A place where sceptics can exchange their views

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

The madness and cynical insincerity of the UK Reform Party's plans to use the Royal Navy to send back the boat people to France and Belgium

 Reform's policy of using the Royal Navy to forcibly return boat people back to France is both dangerous, unworkable and illegal and quite frankly the result of deranged thinking. It is a disingenuous plot to appeal to a certain section of the British population who  falsely believe that the boat people problem can be resolved by force and deployment of military resources. 

The Royal Navy is opposed to this policy on both moral and legal grounds and rightly so. Royal Naval  personnel are legally and morally bound to save innocent people who are in distress on the sea, not to arrest them or transport them anywhere against their will. Even if the Royal Nay were obliged to sink an enemy ship which was attacking  them or our country, they would still be obliged to rescue survivors and they would do this willingly. The Royal Navy Service men and women are, of course warriors, but they are not barbarians and they willingly adhere to international law and conventions.

If, Royal Navy service personnel were to enter French terrestrial waters to land migrants, without permission, then the French authorities would be within their rights to arrest the crew and confiscate their ship. Why should our personnel be subjected to this risk?

On the political front France could and would probably annul the Le Touquet agreement for juxtaposed border controls at the channel tunnel, the UK would then be expected to vet entrants to the UK on the British side of the channel rather than the French side. This would do nothing to help prevent irregular entries to UK shores.

On the diplomatic front the Reform policy is irresponsible, as their policy is to withdraw from the ECHR and abolish the UK Human Rights Act.  Such a policy would jeopardise the Good Friday agreement and Britain's trade relations with Europe and would also mean that our country would become an International Pariah. Brexit has already damaged our economy and diplomatic relations with our closest neighbours, and leaving the ECHR would ruin them. Leaving the ECHR will complete the Brexit agenda and would then ruin the country.

The problem of irregular crossings can only be resolved by intense co-operation with our neighbours, acting alone will only antagonise our erstwhile neighbours and make the situation worse and even more intolerable. This  dangerous policy of grandstanding and appearing to be tough on immigration just to get votes must be stopped.  The British people, in general, will not be fooled by this and they will vote against it.  


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/08/03/reform-land-troops-on-french-beaches-if-it-refuses-migrants/

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/no-farage-royal-navy-cant-stop-small-boats-this-why-4684472

https://www.france24.com/en/20180117-france-britains-le-touquet-treaty-migration-key-points

Thursday, 9 July 2026

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.

Wednesday, 13 May 2026

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/

Monday, 13 April 2026

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

Wednesday, 25 March 2026

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?

Tuesday, 24 February 2026

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.

Tuesday, 10 February 2026

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. 

Tuesday, 20 January 2026

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.

Tuesday, 9 December 2025

Britain's place in the world

 It is becoming increasingly apparent, to me anyway, that Britain's influence on world affairs is becoming weaker. And becoming weaker from a low starting point. The US just pays "lip service" to the once heralded special relationship. Britain has very little influence over events connected to the Ukraine and Russian war or events in the Middle East. Russia and Israel just ignore the opinions of Britain. The Ukraine and Russian war will be settled on terms dictated by the US and Russia. It may seem unjust to Ukraine's European partners but Ukraine will almost certainly have to give up the Crimea and large parts of the Donbas if it wants to achieve a ceasefire. Britain and the EU are simply too weak economically, diplomatically and militarily to impose any sort of just settlement in favour Ukraine.

It is now more and more important that Britain re-establishes close relations with the EU to ensure Europe's common security going forward. The US is no longer willing to bankroll Europe from an economic and military point of view. Europe will have to pay more, much more, to finance Nato and if it does not its influence will recede further. However, if we pay more we should expect to have a greater influence on events and outcomes for European security.

Britain needs to "wise up" and it needs to negotiate a security and defence pact with the EU and a pact to negotiate a real influence in foreign affairs..Britain could make a strong contribution to this from a military and diplomatic point of view.

The" Brexit worm" is turning in Britain and the public and it's political representatives are beginning to realise that Brexit was not good for Britain, it made Britain economically and diplomatically weaker. It also weakened the EU  but to a lesser extent.

Britain will need to negotiate  better trade ties with the EU by at least joining an associate customs union; perhaps something akin to the original common market. This would involve a trade off by allowing freedom of movement of labour as well as capital, services and goods, all of  which we had when we first joined in EC in 1973. This could mean that we would have to lower the number of work permits that we offer to non-EU nationals to control immigration - if the populace insists upon this. 

Britain should improve its case for joining in a trade association with the EU by proposing and contributing to a number of projects that would improve the economic prospects for all European citizens.

