioned that the IMF had `downgraded` to UK`s growth prospects to 1.6% in the coming year and that it would plummet to 1.5% the year after we leave the European Empire.   What they failed to make clear was that these forecasts would see the UK economy come down, `plummet` from the current growth rate of 1.7%.  Hardly a dramatic fall  but it typifies the BBC`s obsession with accentuating the negative with anything to do with Brexit.

And, of course, it again exemplifies the attitude on the part of the London-centric, Liberal elite, with the BBC in the vanguard, who are beside themselves that the great unwashed British public had the audacity to vote to leave the EU.  There is, of course, a growing, not very subtle campaign to change people`s minds by constantly promising all kinds of doom once we throw off the shackles of the United States of Germany.

A couple of things.  First, my own personal Brexit vote was cast in full knowledge that there would be consequences, but at least they would be our consequences and ours to sort out and overcome, which as a nation we are perfectly capable of so doing.   And next, of course, what the BBC and all the other deniers of democracy fail to grasp is that the more we are threatened, however surreptitiously, the more people like me are determined to hold on to those principles that convinced me to cast my vote the way I did.   And surely Messrs. Barnier, Juncker et al must realise that the more `arsy` they become, the more determined will be our majority desire to get away from them.

But what happens if the elitist campaign wins the day and, however unlikely, undemocratic and unconstitutional it may be, another referendum is called and one that votes to remain?  Well I guess that will make it 1-1 after extra time.  I suppose we`ll then have a jump off against the clock or, heaven forbid, our national future will be decided on penalties.   And you just know how atrocious our record in penalty shoot-outs is against European opponents.

THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION...

I see that Sir Vince Cable, recently reinstalled as an MP following his all too brief time away from the Mother of Parliaments and the likely new leader of the Liberal Democrats now that Tim Farron has completed his gap year, says he is "beginning to think that Brexit might never happen."

He goes on to say that "enormous" divisions in both the Labour and Conservative parties and a "deteriorating" economy would make people think again.   "People will realise that we didn`t vote to be poorer and so I think the whole question of continued membership will once again arise," he said.   He went on to suggest that, whilst the LibDem policy of a second referendum on the terms of a Brexit deal didn`t "really cut through in the general election," it could offer voters "a way out when it becomes clear that Brexit is potentially disastrous."

All part of the growing, insidious and relentless `campaign` to brainwash people to think again and reverse the referendum decision to leave the European Union.  My fear is that, in the end, people may be frightened off paying whatever the financial and economic cost may be rather than being inspired by the opportunities and freedoms that leaving the EU will bring.  And comments like those from Vince Cable, the BBC, Sky, parts of the print media, social commentators and so called`celebrities` are all part of the plot.

Anyway, a couple of things following Cable`s comments.  First, maybe the Liberal Democrats should undergo a name change to the Liberal Undemocrats, since they clearly have no respect for the democratic process whereby the majority of voters opted to leave the EU.   But also the obvious solution to the LibDems` policy review must be that, whilst they will doubtless say they do respect the outcome of the referendum, the final outcome of the negotiations should result in the UK staying in the single market and the customs union and remaining subject to the diktats of the European Courts.  Bingo!!

A sudden rush of decorating and associated tasks has kept me away from these pages for a while but now that week is over, I have had time to reflect on a few things which seem to be deeply troubling.

The week`s news has been dominated by the shenanigans concerning the `race for the White House` in the good ol` US of A.   And it troubles me considerably to see that that `race` is between a shrieking harridan of doubtful pedigree and a self-important mega-rich businessman with apparently no knowledge or experience whatsoever of politics, foreign policy or anything else to do with being the `leader of the western world.`  It truly is a choice between two of the least attractive presidential candidates there have ever been and, whoever wins, we are right to be uncertain as to what the future may hold.

And speaking of uncertainty, back here in our disunited Kingdom, there`s all the fuss about Brexit.  Now the issues and the arguments that surround it are too numerous, complex and arcane for me to even attempt to discuss them here.  But I wonder why I am deeply suspicious when I keep hearing politicians repeatedly declaring that they `of course respect the referendum result.`  I just have a feeling in my bones that we`ve seen this all before - the Irish referendum on the Mastricht Treaty springs to mind - and I just hope I live long enough to see the decree absolute finally arrive.

