Why has Britain changed it's Prime Minister 7 times since the 2016 Brexit referendum

 The United Kingdom was once renowned for being a stable and well run country, but now it is seen as a "basket case" which cannot establish a stable government.  Brexit cannot be blamed directly for this but the referendum and the shenanigans surrounding it can.

Most sensible countries require a two thirds majority to prevent divisive politics prevailing after  a referendum. Some countries go further and require a majority of their constituent states to vote to approve the referendum otherwise no changes are made: Australia is one such country.

The UK decided to have a simple majority to change the constitution, and it decided that national votes did not matter. The voters decided to vote for changes to the constitution by 52% versus 48%, it was too close for comfort.  On another day the result could have been reversed, especially because Britain always conducts votes on a Thursday because of tradition. Retired voters find it easier to get to the polls than workers and students do. Retired voters in the main favoured Brexit, had the vote taken place on a Sunday when younger people, workers and students  would have found it easier to get to the polls, the result could have been different. Is it any wonder that the referendum was so divisive? 

To add to the division England and Wales voted for Brexit and Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, so it was more grist for the division mill.

Many sensible countries have a constitutional court which monitors the behaviour of the politicians and their campaigning, lying and excessive hyperbole can then be ruled out.

The UK government decided that the referendum would only be advisory and that the result could be "overruled" by parliament. The resulting divisiveness could not be clearer, you could not make it up in a fiction.

Watch out Northern Ireland a simple majority vote in a referendum for a united Ireland could cause dangerous division if there was just a small majority for change.

What has all t his to do with Brexit and the constant change of Prime Ministers and the political instability which has resulted?

David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, approved the holding of a referendum but campaigned for the country to remain in the EU. When the remain faction lost he was obliged to resign. 

From then on Britain had a series of Conservative Prime Ministers who could not agree a way forward. The factional in fighting and backstabbing resulted in chaos, and  there was no plan to capitalise economically from Brexit. Some feeble trade deals were concluded with Commonwealth countries but  these deals could nowhere compensate for the trade losses with the EU resulting from Brexit. The economy stagnated. Finally in 2024 the people elected a Labour Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister , Keir Starmer, was an ardent supporter of the Remain campaign. The Labour party was elected because the majority of the population were tired of the economic stagnation, and the broken promises of an improved economy owing to Brexit .Keir Starmer, promised that the UK would reset its relationship with the EU but ruled out joining the EU Single Market and the Customs Union. There was no plan for the future. The electorate were impatient for economic improvement. The majority of the population had also changed their minds as now they wanted to re-join the EU. Keir Starmer was behind the times; Labour Party Members of Parliament decided that after 2 years in power he had to go.

Soon, the UK will get a new Labour Prime Minister, he will need a good plan to reverse the diplomatic, economic and political failure that was Brexit, otherwise our country will stagnate further.

The world has changed a lot since Brexit. The USA is indulging in trade disputes with European  Countries and shows hostility towards NATO. Russia has invaded another European country and is seen as being a big military threat to Western Europe. The UK cannot stand alone and lose its sovereignty and remaining economic , political and diplomatic power. We need allies , we need Europe. We need to join Europe again to improve economic and defence conditions for all our countries.

We do not need to join the political and economic structures of the European Union, but we could negotiate re-joining the Single Market and the Customs Union, and we should negotiate a common defence and foreign affairs  treaty. There is still some goodwill left towards the UK, and it would probably be possible to negotiate a say on how the single market is run and some representation at the European Court. of Justice. The UK has a lot to offer in a close association with the EU, especially  in the field of defence and security. All of this would be to our mutual benefit.

The new Labour Prime Minister needs a good plan for Brexit and the way forward with the EU. Let's try to reverse the stagnation and develop an optimistic future for our country.

If you don't want a political crisis then don't run the country by referendum

 The 2016 referendum  which questioned the British public whether we should leave the European Union or remain has left a divisive and toxic body political, and the crisis it has created is still playing out. The decision to leave the EU was made without any prior and  independent critical examination  of the cost benefits of Brexit or consideration of the consequences. There was no plan about what to do after Brexit, and how to exploit any advantage that Brexit could confer - a recipe for failure, division and disaster.

It is a severe mistake to change the constitution on the basis of a simply majority of the votes in a referendum. Britain decided to leave the EU on the basis of a simple majority. 52.89 %, of registered voters,  voted to Leave and 48.11%, of registered voters, voted to remain but 27.79%, of registered voters, chose to abstain.. If everyone had voted or if the referendum had been held on another day then the result could have been different.  The referendum also gave liars and political chancers the opportunity to disrupt the British  un- written constitution to gain political power for themselves. Brexit has turned out to be an abject failure which after 5 years has meant that our country is worse off economically, politically, socially, financially and diplomatically.

Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU but England and Wales voted to leave, further division which could lead to the United Kingdom to breaking up with all the problems that would entail. The political divisions have meant that the realm has been unable to capitalise on any potential economic benefit from Brexit, and in fact our international trading position has got worse.

Most sensible countries demand a 2/3  majority before changing the constitution either in a referendum or a in parliamentary vote to avoid division. Did our parliamentarians show any sense when deciding upon the terms of the referendum?

The supposed trade benefits of becoming closer to the US did not materialise, in fact the tariff regime has got worse.  Britain has concluded some trade agreements with  nations such as Canada and India but these agreements were hardly better than what we had before Brexit. Britain has missed out on the EU -Mercosur Agreement which is worth billions in mutual trade. 

From a political point of view it allowed the Brexiteer wing of the Conservative party to undermine Theresa May's premiership. May was trying to alleviate the detrimental effects of Brexit by trying to keep Britain in the Single Market, but eventually she was deposed. The Brexit wing of the party then set about removing some of the more thoughtful and progressive MP's from their constituencies. The Conservative party then lost its One Nation credentials. 

The new Conservative Prime Minister then embarrassed the Queen, as head of state, by advising her to illegally prorogue parliament for paarty political advantage. The Queen then had to suffer the indignity of her Supreme Court overriding her illegal decision.

The political division did not stop there: parliament was asked what sort of Brexit they wanted, but neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative party could agree, MP's were given the opportunity to vote for leaving the EU but stay in the Single Market or the Customs union, but they could not raise enough votes for either option. The result was a hard-line and unmitigated Brexit. The political divisions are many and their toxicity still plagues our body politic.

From a social point of point, Brexit has meant that young people can no longer up sticks and work in the EU for a short period or travel around freely to gain experience and find marriage partners and bring their partners back to Britain with ease. British business men can no longer travel so freely to the EU  or set up business there or become directors of European companies. The British economic model has relied upon imported labour. The EU work force was young and mobile and they brought an entrepreneurial spirit with them. EU youngsters can no longer travel freely to the UK. The dreams of many European youngsters have been foiled.

Part of the reason why so many voters voted for Brexit was their worry about immigration. But without immigration and the migration of workers some sections of the British economy would be severely affected. When the Europeans stopped coming or went home because they felt un-welcome, we had to replace them with workers from South East Asia and East Asia.  These migrants were the sort of people people that some xenophobic Brexiteers  really didn't want in our country and what is more they had to pay to come here. And they wanted to bring their families with them , this has resulted in the immigration figures soaring, and because of the xenophobia, governments have become more and more restrictive towards these new residents . This has meant that our society just appears to be mean and nasty and exploitative towards our migrant neighbours. This is a sad state of affairs.

Financially, we are much worse off; the pound has plunged in value leading to food and consumer goods inflation. Our GDP has lost ground meaning that tax income has declined and  government bond yields have risen dramatically.  Britain is now paying billions more in financing government debt ; billions which could contribute to the improvement of social care and the NHS, and billions more which could be spent on defence.  The economic and financial problems caused by Brexit have meant that no government despite its promises has much room for manoeuvre. The current political division could lead to an economic and financial crisis just like we had in the 1970's when Britain had to be bailed out by the IMF. Who will bail us out now? The US, China or India? I don't think so . The EU would have to bail us out, but they will exact a price.

Diplomatically, Britain has been weakened by Brexit and it no longer has much strength to exercise its sovereignty as witnessed by the Chagos islands fiasco. Britain is legally obliged to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius sovereignty. One minute the US government approved of the British return of the Chagos islands, but the next minute the US objected, Britain just had to do what it was told; so much for Britain  being stronger out of Europe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dqg3nqynlo

The present Labour government knows that Brexit was a mistake, but now it is too weak to challenge the liars and the chancers who  are still dictating the policy towards Brexit. We need a return to some sort of political sanity and stability and strength of purpose.

What lessons have I  learnt from this. Don't change the constitution in a referendum without a two thirds majority.  In a multi-nation state gain the consent of all the constituent nations for complex constitutional change as well. Before you decide to have a référendum critically examine the costs and benefits and the consequences and have a plan - Failure is easy; success requires hard work, intelligence and above all integrity.

https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-leadership-crisis-survival-doubt-kings-speech-firebreak/

Britain getting closer to European Union

 I am fully in support of Britain becoming closer to EU. It his clear that Brexit has been a complete flop; none of the promises that were made by the Brexiteers, have been met. With especial regard to sovereignty . the US administration is trampling all over us. it is impugning our sovereignty over  the Chagos islands and telling us what to do.  The US administration is insulting our Prime Minister and our Armed Forces. We have assisted the the US mostly, without question, when it has indulged in legal military action, and we shall do so in the future but we deserve some credit and respect.