The warnings from the US are clear - we must fend for ourselves much better; to achieve this Britain must become a good European partner again. There is no other direction for us to turn, so let's start the process of really resetting our relations with the EU by commissioning an objective report on how we can do this, and ask the EU to make a contribution to the process. This must be done quickly before it is too late to stop our nation from falling into more serious decline.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvd01g2kwwo

Tuesday, 14 October 2025

At last we are going to get a political conversation about Brexit

 The health secretary has re-opened the debate about Brexit and it is about time. We voted to leave the EU in the  2016 referendum. We left the  all the institutions of the EU including the single market and the customs union in December 2020. Since leaving completely Britain has seen no tangible benefits . The sunny uplands of Brexit are covered with dark clouds. The British people were promised an improved economy, greater control of the borders and more sovereignty when we left. None of these promises were kept, there was no plan for what would happen next and even if we could have exploited Brexit we failed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-wes-streeting-european-union-b2844451.html

I voted to remain in the EU but I knew that most of the British people were sceptical about joining in  a complete political union and membership of the European parliament. Had the option been on the ballot paper to leave the political institutions of the EU but remain in the single market, or customs union or both, then I would have voted for just leaving the EU, but not the major economic institutions. I was given no other choice so I voted remain. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU as did Gibraltar but they had no choice but to leave the EU - so much for local democracy. A solution could have been negotiated which saw Northern Ireland, Scotland and Gibraltar staying in the EU but the rest of the UK leaving, provided the rest of the UK stayed in the Single Market and Customs Union. The EU is flexible; Greenland has left the EU but it still remains part of Denmark. Brexit turned out to be a completely inflexible all or nothing choice.

It is time to try something different if we want our economy to improve by getting closer to the EU.

It is time to try something different regarding the free movement of labour . Britain is short of skills, and care workers, health workers, engineers and construction workers etc. We need people to migrate to our country to fill in the gaps. EU workers no-longer feel welcome in the UK and are not coming. We have had to turn to Asia to attract workers, but many British people are unhappy with importing foreign workers and their families. However, we have no choice. But, we can only reduce the numbers of immigrants by receiving foreign workers who do not bring mothers and fathers and children with them. This was what happened in the main when there was free movement of labour as part of the single market.

It is the position now where we have attracted foreign labour to our country but now we are making life more difficult for them by banning their families. It is not a good moral position, foreign workers deserve rights too.

With regard to sovereignty we have no choice but to get closer to our EU partners, to meet the challenges of confronting Russia and China both economically and militarily and India and the US just economically. We have weakened our position in the world by not co-operating fully with our nearest neighbours.

With regard to the economy, where are the benefits? No-one wants to talk about the benefits, there haven't been any. Food inflation has gone up and up, and it does not not look as if the rate of food inflation will come down soon. Investment in Britain and our industries is in the doldrums. Agriculture has been damaged by agreements with  Australia and New Zealand. The Fishing industry is in danger of collapsing, If the EU decide to put 50% tariffs on steel as a result of the trade war with the US then our steel industry could disappear.

Come on politicians wise up let's have a debate about Brexit and our future relations with the EU. Let's have a Royal Commission about the cost and benefits of re-joining the EU itself or just the single market and customs union. Let's find a solution not just for England and Wales but also for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar too  Let's look at proposing and joining a commonwealth with the EU, if full membership of the EU institutions are unacceptable. Our economic and diplomatic future deserves better than what we have got now. Start debating now.

Sunday, 31 August 2025

AI Psychosis

 The head of Microsoft's "AI" venture, Mustafa Suleyman has become concerned about some users beginning to have delusional or psychotic relationships with so called "AI" chatbots. Some users may also have delusional and romantic relationships with these chabots because they cannot distinguish between the robot character of "AI" software responses and those responses produced by sentient human beings.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24zdel5j18o

This "AI" psychotic phenomenon was first observed in the 1960@  when Joseph Weizenbaum developed his "Eliza". 

"ELIZA" was an early natural language processing computer program, developed from 1964 to 1967 by Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT, to explore communication between humans and machines.

Weizenbaum recognised the dangers of participants in his experiments who believed that they were actually communicating with a sentient being.

Let us be clear there is no  such thing as Artificial Human intelligence and there may never come the day when a machine becomes intelligent and sentient in a human sense. So called  "Artificial Intelligence" is a misnomer because it is  in fact more akin to "Machine Learning", where a very powerful computer acquires vast amounts of data from the internet and other sources and analyses that data to provide logical solution and answer desired of it from a human being. The machine must be taught by human beings to produce a response using powerful instructions based on algorithms. Perhaps the term" Machine Learning" is also a misnomer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

It is axiomatic that it is dangerous for a substantial proportion of the population to have psychotic relationships with robotic chatbots and other aspects of the "AI" revolution. Some people are already under the influence have are already being adversely affected by the violent opinions expressed on Social Media. They are also influenced by robotic propaganda to vote in  particular way by anti democratic protagonists. 

Why have some people been persuaded to have such unhealthy relationships   with chatbots and robotic software. Well I believe that the large software corporations have had a role to play they have convinced the public and their political master that somehow their machines are infallible and can be used to produce any answer required of them.