And so in a desperate attempt to lighten the gloom, I turn once more to football.  And what do I find this weekend?  The Saints, having seen off Inter Milan - yes, Inter Milan - last Thursday evening, stumble away to Hull City - yes, Hull City - yesterday afternoon; a result that really should not be allowed to stand.   After all, Southampton had so much more possession, more shots at goal, more corners than Hull City who had lost each of their last five games.   The result is clearly a mistake and so the game should be replayed, this time with the right result.   It`s obviously a case to be judged by the Independent Court of Arbitration in Sport, to be fair. 

And all the while, the mayhem in Syria, Iraq and other parts of our fractious planet remains unresolved.   As I started by saying, things seem to be deeply troubling.

THE FINAL RESULT...

I`m having mixed feelings about the European Football Championship going on in France. There is a good deal of Saints related interest for me in some of the games and yesterday`s clash between Northern Ireland, captained by Saints` Steven Davis and Wales, featuring former Saint Gareth Bale, was a case in point.  So I wasn`t sure which team to support.

In the end, Wales won 1-0 thanks to an own goal by Northern Ireland`s Gareth McAuley. Not sure about the fairness of the result as Northern Ireland seemed to be the better of the two teams.  But, of course, it`s the final result that matters, isn`t it?  

My picture shows deflated Northern Ireland manager Michael O`Neill applauding disappointed fans at the final whistle.  And he has every right to be deflated, although I`m not sure about the idea that, as the result was very close, arguably incorrect, grossly unfair and leaving the supporters in a state of angry frustration, then the game should be replayed.   Sadly for the losers, I don`t think it works like that.

AWAY FROM IT ALL..

I suppose I should be over the moon following the surprise result in the EU Referendum - after all, I`ve been going on about it for some years now.  And, of course, I welcome the choice the British people have made to put  priceless democracy above narrow self-interest.  As a result, we seem to be embarking on a bit of a mystery tour;  where will it take us?  Where will it end? With Dave calling it a day, who will be the next Prime Minister?  And, unlike the neanderthal Gordon Brown, whoever it is must surely call an early election in order to legitimise his or her Premiership. 

The Scots, led by the dogged nationalism of Jimmy Crankie will surely use that opportunity to demand another referendum on Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom - and maybe Northern Ireland will jump on the same bandwagon too.  And across the Channel, demands in the Netherlands for the Dutch to have their own Nexit, the Danes a Dexit, the French a Frexit seem to be gaining momentum on the back of Brexit.

So, we have a good deal of mayhem ahead - there may be teardrops to shed ;  but while there`s moonlight and laughter and love and romance, I feel like getting away from it all for a while.  Somewhere like Portloe, where I took this photo about a month ago and where all the sound and the fury seems not to matter quite as much.   Well, I did promise some nice photos.......

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN...

As this extraordinary `campaign` for the EU Referendum reaches the final countdown in the next few days, I hope I`m not alone in being fed up with all the claims and counter claims, the confusion of statistics, promises, pledges, forecasts, reports and `expert opinion.`

For me at least, whilst determinedly hanging on to the courage of my convictions, I wonder if our `leaders` realise that the more I feel I am being treated as some lectured, threatened, bullied and dimwitted peasant, the more determined I become to resist all of that and cast my vote in the opposite way to that which I am being hectored to do.

Come Friday when, thank God it will all be over, I suspect that once again I will find myself not only in a minority but also disappointed at the outcome.   But, hey, I`m a Saints fan and I know all there is to know about disappointment and bewilderment, especially now that the Chairman of the Premier League has today confirmed that `all 20 clubs currently in the Premier League are in favour of remaining in the EU.`  Well, that`s that then.  I`ll go back to posting some nice photos and some decent music.

A GOOD IDEA.....

I really don`t want to get into all the stuff about next week`s EU referendum - there`s too much sound and fury right now;  too much heat, too little light.   And anyway I made my mind up how I`m going to vote yonks ago, my decision based on some sort of innate aversion to encouraging the inevitability of a United States of Germany.