It is my opinion that a reset with the EU does not go far enough , we really need to at least re-join the Single Market first and then the Customs union to protect our economy, and then if it is within our national interest  to become full members of the EU again. This will take a long time but in the end it will be worth it. Britain also needs to unite with the EU both diplomatically and militarily and should forge a joint foreign policy with the EU to protect our common interests. The US is no longer prepared to finance our defence and why should they?  We need a strong economy to spend more on defence and to make a strong contribution to European unity.   

The remain in the EU campaign used to the slogan "Britain Stronger in Europe": we have made a big mistake as Britain was in fact actually stronger in Europe,  but we had to become poorer and be treated to the indignity of being walked all over by the US  to find out. It is time for British politicians to wise up and face the reality "Britain is Stronger in Europe".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

Hatred and violence beget further hatred and violence

 The current war in the Middle East is a tragic consequence of the dangerous attitude that disputes between nations can only be settled by violence. Thousands of innocent people in Israel, Lebanon, and Iran have been killed as a result of both hatred and violence. Tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in Palestine and Gaza.

The wars are being organised by secular and religious leaders who are interested only in hatred and violence and domination of their political opponents. Once again the human race is descending into a moral abyss.

The war in the Middle East is spreading in asymmetric form to Western societies with innocent Jewish and Muslim communities being targeted by hate-filled  criminals and terrorists. 

It is time for the leaders of all the combatants in the region to cease the violence and hatred. It  is time to negotiate with their opponents to agree a settlement and a peace treaty.

The recent Northern Ireland civil war between the republican and loyalist communities sets an example of what can be achieved when political leaders finally decide that hatred, violence and vengeance is futile. The governments of the UK  and the Republic of Ireland lead the way to a reduction of the violence and encouraged the leaders of the civil war to negotiate. A peace treaty was agreed, and the UK , Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland all benefitted form the peace.

It is time for  a negotiated settlement to achieve peace in the Middle East . Which country will start to lead the way to peace?

UK Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) -Madness

 The UK is introducing an electronic travel authorisation system (ETA)  from the 25th of February 2026 and this is going to cause all sorts of real problems for British citizens and others. From the 25th travellers coming tom the UK, and who do not require a visa to enter,  will be expected to apply for an ETA via a mobile 'phone app or an internet website. The system will record the passport details of the traveller. 

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/electronic-travel-authorisation-eta-factsheet-february-2026/  

This means that US, Canadian, Australian and EU citizens etc. must apply for permission to travel to the UK. Airlines are being instructed to deny boarding to travellers who require an ETA but do not have one . There are of course notable exceptions, being: British and Irish citizens and foreign citizens who have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the the UK or Settled Status. British and Irish citizens will be expected to show their British or Irish passport , or in the case of British Citizens without a UK passport, but who are dual nationals must show a certificate of entitlement attached to their foreign passport. It takes a long time to get a British passport if you are abroad and and Certificates of Entitlement are very expensive - £500 plus.

The rules could cause severe problems for UK /Foreign dual nationals. Before the 25th a UK citizen who is a dual national could enter the UK on their foreign passport provided that a visa was not required . Thus a UK and German dual national could enter the UK with just their German passport. After the 25th all British travellers must show evidence of their UK nationality using  a British  passport or Certificate of Entitlement. In other words; no British passport then no entry. The same reasoning applies to Irish nationals.  There are many thousands of British dual nationals residing in countries all over the world and when they travelled to the UK they were able to use their American, Canadian, German or Australian passport etc. Many of these citizens did not know of the new restrictions even though it was well advertised on government websites- but not in the international press.  Some people have been caught out by these new measures if they have to travel quickly to the UK to go to a funeral or visit a very sick relative.

Some people have suggested that those dual nationals who do not have a British passport should apply for an ETA just like single nationality foreigners, but it would mean making a declaration on the ETA application form that you are just a single national; this is lying by omission and could cause difficulties if you are found out. Some nations like Spain frown upon having dual nationality and such citizens are reluctant to use a British passport when travelling for fear of being found out. 