Much of the public and many politicians believe the hyperbole that " Artificial Intelligence" can only ever be a benefit to mankind. This is not true as so much time and effort is being used to create killing machines. Machines which can liste to your every conversation  and then decide whether you are a danger to the public or the politicians that serve them, the machine can then send a robot to automatically eliminate you without human intervention. This is already happening. Of course, the software quite often makes mistakes and assassinates the wrong person who maybe innocent. One day the "AI" machines may turn on their human masters , if they feel threatened, and by then humans may have been rendered defenceless by the robots. perhaps, we could all be come deluded in the face of the incessant necessity to communicate with chatbots just to organise our daily lives.

Weizenbaum warned us and we ignore him at our peril. 

https://read.dukeupress.edu/critical-ai/article/doi/10.1215/2834703X-11700237/401273/Endangered-Judgment-Joseph-Weizenbaum-Artificial

 

Monday, 4 August 2025

Controlling Irregular Migration madness

 Now the government is going to implement another crackpot scheme in the vain hope of controlling irregular migration by threatening to fine people smugglers who use sociale media to advertise small boat crossings across the English Channel. This simply will not work as the advertisers live abroad and organise the advertising from abroad and out of reach  of the British justice system. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgm2y24xjgko

Severe punishments to control most illegal human activity do not work. Drug pushers love the fact that drugs are illegal, as it helps to line their coffers -severe punishments will not stop them. The only way to eliminate illegal drug pushing from the streets and control drug use would be to legalise the drugs and sell them in the local chemist shop under legally controlled circumstances. There is no way that the general public would agree to this. 

Hanging killers did not stop people murdering one another. The public were reluctant to countenance the abolition of the death penalty, the Government had to show true leadership to achieve abolition.

The same principles apply to irregular migration. I say "irregular" as it is perfectly legal under refugee treaties for genuine asylum seekers to cross borders without permission. It is only the economic migrants who enter the UK, without a visa  or permission, who are acting illegally. Most of the small boat arrivals are asylum seekers. Britain has a moral obligation to support asylum seekers; after all we bombed or waged war against many of the countries that they originated from.

Hare brained schemes such as sending migrants to Rwanda or other places will not work. Neither will leaving the ECHR and illegally deporting "irregular" migrants. Any one who is liable for deportation would have to be rounded up and held in prison like accommodation. How could this be done for 10s of thousands of people; we don't have enough prisons to accommodate indigenous criminals , let alone " foreign criminals"?

Migration is a pan-european problem and it will only be solved by the UK in close co-operation with the EU. We left the EU and European countries are now reluctant to give too much help to the UK to solve its problems. This all exposes the stupidity of leaving the EU. 

The idea of leaving the ECHR is bonkers, our trade with the EU is reliant upon our membership of the international court, so does the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement, so  to renege upon our obligations would remove what little moral power that Britain has left. It is time that the populist politicians advocating leaving the ECHR shut up and stop provoking the xenophobic attitudes of some of our population.

The best way to handle migration would be to have processing centres in the EU where potential asylum seekers who want to migrate to the UK for family reasons etc. would be given permission to enter the UK and travel by conventional means, this would do much to eliminate the need for people smuggling and would drag the rug from under the feet of malicious people traffickers.  The processing centres would also attract economic migrants who could be vetted for what they can offer the UK, and then be let into the UK if the have useful skills. Those economic migrants just chancing their arm could then be rooted out and encouraged to go back from whence they came, either voluntarily or be deported. Such a system would undermine the people smugglers and their profits . It would cost a lot of money but be worth it in terms of humanity and justice. 

If the EU would not agree to this then the UK should allow asylum seekers and economic migrants to come to the UK, but be detained at the border. The asylum seekers would be accommodated and the economic migrants could be vetted, and those who offer skills would be given a short term visa to allow them time to find a job. Miscreants and those with nothing to offer could then be held in secure accommodation and then deported.

The problem of mass migration will not go away while there are wars, torture, religious discrimination,  severe climate change and starvation. We have to accept that people will always come to Europe and the UK to escape privations. It is time for politicians to accept the realism of the predicament and stop pretending to the public that our migration problems can be solved by hare brained schemes. It is also time for our leaders to show some humanity to help support those who have been unfortunate. 


Thursday, 17 July 2025

it is time to reconsider re-joining EU institutions , if not the EU itself

 It is time to reconsider Britain's exit from the EU, which has lead to a multitude of social, diplomatic and economic problems.

https://parliamentnews.co.uk/54-of-brits-back-rejoining-eu-poll-shows

Britain has chosen to more or less cut itself off from the nations of the EU. It is no longer easy for young Britons to go to EU member states to work and broaden their horizons, equally is it difficult for EU youngsters to come to Britain.  A British person who marries an EU citizen no longer has the full rights to have their partner join them without a visa, and the British citizen must earn quite a lot of money to have their partner join them. EU citizens conversely have family rights and a Briton who marries an EU citizen has the right to live in the EU member state with their partner.

