Life as we know it in Britain

Blog 11                                                                                  22/03/2017

Life as we know it in Britain

Children and babies do not ask to be born. Thinking of it: no one does, but one hopes that most have found an ability to make it all worthwhile. I suppose many animals don’t ask either: momentum is gathering of the rate of species now becoming extinct.

When we, because usually most people have a choice- not all, are given the opportunity we also become responsible not only for our own lives, but if able -to those around us, our place, environment, country and the planet on which we reside. One hopes this is the case?

With age – an awareness grows, just how transitory life is, it is a blessing and a gift. Scientists may be able to describe how life evolved and the time it took but as yet, as far as I am aware, no one knows why?

The reason of necessary responsibility is a necessity for future continuation of life on the Planet. We often hear confusing, in so far as conflicting, messages from different disciplines. I think particularly of the scientists. My observation is politicians may choose the messages conducive to their rule. A scientist with an unpopular message stands the risk of vilification.

I think in particular of a doctor who linked Autism with certain vaccines. Rather than deal with a small number and research the reasons or not for his findings: expediency appeared to be preferred. It is often people with concerns: about the planet, war, suffering - the list is endless, who expose themselves to isolation and various degrees of vilification.

It appears members of the public in the main are best as compliant? If asking too many questions security may be alerted and any uncomfortable questions may be regarded as a breach of national security.

Most, are unaware what goes on in regard to what is deemed the interests of the country and its security. Most, I think believe it is all for the good- their good. It appears people do not have a say and because decisions now like going to war, the creation of more nuclear rubbish, the next war, the real economy, how dependent on certain other countries we may: are apparently; all decisions taken well outside public view and public choice.

Messages are repeated and repeated and if repeated enough times sway the people. Sometimes fear is used to get behind their government and usually it is to go to war. Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein – were reasons- and this continues. People appear to be so preoccupied with phones/I Pads/social media and accruing followers.

We all hope that Brexit will be a success. But, expecting me to believe those leading are representing Great Britain in the interest of its citizens I find stretches any hope I may muster.

I see a group of ‘the right of the Tory Party’ wishing to spend money largely in the 'Home Counties' - on HS2 and a new runway for a City already oversubscribe to saturation (especially regarding property value) and now choked with fumes! It is also more money for the legal system as land owners squabble in their claims for compensation.

There will be plenty too for the new negotiations with the EU Countries. Fighting our corner from within: would have been more sensible. To me it seems unnecessary and as things rocket up in price while talks go on and small farms go out of business no doubt the Eton educated group of Oxbridge continue talking.

People in the rest of the country remain outside, aghast and ignored. Dysfunction comes to mind illustrated well by present antics of the Labour party.

As an on looker it appears self-interest and selfishness, party loyalty- appear more of a concern rather than for people, and a country. Tribal tactics and protection of each other’s backs continue unabashed.

At the end of the day they may say it was all for their wives! That way, it was women after all who were responsible for the mess. Perhaps going to war with women would have been less harmful instead of where we are heading perpetual war and misery for more millions. The economy usually picks up with more weapons and bombs. This has already been decided by people who know what we want and what is best for us!

Scientists have said it is when rather than if, (we can argue about the timing not if ) we are no longer able to remain on the Planet.  Nuclear waste and plastics in the seas are two elements which will deter life starting over. My observation is most scientists have proved over optimistic about the speed of development of climate change. People can continue to argue about the reason for the changes in our climate but the clock ticks on. Recently I read a sobering scientific article about the question now, and that is, will Life be able to start again here after we have left it, that now is in the balance.  

Another chill comes from recognizing it is not just the efforts of the present generation which could be lost but those of previous. Any archive left, if there is no one to  understand it would be lost.


(Edited 25/09/2019)

H. Bolton

New Horizons?

Blog 8

New Horizons?

Looking at a particular illustration: rather than ‘the grand’ or larger picture, we are all familiar with the ‘side stepper’. Some of these steppers are more adept than others. I refer to the politician under scrutiny by an interviewer.  Imperceptibly, almost - the interviewee changes the original football pitch. The football pitch on which the game started!

The interviewer can be left none the wiser and rather frustrated, the viewers may feel there are other issues they were unaware of, and feel a little foolish: whereas the politician blithely leaves the studio feeling satisfied the waters are muddied sufficiently and may continue unabashed. The public will continue not to view that which was not intended.

The actions of any individual wishing to distract the other who asks a question (that they would prefer not to answer): are known. One, may be visual- pointing to some movement in the far distance, or perhaps in the immediate vicinity? Another could be - making the question and often the questioner not the main issue at present time, or perhaps staging a mini-accident/distraction; those adept at this could give a much longer list!

My thoughts in writing this perhaps illustrate that clarity is probably unachievable. Focus on one factor without surrounding circumstance can distort the issue. Add an interplay of players; and the art of time can caste a different light making all nebulous.

One of the greatest deflections I perceive at present, although as far as I am aware, it has been happening possibly in this country since the 1960’s, that  is by blaming- the other side (in what has been a two-party system), or it could be displacement to another country, or another person. Observation of squabbles between young children illustrate this. Siblings are capable of elaborate plots to implicate another, often a bystander from a very early age!