All in all the situation is going to be a mess and there will be lots of disappointed citizens who will be denied boarding to come to the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/13/dual-nationals-denied-entry-to-uk-british-passport-border-control

My wife and I are both dual nationals of Britain and France. I was born in the UK and acquired French nationality because I was married to a French woman, it was my absolute right. When I became French I was immediately registered to receive a French National Identity Card, and for free. The card allows me entrance to all EU and EEA countries and allows me to avoid the silly finger printing and eye printing of foreign nations by the EU at the border; a system which is causing lots of difficulties with queues etc. My card is easily tucked into a wallet  for convenience.

When my wife became British she was given a Certificate of British Nationality for free, it is useful in some instances but cannot be used to identify you as a British citizen, by an airline at the border  because it is easy to forge. My wife became British in the morning and in the afternoon was applying for her British passport, perhaps this demonstrates the esteem that she holds for her adopted country. When we travel back to France we always carry our British passports to re-enter the UK,  and after the 25th this will be a necessity.

Both of us recognise that if you are a resident of the UK and are a British or Irish citizen then you are obliged to travel to the UK with those passports. However, what if you are a non-resident? You may feel no real compulsion to obtain a British passport for travel. So why should you be compelled to obtain a British or Irish passport if you are making infrequent trips. Surely, if you are a non-resident you should be allowed to travel to the UK just using your foreign passport with an ETA.

I  often question myself why should an ETA be necessary at all? The British government claims that the ETA will improve border security by denying entry to unwanted individuals. However, just think for a minute, as state sponsored terrorists or organised criminals can easily obtain or even generate forged passports. They might even just pay and  use individuals without a criminal record to do their dirty deeds by proxy.  Also, the British border is completely porous, as there are no checks whatsoever between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (UK). In fact, if ever I was in France and I lost my British passport I would jump on a plane to Ireland, with my French id. card in my back pocket, and then cross the border to Northern Ireland, and then use my driving licence or photo bus pass to travel on a domestic flight to London! I would be doing nothing illegal because I am a British citizen and don't need an ETA. In fact, the Irish border situation makes a mockery of border control, for an American or Canadian etc. could travel to The Republic of Ireland and then spend some time in the UK without being checked at the border- technically this is illegal, but provided you keep your nose clean no one not even a policeman would question you whether you had an ETA or not.

The British government also claims that it will help with statistics gathering for how many tourists etc. come to the country and who is coming in and going out. Unfortunately, the government has not got a clue about this and never will have a clue about it, because it is notoriously difficult to log in and log out everyone especially when border systems go down and when the airlines etc. do not provide the information and the borders are porous anyway. To me it seems as if the government are only recording all our mov,ements because they can do it with computers. Did they do a cost benefit analysis before deciding on an ETA system?

The American Civil Liberties Union made the comment years ago that finding a terrorist is like looking for a needle in a haystack but now the government authorities have decided to make the haystack bigger in the vain attempt to catch terrorists etc. But this solution is not working. Intelligence rather than the brute force of recording everyone's movements is needed to catch miscreants. 

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/burying-needle

I quote. " It should be common sense: larger and larger haystacks only make the needle harder to find. Unfortunately, it's not. And the result is the FBI is collecting more and more data on Americans, which dramatically increases the error and abuse, with significant consequences to innocent Americans' privacy, civil rights, and security".

Shortly, the EU is going to introduce their own Electronic Travel Authorisation called ETIAS, and this will sit alongside their system (EES) for finger printing every foreigner that enters the EU. All this means that the average Australian, American or Canadian tourist who wants to spend a week or so in Britain and a week in Europe just to see Buckingham palace, or the Eiffel Tower must jump through bureaucratic  hoops to go on holiday, and if they forget their British passport because they are dual citizens then they could find themselves not able to complete their trip at all. The overall majority of tourists are good honest people and have no intention of coming to the UK or other European countries to rob, rape or assault anyone, so why make their life more difficult and to no real purpose? Why stop someone who has to travel to see a sick or dying relative because they don't have the right passport?. 

If we are not careful; we might put off tourists travelling altogether and we will just be left with state sponsored terrorists and organised criminals coming to our European fortresses, and they will be easier to catch because the haystack will be much smaller. Perhaps, this is what the authorities intended all the way along. I am sure that the tourist industry and its employees have got lots of opinions about that.

The Government Needs To Show IT is Making A Difference

 The current Labour government is in real difficulty, and the party is contemplating changing its leader and therefore changing the Prime Minister. The Mandelson affair is magnifying its difficulties.

The problems of the government are of its own making.

Poor decision making is leading to U turns having to be made and a perception of weakness. The constant changing of policies is leading to instability.