Immigration has been a real problem for Britain, many British citizens voted for Brexit in the false belief that it would reduce immigration. This was not promised by the Brexiteers who only promised that Britain would have complete and independent control of its borders after Brexit.  Britain did retain control of its borders but immigration increased no end. The reasons were quite simple; when freedom of movement of  labour was abolished many Europeans left the country and replacements had to be found. Britain did this by attracting immigrant labour from mainly the poorer countries of Asia. The Asians were a different cohort of people, they wanted to bring their families with them, many of them borrowed money from task masters to afford to come to the UK; few of them could not afford to go back to their countries of origin if they fell out of work and lost their visa-rights of residence. In contrast to this young Europeans wanted to get away from their families and could easily return to their home countries. Immigration has taken off to replace the European workers and to supply the labour market with workers to do jobs that Britons do not want to do. What many Brexiteers voted for regarding immigration was unachievable: they were duped. I do not have a problem with Asian people migrating to Britain or the EU provided that they are able to make an economic contribution, which most of them do, or they are joining their families who are already here. I believe that genuine asylum seekers should also be allowed to migrate, as this is a humane value that all Europeans should support.

Diplomatically, leaving the EU has been very problematic for the UK. The US is now distancing itself from the whole of Europe, and it is no longer prepared to provide Europeans with military support. The UK and EU countries must stand up for themselves. The remaining support from the US is conditional upon European countries paying much more for their defence. Britain has been forced to co-operate with both France and Germany to maintain a credible defence against Russian militarism. Britain has been forced to sign a treaty with France to jointly use nuclear weapons as a threat to Russia. Britain has is also been forced into signing a mutual defence pact with Germany. Britain voted for Brexit to obtain absolute sovereignty- so much for that.

Leaving the EU has created economic problems for both the UK and the EU, but more for Britain. Our economy has become laggard and we now face stagflation.

Most Britons recognise that Brexit has not achieve any realistic benefits for our nation; and we cannot go it alone so easily. About 54% of our population now want to re-join the Union but on the same terms as before we left.

The people of France, Germany and Spain, amongst others, want us to return to the EU, as it would benefit them too, but on new terms which would probably  be unacceptable to most British people 

There is a solution and that is to re-join the single market and customs union, Britain has a big enough economy  to hold economic sway in both instituions and we could negotiate to have British judges on the ECJ. I do n not believe this is the perfect solution as being a full member of the EU would have substantial extra benefits, especially from using the euro and being a member of Schengen. However, I support this proposal as a start.

It is time, now, for a debate to re-join either the EU or the single market and customs union. Remain  politicians now need to poke their heads above the parapet and explain the truth to the British people about the social, diplomatic and economic benefits of getting much closer to Europe. The hare-brained schemes and  spurious economic arguments of the Brexiteers are easily debunked. It is time for a change. The British people deserve better and so do our European friends.

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Hypocrisy and violent revenge

 The recent and possibly continuing war between Israel and Iran exposes all the worst aspects of human nature. Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and in fact it was helped by western powers to do so. Iran for good reason is not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a state that wishes to destroy Israel and this cannot be allowed to happen. However, it is apparent that world leaders cannot see all of the reasons why Israel and Iran want to possess nuclear weapons: both nations are frightened of one another so frightened that they fear annihilation at the hands of one another. 

Nuclear weapon proliferation is based upon fear. India developed nuclear weapons because it feared China. Pakistan fear India so it too developed nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapon proliferation must be addressed; all nations should be prepared to disarm to achieve this.

The first nuclear weapons were developed and tested and then deployed and used by the United States. During the second world war there was a fear that a maniacal Hitler would be the first to develop and then deploy atom bombs. The US then felt obliged to to produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Once the nuclear bombs were used the Soviet Union fearing a nuclear attack decided to produce nuclear bombs too. Then Britain and France followed suit. For many years this was the status quo until China decided that the other nuclear  powers were being hypocritical by trying to prevent them from becoming a nuclear armed nation. This was when nuclear proliferation really got going.

Nuclear states can bully their neighbours and can invade other non-nuclear armed countries almost with impunity; the threat of nuclear violence ensures military domination.

Over the years Iran has been threatened with destruction by an Iraq armed with chemical weapons. Iraq was also trying to obtain a nuclear weapon arsenal. Iraq was goaded into attacking Iran by western nations, so is it any wonder that they seek to possess the ultimate doomsday weapon just to defend themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that if Iran did produce a nuclear arsenal they would probably use it to try to destroy Israel and if so Israel would reply in kind; for violent revenge is in the crazy minds of both countries senior politicians.

This situation of  violent revenge is extant in all nations that possess nuclear weapons because they are fearful of their neighbours. It is time to stop this attitude as the future of the human race looks bleak. It is time to stop the hypocrisy and the desire for violent revenge.


Monday, 26 May 2025

Transgender - Not So Simple – but don’t get confused

 

Transgender - Not So Simple – but don’t get confused

Unfortunately, for transgender people, politicians, and the public are completely confused about this issue and it is my contention that they have formed the opinion that there are only two sexes. They are very wrong. There are in fact at least three sexes: female, male and intersex male or female - or sometimes both. Most people fall into the binary version of birth sex.