But I couldn`t help notice that yesterday the President of the European Council, one Polish gentleman by the name of Donald Tusk, warned that the UK voting to leave the European Union could be "the beginning of the destruction of Western political civilisation in its entirety."

His remarks brought instant recall of the words of Mahatma Gandhi who, when asked what he thought of Western civilisation, replied that he thought it would be a good idea.

Cant` argue with that.

THE ULTIMATE THREAT.....

Now, let me see if I`ve got this right.   Vote to leave the EU on 23 June and I`m told that these things are likely to happen:-

The UK economy will shrink

Our trading links with EU countries will be drastically affected
Foreign investment in the UK will be seriously reduced

Public services - especially the NHS - will have to be cut back
Taxes will rise

People will lose their jobs

Wages will be lower

House prices will fall

Security will be diminished

War might break out in Europe

Britain will lose its place of influence in the world despite being members of NATO and permanent members of the UN Security Council

Pensions will be reduced

The value of shares will plummet

The value of the pound will plummet

Holidays in Europe will be more expensive

......and so on and on and on and on.....

The threats are clearly building up and, as Referendum Day approaches, I quite expect them to continue and multiply.   It really would not surprise me to hear before long that we will have the ultimate threat of all.  You know the one.  Verbal Kint will tell us all, "If you vote Brexit, Keyser Soze will come and get you."   

A STRANGE DEFINITION..

My 87p Collins English Dictionary defines a patriot as "a person who loves his or her country and supports its interests."   Maybe I should invest in a more expensive, up to date dictionary but the one I have seems at odds with Samuel Johnson`s idea of a patriot.

Now, the other day we had the launch of the group led by former Marks and Spencer Chairman Lord Stuart Rose who will head the campaign for Britain to remain in the European Union.   No less than three former Prime Ministers - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Major - have joined the group, which possibly tilts the balance of truth in Samuel Johnson`s favour.

The thrust of the campaign to remain in the EU is clearly biased towards the interests of business and the Westminster elite, which is unsurprising.   But Lord Rose`s contention that it is patriotic to remain in the EU and `lead it rather than quit,` is interesting for many reasons.   Here are just two of them.  First, of course, even if Britain votes to stay in then there is no way that it will ever `lead` the EU - that job has long since been spoken for.

But secondly, I`m genuinely intrigued as to how it can possibly be patriotic to surrender control of our borders, to give up virtually all of our sovereignty and to have nearly all of our laws, regulations and human rights decided for us by a huge, remote, largely unaccountable outfit whose accounts have not held up to audit scrutiny for any of the last 20 years and which costs us £58 million each and every day in membership fees.

I suggest that my 87p dictionary may have got it right after all.

WHAT`S GOOD FOR US ..

I`ve tried, my God I`ve tried, to keep away from all the sound and fury of the General Election campaign.  But it`s not easy when something like Tony Blair comes back to haunt us.  Like millions of others, I will never forgive this self righteous chancer for taking us into the Iraq War and so when he takes to an election platform I suppose I am automatically put on my guard and likely to dismiss anything he says as highly dubious.  

Yesterday, when he gave his `speech,`I was not disappointed.  He warned us that David Cameron`s pledge to hold a referendum on Britain`s EU membership would cause economic "chaos."  Cameron, he said, had put "exit on the agenda" by pledging a referendum and that leaving the EU would threaten the UK`s position as a "great global nation."

Now, I`m a simple soul and I confess to a large dose of naivete when it comes to the world in general and politics in particular and I like things to mean what they say.  For example, I thought I knew what democracy meant.  My dictionary tells me that democracy is "government by the people or their elected representatives."  Sounds fair enough.

But in Blairland it clearly means something else.  Yesterday he suggested that the question of Britain`s membership of the EU was too important to be left to a democratic vote.   In other words, people like Blair think they know what`s good for us and so they seek to deny any chance that we might have to express our own opinion. 

So, when he suggests that it would be a disaster if we had an EU referendum and an even bigger disaster if we voted to leave the EU altogether, he forgets that, in my simple notion of what democracy means, the biggest disaster of all would be to deny the people the democratic right to determine their own future - a right that has already been denied to them for over half a century.  I think that what would be really good for us would be for Tone to just go away, count his money and leave us all in peace. 