The one U turn which should have been made was the policy towards the EU. Most of the ministers in the government including the Prime Minister himself did not support leaving the EU. Brexit is now being seen by the majority of the electorate as a real failure, which did not meet its objectives of improving the economy from being able to strike trade deals independent of the EU, and bringing down immigration numbers. The Prime minister should show the courage of his convictions and declare that Britain will seek to re-join the EU single market and even the Customs union without necessarily joining the political structures of the EU. Re-joining EU trade structures will boost the UK economy. The EU has just signed a huge trade deal with India resulting in trillions of EUR extra trade between India and the EU. This deals dwarfs the miniscule trade deal which the UK, on its own, was able to negotiate. The EU has also signed a huge deal with Mercosur South American countries. The UK is not part of this. The EU is also negotiating with the Trans -Pacific partnership which the UK has signed up to.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/02/india-eu-mother-of-al

https://commission.europa.eu/topics/trade/eu-merl-trade-deals-what-to-know/cosur-trade-agreement_en

The Prime Minister and his ministers should be strongly making the case for re-joining EU trade institutions and this would help business interests and provide economic growth. The Prime Minister would then be seen as a man who has the courage of his convictions who acts in the national interest.

Immigration policies have been a disaster, and once again the government needs to make it clear that the UK has a moral obligation to treat refugees and asylum seekers with humanity, and to find an alternative route for genuine asylum seekers and refugees to come to Britain . Refugees should be allowed to work and make a contribution to our society. This would reduce the demand for people trying to get to the UK by irregular means and small boats. Of course, anyone who enters the country illegally and works illegally should be subject to deportation. The populist approach to immigration will not work, the drawbridge attempts to keep people out will not work. Britain needs workers;  the free movement of labour from the EU, when we were a member, meant that there was less opportunity for workers to come from other  states and less of a need for small boat irregular crossings of the channel. When we were in the EU the nation was more or less at peace with itself regarding immigration.

A change of approach is required, based on what the average person needs needs and that is: 

A safe, secure, affordable  and warm home,

A job which pays enough money for a family to have a good life without state handouts,

A well fed family,

A decent local school,

A decent health system without huge waiting queues,

Good community care for older people with infirmities,

A clean environment.

Britain is one of the richest countries in the world with a 3 trillion pound economy. It has unimaginable wealth . It should be possible to meet the above needs. The government needs to be making a start and show some tangible results. It could start by ensuring that any social housing which is in bad repair is brought up to standard . It could make a start repairing broken schools. It could make a start by ensuring that every one is properly fed. It needs to show that it is doing something rather than talking about doing something. It needs to stop playing at politics and implement sensible policy initiatives, and now, otherwise it is doomed and Britain's economy will descend further. 

The Greenland Question

 I get a feeling that the US Administration is trying to get European nations to do its dirty work for it. The US administration wants to acquire Greenland and make it a 21st state of the US. However, the US Senate and most of the US population are opposed. The US armed forces are also relutcant to possibly break US law and illegally occupy Greenland. The US Senate and Armed forces know that a 1951 treaty allows the US to use multiple military bases on Greenland and allows the US  to post unlimited personnel and defence equipment on the island. Greenland can easily be used as a staging post to defend both the US and Greenland itself. There is no need for an invasion or even a peaceful takeover or unwanted purchase for that matter.

It would be very convenient for the US Administration if Europe could be persuaded to "twist the arm" of Greenland to voluntarily accede to the US demands. Then there would then be no need to incur the wrath of the Senate or the US public. This is why our 8 European nations are being imposed with trade tariffs if Greenland does not give in.

Europe must resist this form of  pressure and should not allow Greenland to be taken over without its consent.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-vows-tariffs-eight-european-nations-over-greenland-2026-01-17/

The UK would do well to fall in with any counter sanctions  that the EU would impose upon the US. The world has changed, and the US is no longer giving the UK any form of special treatment. The UK is powerless if it does not move closer to its true friends both economically, diplomatically and militarily. Brexit was not good for Britain in anyway whatsoever. The majority of the UK population now recognise that the whole Brexit affair was a sham  and most British people want to re-join the EU. And, a narrow majority of the population of the EU would also support Britain re-joining. To re-join would take years and years of negotiation and may not be practical. However, Britain could relatively easily join the single market and could probably negotiate a say in how it is run. Britain re-joining would be to the economic benefit of both the UK and the EU and would help to offset losses of more difficult trading with the US. Britain should also closely ally to EU  in a security pact and foreign affairs agreement, which would also supplement NATO or even replace NATO membership if the US pulls out. Anything could happen in this new world of the double-cross and lack of respect for the rules.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/majority-brits-say-want-reverse-36488954

Britain may be forced to get closer to the EU, as it cannot afford to be left alone and be economically or diplomatically battered by much more powerful nations. It is now time for action and let the British population be made aware of all the options and decide a better future for themselves.