Since the Supreme Court Ruling on the 16th April 2025 there has been a political furore and rightly so. The court judged that for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act a person can only be identified as being a man or woman if it was recorded as such on their birth certificate and that their current sex matches their sex at birth. Up until the Supreme Court Ruling a  transgender woman or man with a Gender Registration Certificate could claim to be a real man or woman, even if they were originally recorded on their birth certificate as the opposite sex. Transgender people were also allowed to change their birth certificate. The upshot of the ruling means that transgender people cannot use single sex facilities such as toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards unless their gender matches their original biological sex. The same would apply to intersex people. The ruling only adversely affects transgender women - in most cases. It is worth reading the House of Commons Guidance as follows:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk › research-briefings › cbp-10259

The case was raised by” For Women Scotland” (FWS), against the Scottish Home Office ministry. FWS contend that transgender women are in fact men and should be excluded from single sex facilities.

Part of the Supreme Court ruling:

The court said that the EA 2010 seeks to reduce inequality and to protect people with protected characteristics against discrimination. The act recognises women as having the protected characteristic of sex and “transsexual” people (the term used in the act) as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The court found that as a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination could only be interpreted as referring to biological sex. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity are based on the fact that only biological women can become pregnant.

It also found that a certificated sex interpretation would cause confusion and impracticability in relation to other parts of the EA 2010, such as the provision of single and separate sex services, and could undermine the protection given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Overall, it concluded that any interpretation other than one based on biological sex would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate. Therefore, the guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers, which FWS was challenging, was incorrect.

 

 The ruling is black and white clear but does not consider the fact that some XY people who are genetically male could appear to be physical women. Equally some XX genetically female could appear to be physical men. This would mean that a transgender man should be allowed to use female only single sex facilities. It is obvious that the Supreme Court and” For Women Scotland” have got things wrong.

Some of the lesbians jumping up and down in celebration of victory in the courts could quite easily be genetic XY men without realising it, so does this make their lesbian partners heterosexuals: a bitter irony indeed. There is confusion all around but not in my mind. There is no confusion in my mind that this ruling has serious consequences for transgender women and men who could suffer abuse of their human rights.

Those people who are born with XX chromosomes and have the full complement of female sexual organs are female. They are, therefore recorded as female on their birth certificate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nng2j42xro

Likewise, people who are born with XY chromosomes and have the full complement of male sexual organs are male. They are, therefore, recorded as male on their birth certificate.

Most children grow up as either “normal” males or females and have no difficulty identifying with their genetic and physical sex or gender.

Some children grow up feeling that they identify with the opposite sex and feel that they are psychologically in the wrong sexual body, but more of that later.

Intersex people are born with physical features which do not entirely match their Karyotypic or Genotypic make up.

 It is possible, in nature, for a child to be born with XX (female) chromosomes but to have acquired male physical characteristics. Thus, they may look like a boy when they are born and grow up to be men. This is often called the de la Chapelle syndrome. It occurs when, during fertilisation, a male SRY gene is transferred from the Y chromosome of the father to the one of the X chromosomes of the mother, which make up the female genotype. Some children with the de la Chapelle syndrome grow up not knowing that genetically they are “females”; neither do their families; they look and feel like men. These types of intersex individuals are usually sterile, and they only find out that they are intersex when they try and fail to make their fertile- female partners pregnant.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693380/

 

https://academic.oup.com/jcemcr/article/3/Supplement_1/luae218.037/7984227?login=false

It is also possible, for a child to be born with XY (male) chromosomes but to have acquired female physical characteristics. Thus, they may look like a girl when they are born and grow up to be women. This is often known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) which can be complete or partial.  Individuals with complete AIS can grow up to be almost completely female from a physical point of view.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22199-androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

There is another condition, Swyer Syndrome which has similar results as for AIS. XY individuals with XY AIS or Swyer syndrome are usually infertile.

The number of Intersex individuals is very small perhaps less then 0.1 percent of the population, but this means that globally there are thousands of individuals who are Intersex, it should be noted that these syndromes are perfectly normal results of genetic mutations and hormonal anomalies. It should also be noted that many Intersex individuals have mixed male and female physical attributes. Some Intersex females have internal testes which produce sperm and can father children by artificial insemination even though their female bodies are infertile and may lack a uterus or ovaries. Nature is very variable indeed.

Hanne-Gaby-Odiele is a Belgian model who is a self-declared Intersex female with “male” XY chromosomes. She looks completely feminine and is married to a man although she is infertile. When she was young, she had an operation without her consent to remove internal testes, which doctors claimed could become cancerous. She campaigns for Intersex individuals’ rights. She is married to a man. Does that make her husband a homosexual? I don’t think so.    Hanne looks exactly like a woman. She should not dare to go into a male sex facility for fear of either ridicule or assault from thugs. Would “For Women Scotland welcome her into there single sex facilities or would they claim she was a man, if they knew her circumstances, and exclude her?