One apparent reason is to deflect attention from themselves. When individuals started to be highlighted as “evil” (the George W. Bush speech after 9/11) this appeared to be a new bigger ball game,taking on the mantle of 'a definer' of those who are good and those who are evil. 

It may be recognized that countries appear, at times to act with the nature of individuals. Some, we need to admit, are more mature that others. Some with older experience, (although more may be expected of them; may deliberately seek to influence those with less?

The balance of weight of weaponry on two sides created a type of ‘peace’ after WW2, fear also being a factor: by recognition of the might of the modern bomb. The inhabitants of Japan, their children, children’s children bear testament to the effects. 

The issue basically is based on blindness and a presumption of superiority and a right to exist where others don’t. This can only work with a strong sense of nationalism and identity. If groups are portrayed as alien and dehumanized, or castigated through lies - to be generally unworthy- it is easier apparently to drop bombs on them. If too, they are portrayed as some threat to the dominant race it is easier to manipulate ‘their own people’ into  (through fear) to more persecution of the already the down trodden. (Afghanistan is rated as one of the poorest nations on Earth could be an example.).

The root is ‘money’. The West, relies on the sale of weaponry and wars test out the latest new developments this is all done with a view to producing more. The difference today is some of us at least, are aware of the mammoth wide scale suffering this is causing. Another change is the development of global spread both in finance, trade and the movement of peoples.

To conduct war - you need enemies. Weapon production is mammoth business and reliable. It has been a corner stone in injecting a boost into the system a, a system now favouring fewer and fewer. There is little incentive for the powerful to rely on anything else, or change. Change, requires more effort and imagination and after all they have done and are doing very well, so why change it?

Politicians morph into corporations which is of mutual benefit to some individuals. At the same time much of this is funded and backed up using the Public purse.

There is now an awareness, a waking up and it is only through public opinion and the ballot box, that Joe Blogs: me - the people next door, can change anything. If Politicians just argue among themselves, the pubic feel they have no say. 

Some American President have distracted or focused away from US problems- the third world within- lack of mental health care, shootings by police, and unrest by pointing at Muslims. Mass murders in public places are frequently due to mental health issues (break down of community structure), alienation of individuals. and/or the number of weapons widely available to the public. On the other hand this President has offered some hope to the dispossessed needing jobs even a new view on world order by suggesting working with Russia and its allies to find strategies to deal with extremism in the ME.

Monitoring Muslims complies with the finding of the new enemy after 1989 when the Cold War ceased, but it is apparent the embers are being stoked again. Other embers are being stoked of elitist Western supremacy. Whether this is due to fading memory of WW2 and Hiroshima, or due to Western economies dependence on arms creation, or Western wish to be omnipotent by having Power to destroy: or some, or all of these - is an open to question.

The basing of economies on the suffering of multitudes, the destruction (as in Iraq, Syria and Palestine) of their Cultures while preaching something other, war making,aggression tends to be more male than female. Perhaps it is admirable to celebrate difference but as lines become blurred that too needs to be acknowledged.

Those ‘Liberals’ who wished a different outcome to the US election the only alternative was of continued destabilization of the ME. The previous President however well-intentioned continued almost like the previous one. It was done more covertly, but in the same direction.  The Democrats there, and the right of the Left here, both merely dress up the unpalatable to make palatable like a sugar-coated pill-  perhaps naked reality could offer more – at present? Let us hope so.  

The Real Cost of Medication

BLOG 10                                                                               13/02/2017            

                                                                                  

Not so long ago I was rather alarmed by the number of young people being diagnosed with ADHD, (an attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity): and the taking of medication at such an early age. Medication whose long- term effects are unknown.  The potential difficulties of withdrawing from such are probably unknown. If the medication makes permanent changes to brain/personality is also an unknown.

It appears today there is almost an epidemic of what is termed “mental illness” in teenagers. This is followed by a natural reaction of “getting help”.

After a lifetime of experience of services offered for the diagnosed “mentally ill”: I have not just become skeptical I have become hostile. I had hoped the “care” had improved. But now when the younger potentially are being added to “the system” I feel obliged to divulge my experience and what I know.

Many people are convinced that once there is a diagnosis, an understanding emerges, a specific peg to hang all that has gone wrong on, a tailored treatment - and a great improvement. This may well be the case for many. For many years, intermittently, I too believed this was the case.

I also believed that “mental illness” had some scientific basis. This is insofar as, as is stated, is a “disease”. At this juncture, I need to admit I have been, potentially still are, “a patient” and I also worked as a Development worker and Vice Chair for a local branch of MIND in the 70’s and 80’s.

Over the decades, I have been aware that researchers have re-iterated there has been some link with physique and psychosis then scientists were almost to discover a physical brain abnormality. It was then linked to a chemical imbalance almost specifically identified, now some difference within genes is almost identified as the base for mental illness.

 The “chemical imbalance” gave rise to a “revolution” in the array of new drugs available. Now, the genes base is being explored for a new array of psychotropic drugs.