A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE ?..

It`s that time of year when the various local authorities and agencies are beginning to announce their Council Tax plans for the coming financial year.   The good news is that our local Parish Council has decided not to increase its precept at all this coming year but the less good news is that both the County Council and the local District Council are each raising their share of the Council Tax by 1.99%.   (Goodness knows what the Police and other `agencies` might do but it all adds up.)

Now 1.99% is something of a magic figure.   If the councils want to go just that bit further and make it 2% then they would have to call a referendum to see what us Council Taxpayers think about that.   So they have dodged that issue - some might call it a cop out - by sticking to the highest increase possible without the need for a referendum.  The downside of a referendum is that the councils would have to bear the costs of organising it which in turn would mean that the Council tax payers end up paying anyway. 

So I`m not too sure whether I`m in favour of the 1.99% tactic or whether I wouldn`t prefer a referendum anyway.  But one thing I do know is that I feel almost cheated by this financial and political sleight of hand; it smacks of a matter of convenience; all a bit sneaky.  Whatever it may be, I`m left with a feeling of being denied the opportunity to have a direct say about the council proposals.  In the absence of a referendum it`s reminiscent of the calls for a referendum on Britain`s membership of the EU, where we haven`t had a vote since 1974.

Once again I am reminded of the three great fibs of life - the cheque is in the post; I`ll respect you in the morning; and I`m from the council and I`m here to help you.

I have long had a penchant for minor rebellion.   I think I always have to be honest and it may go back 70 years to my very first day at Fawley Primary School, when I really didn`t want to go and I had had enough by lunchtime so I walked out and went home.   Even at that early age I objected to the compulsion of it all and I certainly couldn`t come to terms with the `authority` that it involved.   It was the same throughout my unremarkable school life and I couldn`t really wait to leave.

Then I came across National Service or rather it came across me and once again there was the compulsion and the authority.   And all my life I, like millions of others, have been `governed` by authority and so I have built up a natural resentment towards it - I am compelled to pay exorbitant taxes, see most of them squandered on flights of fancy, politically motivated `initiatives,` self-serving elected representatives at all levels and black holes such as the European Union and foreign aid.

But I normally hold my counsel.  Until now, so here we go.   Here we are on referendum day in Scotland and although I have been genuinely appalled by yesterday`s theatrics by the growling Gordon Brown, at least the campaigning is finally over and the outcome is awaited.   I make no secret of my preference for the outcome to be that Scotland votes to go independent.  Here`s why. 

I am seriously fed up with the Scots having something like £1400 more spent per head of population per annum than those of us in England.   I`m fed up with the Scots having free university education, free travel, free elderly care and a whole lot more besides, which I suspect I am paying for but which is denied to us in England. I`m fed up with the Scots having their own parliament when we in England have to rely on Westminster and the nonsense whereby Scottish MPs can vote on matters that affect only we in England.  I`m fed up with the `vow` that the already discredited Barnett Formula will be allowed to continue in the event of a `No` vote.   Gordon Brown`s impassioned rant, appropriately introduced by the alleged comedian Eddie Izzard, urged Scots to vote `No` so as to `Keep the UK pensions, keep the UK pound, Keep the UK passport, keep the UK welfare state.` (His theory seems to be that by voting `No` the Scots will be better off....but what does all of that do for us south of the border?)

So a part of me favours the Scots going it alone just for the hell of it since it will chime with my rebellious nature but also it will finally rid us of this curmudgeonly nation  and leave what remains of the United Kingdom in a far more optimistic frame of mind, free from the burdens that lie north of the border.  But if the `Yes` vote fails to win the day and the Scots stay as part of the UK after all, then given the extraordinary amount of largesse they already enjoy and the additional powers and resources promised by Westminster`s feckless politicians, the time for minor rebellion will arrive unless the balance between Scotland and the rest of the UK is addressed and soon.   It will be a justifiable cause, to which I will very happily subscribe.

Intuition is a wonderful thing.  There are times when you just know that something ain`t right.  You`re not quite sure what it is and it`s difficult to put your finger on it but you sense there`s something in the air that is disturbing.