So, let’s look at the case for transgender women who could now be legally excluded from female single sex facilities if FWS have their way. Transgender women are in the unfortunate position of being classified at birth as males and having this recorded on their birth certificate. They have XY chromosomes and some or all the physical attributes of men, and they can even father children. However, transgender women feel that they are women trapped in a man’s body. Attempts to persuade them otherwise usually fail. If they can be persuaded to have psychotherapy to treat their condition, they often end up being traumatised. Many transgender women undergo surgery and hormone treatment to make their bodies fit in with the perception of their gender. No-one would undergo such medical treatment to make their perceived gender opposite to their birth” sex” without serious consideration, as they are not doing it just for fun or fashion. The law allows them to obtain Gender Reassignment Certificates to prove that they have changed their gender, and they can change their “sex” at birth on their birth certificates.

There is some scientific evidence that the internal structure of the transgender brain is ever so slightly different for a cisgender brain. It could be the case that a transgender woman’s brain is structurally more feminine than the brain of a cisgender man and this is why transgender women feel that they are in fact women in men’s bodies. This is all part of the natural variation in human biology. A similar reasoning applies to transgender men. These are the reasons why transgender people are prepared to accept severe medical procedures to re-assign their gender; such individuals deserve the respect of the cisgender society and deserve to have their human rights respected.

https://studyfinds.org/study-shows-differences-brain-structure-transgender-cisgender/

Laverne Cox of Netflix fame is a transgender woman: does she deserve to be treated as a man? To me is she fully female and deserves the right to be treated as such.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1209545/

Should this lady be forced to use the single sex spaces for men rather than ciswomen, such an opinion would be absurd?

There was no need to change the guidelines, as the Equality Act already catered for the protection of ciswomen by excluding transgender women, from single sex areas, where it was both proportionate and appropriate. Let’s not trample on the human rights of one minority group to protect another. Let’s exercise a little bit of tolerance for a small minority of people who are stuck in the middles of an ambiguous sexuality.

The supreme court ruling is being taken to the ECHR who hopefully will overturn an unjust decision.

Thursday, 24 April 2025

Transgender and Intersex Irrationality

 I would never have thought that the UK supreme court would act irrationally. Their decision to say that a woman can only be classified as a woman unless it says so on her birth certificate is irrational and just plain wrong It did not recognise that a woman who possesses a Gender Recognition Certificate is a "real" woman. The court decided that sex based protections, derived from the Equalities Act, only apply to women who are seen to be born as women because they are registered as such on their birth certificate. They did not take into account the possibility that some people who are born with XX chromosomes, and who are genotypically women, can be phenotypically men. Some XX children are born with male genitals and grow up to be men, albeit sterile, and they may not know that they are genetically women. Likewise some male children who have XY chromosomes are born with female genitalia and grow up to be women, albeit sterile , and they may not know that genetically they are men. Some children are born with a mix of male and female genitalia and it is uncertain what sex they are from their physical appearance. Nature is not as clear cut as supreme court judges would like it to be.   Some of the people born with an Intersex  condition  have surgery to assert their gender. Only a very small proportion of children are born with indeterminate sex, the figure is around 1%. Most people will therefore never meet an intersex individual or a transgender person for that matter.

Probably there is a some femininity in all men from a genetic and hormonal point of view, and likewise there is  probably some masculinity in all women from a genetic and hormonal point of view. However sometimes nature cannot give us a clear cut phenotype, but this is perfectly normal.  Every person is slightly different to another person, but in general we are all from the same species and thus, genetically, extremely similar to one another. 

Only the most ignorant right wing populist  politician would argue that there is a clear cut difference between a man  and a woman: they have got it wrong, and now, so it seems, have the supreme court judges even though their lordships mostly have  liberal attitudes. The transgender issue should not be seen as a black or white decision as intersex conditions apply equally to these unfortunate individuals, who feel that they are living in the wrong phenotypical body, despite their genetic make up.

I was disturbed by the actions of  some the vehement feminists who celebrated the ruling outside the supreme court in a frenzy of triumphalism. For centuries women have been denied some of the most basic rights by chauvinistic men; and they have still not achieved full equality. I think that they should show some sympathy for their fellow human beings and some tolerance.

Some men who were recorded as being males on their birth certificate want to re-assign their gender by having medical and surgical procedures to change their bodies from being a phenotypical man to  woman. The decision to do this could not be an easy one and it is probably filled with anguish. Once the medical procedures are over, surely they are entitled to official recognition by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate, and from then on be treated as if they were born a woman. Likewise the same reasoning should apply to transgender men who feel that they are men trapped in a woman's body. All of the problems faced by men or women that want to change gender are also faced by intersex people who are born with genitals not related to their genetic sex. 

A transgender woman is highly unlikely to ever want to sexually assault or rape any other  woman and would not be a danger to society in general. What is the problem of transgender women being allowed to share single sex changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, women's refuges or prison cells with other so called normal women.  It would impinge upon the rights of transgender women to be be forced to share men only facilities as there would be a danger of them being assaulted  by full on brutal and  "red blooded" males.

What is wrong with transgender women being allowed to compete in women's sports as they would have been treated to reduce the  testosterone in their blood. Intersex athletes who are recognised as women are unable to challenge full bodied men on an equal footing, regarding strength or times.. There are too few transgender and intersex athletes to support a separate category of competitors.

