The barbarians are in charge

So, since yesterday’s vote in Parliament, we now have almost all Tory MP’s who were elected on the basis of the ‘Oven Ready’ Withdrawal Agreement and duly voted for it, who have now voted for their same government to destroy it.

Unicorns are illusory and undoing what you did before means just that another reality has won out.

One reality has won – pending the success of another….

Hands up who thinks any Conservative MP is a thinker?

Or is even rational?

Or actually fit for office?

We have, I fear – and I can find no other words to say it – unthinking and self-interested barbarians ruling over us…


  1. Paul Wright -

    It seems now that Tory MPs will go for the reneging of the WA and the No Deal option preferred by Johnson.

    This ultimately will precipitate a trade war with the EU, through which Johnson can be Churchillian – his wet dream.

    Clearly there is no way that the UK can win such a trade war, further, should Gollum Cummings set up his state subsidised tech giant, there will be sanctions targetted against it in the largest trading bloc in the world.

    More scary is the journey through the shredding of the GFA in this process. How did we get here???

    Barbarians, more like spineless moneygrubbers.

    Thanks for the blog Peter.


    1. Peter May -

      Many thanks, Paul.
      I have to agree – and they are probably both – Barbarians and spineless moneygrubbers.. ..
      And that’s all very well, but more frighteningly, completely all of the UK electorate/residents seem to be completely inconsequential and no more than collateral damage…

      1. Schofield -

        Dumbed down collateral damage sounds about right. Back to the Dark Ages it would seem.

      2. Chris -

        But with the “thick thousands” to quote Socrates, the underfunding of state education keeps these people in total ignorance thereby enabling Johnson and his chums to do and take what they want from the countries coffers.

    2. davy green -

      There is no such a document as The Good Friday Agreement.The Belfast Agreement was signed on April 10th 1998.The treaty confirmed Northern Ireland;s status as part of the United Kingdom unless the citizens of Northern Ireland decided otherwise.To date they have not voted to leave the UK.Nowhere in The Belfast Agreement does it state that there is to be no border between Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.The RU are the aggressors here by attempting to annex part of the United Kingdom-this is how this situation developed.For any British Prime Minister to have signed the Withdrawal Agreement was an act of political cowardice.Johnson knew what he was signing-what he did not realise that EU state aid rules would have a reach back to the rest of The United Kingdom.

      1. Peter May -

        Others around here are more knowledgeable on Ireland than I but I would point out that both the UK and Ireland were in the EU at the time of the GFA so there was no reason to expect any sort of border.
        Johnson’s state aid rules are a sham concern – the much vaunted Japan deal has even more stringent state aid rules!

  2. Samuel Johnson -

    Gollum Cummings, lol. Stealing that.

    1. Peter May -


  3. Michael G -

    I hope I have this right.
    Under all normal circumstances there would be a hard border between the EU and an outside country. Otherwise goods that did not meet EU standards and had not paid tariffs could move in and out of the EU without checks.
    However, the open border is essential to maintaining peace in Ireland.
    The EU has made a fantastic concession in allowing a border in the Irish Sea, because it is relying on a country over which it has no jurisdiction to enforce its standards and tariffs.
    That country has now made clear that it will not necessarily maintain the Irish Sea border.
    This leaves the EU with two choices: Either allow a route where unregulated and untaxed goods can pass freely in and out of the EU. Or else impose its own hard border to protect its rules.
    If ithe EU puts up a hard border, it can be blamed for restarting the troubles.
    It is a win-win for Johnson. He can blame the EU for starting it all. And every bombing or murder will be extra Conservative votes. A Government that has survived fallout from 40,000+ excess COVID deaths will hardly worry about 5,000+ unnecessary bombings and shootings.

    1. Peter May -

      You have it very right, I fear,
      That is,I suggest why complying with the (international) rule of law is more than usually important!

  4. Coinneach -

    I suggest that the UKIMB has been widely misunderstood: it’s not principally about the Johnson Government’s controversial proposal to break international law if deemed expedient. That is no more than an elaborate diversion, a stalking horse, to divert Parliament’s energy and scarce available time into debate of a topic which will be easier to discard than invoke and, if discarded, will obviate another stalking horse: the Northern Ireland Secretary’s need to agonise over what level of breach of international law is “acceptable”.
    This is all designed to distract attention and discussion from the main purpose of the bill: the neutering of the devolution agreements affecting Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. Under the pretext of creating a level playing-field for the UK’s internal market, the bill (clause 32) arrogates to the UK Gov’t the right to overrule any decisions of devolved governments. Moreover it proposes to do this not through the public scrutiny of debate in parliament, but in a committee appointed by the same UK Gov’t and chaired by a Tory placeman. This all smacks of the methods employed by Hitler to undermine the organs of state in 1930s Germany and to subsume their powers into the Nazi party machine.
    The message for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland is clear: They’re coming for you, so prepare yourselves to resist. The message for England is just as clear: they’re coming for you next and, if you don’t believe me, look at what has already happened to Public Health England.

    1. Peter May -

      I agree the centralised control is very worrying – particularly when they are so blatantly incompetent.
      But I cannot agree that breaking international law is a smokescreen – it goes to the heart of a civilsed country’s existence.

Comments are closed.