Now I had hoped to make these rambles a Scottish referendum-free zone, but it`s not easy to escape all the sound and the fury going on north of the border.   And with the referendum vote less than a week away, the temperature is rising.   It`s reaching the stage where it`s getting impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff, since logical argument has been displaced by rant, claim, counter claim, personal insults and unremitting brouhaha. 

So what is it that`s making me uneasy?   I think it might be just that - the welter of coverage so that, if I had the misfortune to be Scottish and wishing to cast my vote on the basis of reliable information, I would not be at all sure that I could trust anything that I was hearing, reading or seeing.   I might be driven to the reasonable conclusion that the protagonists of the `No` vote were mainly English politicians more concerned with their own futures than the future of Scotland, never mind the Union. 

I might have grounds to suspect that the BBC`s relentless output is as much to do with its upcoming charter renewal than its remit to provide unbiased, neutral and factual reporting.  I might even suspect that the BBC`s coverage has been `influenced` by those who will sit in judgement of their licence renewal.   And I might suspect that most, if not all, of the threats made by big business of dire consequences if the Scots dare to vote `Yes` might turn out to be bluster to avoid any `inconveniences` that might come their way.  

And in a moment of extreme fantasy, I might even suspect that a dubious ballot result could be on the cards.   As I say, it might be that my intuition is misguided - it won`t be the first time - but there is most definitely something in the Scottish air that is unpalatable, almost sinister and it`s no way to run a referendum campaign on something so potentially momentous.

But what could trouble me yet more is the concern that the shenanigans we are witnessing now might well be a dress rehearsal for the referendum we`ve been promised for 2017 on membership of the EU......if Cameron gets re-elected, if he successfully renegotiates our terms of membership and if pigs might fly after all.   Things in Scotland are bad enough, but I shudder at the prospect of a `charm offensive` being waged by the likes of Juncker, Merkel and the rest of the EU elite.  

DON`T PANIC - OH, OK THEN...

First things first.  Cornwall was, as ever, wonderful. Glorious weather, inspiring coast path walks and a good journey home.   But each time I go there I feel a sense of escape from an increasingly mad world, so maybe it`s no wonder that I ask myself what it is that I have come home to.

Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Ebola, migrants amassing in Calais in the misguided belief that England is the land of milk and honey, the EU threatening life as we know it by banning powerful irons, kettles, vacuum cleaners and anything else remotely `powerful` ......and the spectacle of the referendum for Scottish Independence looming on the horizon.  And it`s this last item that seems to be the one that is causing panic among the Westminster elite, following the publication of a YouGov poll that gives a slight lead to the `Yes` campaign for independence.

It`s panic alright.  You know it when you see and hear it and the Westminster parties are upping their efforts to persuade the Scots to vote to stay as part of the UK.  And among the latest set of tactics is the promise of yet more power being devolved to the Scottish Parliament if the good folk of Scotland vote `No.`  (I thought devo-max was off the agenda and anyway why can`t we in England have the same degree of devolved power as the Scots?)

But what is truly frightening is the promise of panic visits to Scotland in the last days before the 18th September vote by Dave Cameron, Ed Milliband and even the oafish Lord Prescott, of whom I hoped we had heard the last.   Seems to me that this prospect, together with the endless threats, scaremongering, bullying and doubtful promises, is the one most likely to guarantee a majority of Scots voting to leave the UK. 

And what strikes me as increasingly astonishing is that some 500,000 EU nationals who are resident in Scotland are entitled to vote, whereas we in the rest of the UK are not allowed to, even though it could mean the break up of the United Kingdom.  A mad world in a panic and I`m just sorry I have to wait another three weeks before I can escape all the madness and head down the A303 again.

BALANCING ACT ?..

This is, of course, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown doing a passable impression of Tommy Cooper whilst taking a leading role in the `No` campaign against Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and going it alone.   The referendum is just a few short weeks away and the momentum, the arguments, the threats and promises are gathering pace.