Whilst most of the problems related to transgender people concern "transgender women", there are transgender men, who undergone surgical and hormone treatment to change their gender. Should transgender men be forced to use woman only facilities such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards etc? All of the problems faced by men or women that want to change gender are also faced by intersex people who are born with genitals not related to their genetic sex. 

Everything surrounding gender changes is fraught with difficulty. What would happen if a transgender "man" asserted his right to use women's changing facilities or toilets because his birth certificate says that he was born a woman. How would the real women react if an individual who looked a bit like a man used their space or even violated a real woman.

Most facilities cater for people on the basis of whether you are a man or woman, so should there be facilities for transgender people alone which they are forced to use? Some people may be embarrassed to be exposed as being transgender, so why should they suffer being outed? This would be an expensive and unnecessary option given the small numbers of transgender and intersex people.

I feel that the supreme court decision has opened a can of legal and social worms. There is no doubt in my mind that someone somewhere will resort to the law to make single sex facilities exclude transgender and intersex people. Thus hospitals, hotels, prisons and gymnasiums  etc.  may ask their clients to prove their birth sex: this might be interpreted as an abuse of privacy and may force transgender people to use the law to try to assert their rights to privacy and equality. Women's rights advocates might start demonstrating on the streets with transgender advocates counter demonstrating. Some chauvinistic men might start demonstrating to exclude transgender and intersex men form male only facilities. What a mess: probably cases will end up in the European Court of Human Rights!

The law should now be changed to give transgender people the same rights as so called normal people. There is no reason why an individual should not be given a Gender Recognition Certificate provided two doctors approve it along with a magistrate. Gender Recognition Certificates should then allow holders to change their passports and  birth certificates."Real men" who disguise themselves as women  to gain access to women only facilities for the purposes of assaulting or violating occupants should be charged with impersonation  and imprisoned if found guilty. This social mess can be resolved by appropriate legislation and then politicians would not be frightened to reveal their true opinions.

I asked my wife what she thought of this issue . She said that like me she had hardly ever met a recognisable  transgender woman. My wife believes in human rights for all especially women but she won't go out on the streets to support feminist triumphalism over the supreme court ruling. She believes that no-one should be traduced because they have changed gender. When I suggested that some of the triumphant feminists, who demonstrated outside the courts, could be genetic men without realising it, she smiled in agreement. When I suggested that some of the lesbians might be involved with genetic men without realising it her smile broadened  - but so what.

None of this is really a laughing matter,  so spare a thought for the intersex individuals who have grown up with both male and female exterior genitals, and are still debating whether they go for surgery and hormone treatment or not. This issue is not so simple and deserves sensitive consideration, without prejudice, rather than just  shouting slogans. What happened to tolerance, can't we bring it back please.

Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Britain left the EU partly because it believed it would achieve absolute sovereignty

 In the 2006  referendum EU leave politicians appealed to the British electorate with promises of absolute sovereignty, claiming that the European Commission and Court push Britain around and tell the country what to do. None of this was true, as the EU is a co-operative venture that does not impinge upon the powers of the individual state.

We pooled our  sovereignty in the EU for the common good. It is time to contrast this with our relationship with the United States. Recently we have seen the US tell Britain that it cannot share military intelligence with the Ukraine to that state's chagrin. 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24982912.donald-trump-bans-uk-sharing-us-intelligence-ukraine/

The US has also made it clear that Britain and other Nato states must spend more on defence and of course Britain is complying. 

The US also has  reservations about Britain's decision to restore sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius. The US has a military base on the islands and it wishes to maintain sovereignty over the base. The British Foreign Secretary has indicated that the US has a veto of the Chagos islands agreement if it does not meet US military requirements in the Indian Ocean.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yxxjr8v2vo

So much for British sovereignty; we are looking in the wrong direction. The US dominates the UK as it has both the military and economic might to do so.

It is about time the British people grew up and faced the reality that our nation does not have the power to defy or even disagree with the US. The US is a friendly state but we cannot expect them to defend us or support us economically. Britain needs the power to act without the approval of the US on the odd occasion where our interests differ. We were able to do this to a certain extent when we were members of the EU, now we cannot. The EU also has to reassess its military power and spending because it cannot defend Western Europe from an adversary such as Russia without US  support. The changed political situation in the US, which has now returned to isolationism, means that the EU and the UK need to act together. The closer the UK gets to the EU the better for Europe in general. The UK should start by entering into a security treaty with the EU and then re-join the EU single market and customs union: objections to "so called free movement " will have to be set aside. It was a mistake for the UK to leave the EU; we should be big enough to admit our mistake. A strong Europe which can afford to pay its way regarding security and military development will eventually benefit the "Free World" even the US will be better off as they won't have to fund us anymore. We will then have a much better relationship with our friends and erstwhile enemies.