And yesterday saw an interesting development with a letter being sent by the `Let`s Stay Together` group urging Scots to vote `No` which was signed by 200 so-called `celebrities.`  The signatories include the predictably usual suspects, of course, such as Jo Brand whose claim to fame is based on crudity and loudness; Esther Rantzen, who is incapable of allowing a bandwagon to pass by without climbing aboard;  the improbable `Sir` Mick Jagger; Griff Rhys Jones, renowned as the one actor in the recent BBC version of Under Milk Wood to unforgivably mispronounce Butcher Beynon; the Turner Prize entry that is Tracey Emin and, inevitably, the caricature that goes by the name of Sting.

The Scots, it seems, are less than impressed and a wave of indignation has hit the social media airwaves.  One Jason Henderson observed that, "If I was a `No` voter I think this would embarrass me into voting Yes" and Historian Stephen Fleming called the line-up of celebrities "a real horror show" saying that, "If this doesn`t make Scotland vote for independence, I don`t know what will."

But what was perhaps most disconcerting was the BBC New 24 item that reported on the letter.   It did so with obvious enthusiasm for the cause of Scotland staying in the UK and totally ignored those other celebrities who are urging the Scots to vote Yes - among them Sir Sean Connery, Brian Cox, Robbie Coltrane, Billy Bragg, Iain Rankin, Ken Loach, Kevin Bridges and Jack Vettriano. 

But I guess we`ve come to expect nothing less from the BBC than leaning towards the party line of the establishment and so we should not be surprised that their stance towards the Scottish referendum is now clearly in step with the BBC view on things like the EU, climate change, global warming and all the other issues where those who dare to express dissent are viewed as bordering on the criminal or the insane.

Thank goodness I don`t pay the licence fee any more or I would really say what I think.

TOO MUCH TO ASK ?

I suppose at my age I should know better but it seems that the older I get the more frustrating things become.   And important things too.   For example, the Chilcot Inquiry into the run-up to the Iraq War, which is already four years late thanks to a ridiculous wrangle between the Inquiry team and the unelected chief mandarin, Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The argument was all about the release of communications between Tony Blair and George Bush with Heywood citing confidentiality and compromise to the so-called `special relationship` between whoever might be the future US President and the UK Prime Minister.   Last week, in a blaze of indifference, reports emerged of a deal whereby the `gist` of some of those communications could be released but not the actual detail of what went on.   Fudge masquerading as progress.   What will now follow is the extraordinary process of `Maxwellisation` whereby anyone likely to be remotely criticised by the Inquiry will be sent drafts of the Inquiry report and invited to submit comments which might be reflected in the final report.

And so it goes on and despite indications that the final report might appear `before the end of the year` I`ll believe it when I see it - or what`s left of it following doubtless copious `redaction`, aka censorship.   Sometimes the truth seems forever out of reach and I wonder if it`s too much to ask for people to have the courage to tell it like it is - or was in this case - and understand that `the public` will be more impressed with honesty, however painful, than with obfuscation and denial.

It`s the same with the often promised referendum on the EU.   We are seriously supposed to believe that IF the Tories get back into power after next year`s General Election, IF Dave Cameron can successfully renegotiate Britain`s relationship with the EU and IF the other 27 EU countries led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel will all agree to Cameron`s demands then we will have a referendum in 2017 which the Tories will campaign for the UK to stay in Europe anyway.   

It`s all Alice in Wonderland stuff.  Once again, reality seems to be elusive and out of reach and I wonder if it`s too much to ask that politicians might one day keep their manifesto promises and for once, just once, heed the frustrations and expectations of those they claim to represent.   

But then I`m a Saints fan, so I know all about frustration and expectation, don`t I?  To be fair.

They`re at it already.  The other evening a news programme was cut short for a Party Political broadcast on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.  Up pops Nick Clegg but instead of going on about the real issues of the day, not least the flooding, he ranted on about how stupid and short sighted we would all be to vote for UKIP at the forthcoming European Elections.  It would be bad for the economy, bad for Britain`s place in the great scheme of things, bad for jobs and, you name it, it would be bad.  Rather we should vote for the Lib Dems who would ensure that the economy was successful, unemployment a thing of the past and everything would be simply wonderful.

Today, Dave Cameron has been going on about how awful it would be if the Scots voted to leave the Union in their upcoming referendum.   Bad for their economy, bad for jobs, bad for Scotland to be cast adrift in an uncertain future.  Instead, they should vote to stay as part of the United Kingdom thus ensuring a splendidly secure and prosperous future.

Now I don`t know about you, but I get tired of being preached at, talked down to, told what I should do and how I should think.   I simply don`t believe Cameron believes himself what he is saying;  rather I suspect he wouldn`t mind if the Scots said `Goodbye,` and left him just about fireproof in future elections, given the majority Conservative vote in England and the disappearance in the Westminster parliament of so many Scottish Labour seats.

As for Nick Clegg, I`ve never really come to terms with the fact that someone whose party came a poor third in the last election can apparently hold so much sway in terms of policy making and political influence and thus feel entitled to start telling us what he thinks we should all be doing.  I wonder if they and their ilk realise that the more they adopt these headmasterly poses, the more they alienate the electorate.

And so, given my own innate curmudgeonliness, my deep rooted cynicism of all things political and my penchant for minor rebellion, I will ignore the sermons of these preacher men and draw upon my natural reactions by doing the exact  opposite of what they are imploring me to do ....and hope the Scots do the same.  It may be irresponsible...but at least it`s honest.

HEARD IT ALL BEFORE ?

I seem to recall that at each of the last couple of general elections, both of the leading parties promised faithfully that we would have a referendum on Britain`s place in the European Union.   Politics and politicians being what they are, the pledges contained in the party manifestos were ignored and so we still wait for the chance to voice our opinions on this crucial issue for the sovereignty of the nation and our ability to control our own affairs.

But.....David Cameron is now appearing to hold out the prospect of a referendum......or is he?   He says he `is prepared to consider a referendum on the UK`s relationship with the EU but only when the time is right.`   He says he wants `a real choice` for voters but that an immediate in/out referendum `was not what most wanted.`   How does he know what `most` want if they haven`t been asked?  And look at the words carefully - `prepared to consider;`  `when the time is right` ...and so on.


We`ve heard it all before, of course and there`s no reason to think it will be any different this time, especially as any referendum that might eventually be held won`t be before the next general election scheduled for 2015, which might be too late for a lot of my rather senior generation anyway.  In the meantime, we will continue to hand over enormous sums of our money to the EU and watch as their unaccountable meddling, their gross inefficiency, their crazy policies for things like fisheries and common agriculture, their financial mismanagement and their arrogant pursuit of the superstate, continue unchecked. 


It`s simple really.   Do we want to remain members of the European Union?  Yes or no?   I think you can guess my answer, but it`s now reaching the stage whereby the answer itself is becoming less important than the chance to answer the question in the first place.

THE ONLY SOLUTION..

I see that the Government of the Falkland Islands has decided to hold a referendum `next year` on whether the islanders wish to remain as a British overseas territory.  It`s worth remembering, of course, that 255 British and over 600 Argentinian military personnel were killed in the conflict 30 years ago - an event being marked in both countries shortly.   The President of Argentina will be addressing the United Nations tomorrow on her country`s claims of sovereignty over the islands and the announcement for the referendum seems a well timed and clever response.

Trouble is, referendums have a chequered history and it seems that they are only held when the outcome is known beforehand.   There`s no way the Falklands one would have been announced if the government were not certain of a 98% vote in favour of staying as a British territory.   Similarly, we have so far been denied a referendum on Britain`s membership of the EU because successive governments have known the likelihood of a vote in favour of getting out of Europe.   And those referendums, like those in Ireland, where the electorate have come up with the wrong answers have simply resulted in more referendums until they come up with the right one.

But now it seems that at least some UK politicians may be softening their attitude towards the EU referendum - maybe they think they can`t get away with it any longer now that 80% of voters are apparently calling for one - but still the mixed messages keep coming.   Only yesterday a Downing Street spokesman is reported as saying that `the people don`t want a referendum` suggesting that there were other more pressing priorities occupying our minds at the moment.  Maybe he meant the European Football Championships? 

What`s needed is clarity.   Enough ducking and diving, enough fudge, it`s time for decisive action.   And the only solution is to hold a referendum now on whether to hold a referendum.  


After all, democracy rules.  OK?