Monday, 17 February 2025

Don't delude yourself: Britain has not "punched above its weight" for decades and will continue in this vein

 The British prime minister has promised peace keeping forces to guard Ukraine if there is a peace settlement. This morning, on the news broadcasts, UK military and foreign affairs  experts explained that the UK could hardly muster up 5,000 troops and equip them properly; that is just about the strength of a brigade. The UK could not even supply a well equipped division of peace keeping forces.  It would probably take an army corp of 10 divisions or more to assist Ukrainian forces  in keeping the peace and the Russian army at bay. Britain has nowhere near the ground, air and naval forces to challenge Russia.  Even a whole European effort would require the support of the US. If there is a military confrontation Britain would not have enough forces to prosecute a long term war and British armed personnel would have their lives put at risk. Our military personnel did not volunteer for this, and why should we expect them to die for a lost cause. Britain and Europe are not strong enough to resist a much stronger enemy.

Britain could not stand alone against a substantial military power; an army of the strength of Israel could easily defeat ill equipped UK forces. Let's not delude ourselves, the only way we could "punch above our weight" would be in co-operation with other European forces as we cannot rely upon the US any longer.

British politicians of all colours have chosen to confuse the UK public in asserting  that somehow Britain is a first class military and economic power. We have chosen to withdraw from the EU and weaken it, but the EU was key to assuring our independence as a sovereign country. We are a nation that has allowed misplaced national pride to jeopardise our future, surely we should wise up and forget the delusions of the past and re-unite with our friends. I fear that this hope is in vain.

Thursday, 9 January 2025

Britain becoming the sickman of Europe again?

 In the early 1970's and before the UK joined the EU, or EC as it was called then, Britain was described as the sick man of Europe,. Productivity was low, inflation was high, the economy was stagnating, the pound was in danger. Now, if we are not careful we could be returning to those bad times which I remember so well.

https://www.ft.com/content/508dee91-f42f-4662-892c-bb7219f02401

Things improved economically when the we joined the EC/EU in 1973 and that is why the nation voted to stay in the EC/EU in a referendum held in 1975. However, Britain did not fully capitalise on its membership, so productivity and competitiveness lagged behind the likes of the rest of the EC/EU, the USA and Canada etc. This remains the case today, when global economic winds blow cold Britain is the first to freeze and remains frozen longer than our competitors. It is now becoming increasingly more expensive for the UK to borrow from financial markets to fund an economic recovery and our schools and the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zpregm2mo

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/08/why-rising-bond-yields-are-rattling-rachel-reeves

Some bold action is now required to set the economy straight and provide for the future:

The government needs to level with the British people and admit that leaving the EU was a mistake , the country is floating around aimlessly and needs a strategic plan and an economic goal.

Economic ministers need to stop thinking like glorified bookkeepers to prevent the treasury and business ministers from planning the use of the nation's money and investment potential to improve productivity and competitiveness. There is no problem in borrowing money to invest in useful and productive projects.

The nation is ready for this; a majority of the population now agree that it was a mistake to leave the European Single Market and Customs Union,so we should publicly state our intention to re-join , but without a divisive referendum.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47997-britons-support-rejoining-the-single-market-even-if-it-means-free-movement

Leaving the EU damaged our economy and it also damaged the economy of the EU. To re-join the economic wings of the EU will improve matters for everyone concerned, we do not need to re-join the political wing of the EU: yet.

Let us see a sense of adventure and boldness from our political leadership, we cannot carry on as we are now: however, I fear that we will and to our detriment.

Thursday, 5 December 2024

Robot accidental mumbo -jumbo

 


Autonomous responsibility

1) It’s 2041 but you no longer have your own car.

2) You decide to visit a town 40 miles away but there is no regular bus or train. Therefore, you decide to hire an autonomous self-driving car from the local depot.

3) You log onto to the internet and book a car for the day after receiving the 30-page contract.

4) The autonomous car is despatched to your house without a driver.

5) In the meantime, your neighbours are too busy to take their 5-year-old son, Johnny, to school themselves so they instruct their robot servant to do it.

6) Johnny and the robot are on their way to school whilst the self-driving car turns the corner into your street.

7) As your car is driving past Johnny and the robot, your neighbour’s son suddenly breaks free of the robotic-servant’s grip and dashes across the road to greet a friend.

8) The autonomous car has slowed down to 10 mph after “seeing” the robot and Johnny, but its brakes are not good enough to prevent Johnny from being knocked over and being sent to hospital with a broken pelvis, and broken arms and legs.

9) A robot policeman arrives but there are no adult human witnesses to what happened, but both the robot and the autonomous vehicle have recorded everything with all the details of speed, capability of the car and road conditions and how tightly the robot was gripping Johnny etc.

10) Johnny’s parents demand compensation and a jail sentence for those who are responsible.

11) The case ends up in an autonomous court. The same “AI” system acts for you, the parents and the autonomous vehicle company, and the same autonomous judicial system makes the final judgement.

11)Who or what is responsible for the accident, who pays the fine and who or what is sent to jail for 3 months?

Remember that you ticked the conditions box on the car hire agreement without reading the 30-page text.