Only as my observation as “patient” and experience of such did I witness others on a cocktail of coloured assortments. Perhaps a side effect or another undesirable part of the “illness” would manifest itself. Another pill was added to the mix. One lady, I recall: had 12 in her cocktail.

One was also aware that specific illness (apart from basic anti-psychotics and lithium for mood disorder) did not necessarily merit specific medication. In fact, it was known by “patients” it was very much trial and error. Therefore, having specific diagnosis was not particularly helpful: when it came to treatment.

There used to be a magazine called MINDOUT, it included research into treatment/care. I recall reading that in different Centres within the Country the same diagnosis inspired intervention of different areas of the brain.

ECT remains “a treatment” although I have heard recently from a psychiatric nurse that they have come on from that. The basis for ECT has no scientific basis for its use whatsoever. Furthermore in 1978 a survey into the apparatus found some out of date and faulty.

Returning to “diagnosis”, recently I learnt about its evolvement. Not only is there no scientific base – the myriad diagnoses are from machinations of a group of eminent psychiatrists who meet every few years and usually add to an already extremely hefty manual the DSM. (the diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders).  The number of disorders is said to have grown around 10 times since 1952. This (there is also an equivalent in Britain) gives the American Psychiatric Association $10 million annually.     

My little experience with MIND showed people treated as part of the human race - showed improvement in general well-being. Healthy life-style for all, the mind as part of the body, appears to be catching on with GP’s. They and they alone have aided an escape from medication I now know made me appear mentally ill.

Furthermore I was more likely to be ill with it rather than without. Many of those working in Statutory service were unable to define which were drug effects and which was illness. Most tended to follow Psychiatrist diagnosis which help exclude people from society, rob them of their rights, take their accountability away-…worse than a life sentence. Mine is …

I hope care for people who may suffer emotionally now takes a new turn. All thankfully have not had the devastating experience I have.

My husband and I travelling by train met a Minister for Health from Indonesia. He confirmed the view that all of us experiencing trauma will suffer emotional distress. The level of tolerance only: is different.

H. Bolton

         

Petition - Brexit - Cloaks of Many Colours

BLOG 9                                                                                 08/02/2017

Petition - Brexit - Cloaks of Many Colours?
(In reply to being asked to sign a petition in no confidence in the Government)

If I signed the Petition of “no confidence” are the perceived alternatives better? I would like to see more diverse Parties in touch with the Electorate. Rather than follow a leader (like sheep) vote per conscience and reflect the electorate within the Houses if Parliament (wherever they may reside in future). Please see http://heathersthoughttoday.blogspot.co. 'A Breakfast Dinner' it is not like the EU in present form has all the answers with its meddlesome bureaucracy.

But I do think - over the issue of Immigration, it is the wrong sole issue to Leave (as it is for many and UKIP). Control of immigration has been problematic for successive governments. Even leaving the EU it will be complex, expensive and possibly likely to be more divisive and could destabilize or undermine cohesion within Britain and will be exaggerated by a downturn in the economy,

As “Leaving”, -if not the most important issue this Country has grappled with since WW2 it certainly is one of them; and requires more consideration and involvement from the public, It is sad, pathetic that we (the public) have not been more involved with Europe. Not really understood or partaken fully: particularly when there has been a vote for MEP's. Recently, we have not been represented by allowing UKIP to have most representation of our Country in Europe. UKIP who wish to usurp the EU itself, and have not come forward with a positive alternative plan.

 Insular thinking and denial of Globalization, again de-regulation, potential economic downturn: all do not add up to a positive. Closer ties with America - especially regarding 'security' and trade: in my opinion are not a positive.

 Being part of the EU and trying as Europeans to change and influence our neighbours does make sense. Especially when other members are becoming disaffected. Many of us enjoy free movement around Europe and as yet, taking advantage of working/living there has still not been fully realized?

It is usually always healthier to look outwards. I believe Europe offers this, the alternative direction does not. My thoughts only ….

If the Petition in ‘no confidence was regarding the handling of Brexit, I would have signed it. However, I do not feel any certainty about ‘no confidence’ in foreign policy as I am not sufficiently aware of the issues: are any of us?

 Because the Petition takes in everything it could be interpreted as ‘Political’. Most: surely are aware that bringing something down without replacement is not prudent or anything else. The alternative a divided Party. One hand and side of which- is continuation of Blairite/ Thatcherism in agreement with the US Democrats and their Lobbyists including more destabilization of the ME- and done by stealth. The other side: although I sympathize with to some of the intent, offers a belief in the honesty of the ‘working man’ and the dishonesty of all Bankers. People used to say “Socialism was fine, if everyone was honest!”

From what I have seen- honesty does not belong to one class, creed or discipline: the same is so for dishonesty and corruption! There are ways, at least hopefully of encouraging better behavior and thwart bad in developed Democracies. But, that is about all! We also need to be aware and show more respect to Primitive Cultures whereby better behavior was part of life, and their evolvement (one of the many to be abused is the Aboriginal Culture).

This rush to commence Brexit, I think will make it more likely, when it hits people’s pockets that a general election will happen. Sadly, at that time Article 50 will be signed. It will be too late then and will only delay further - adding even more stress to the economy. The more the Government  hurries this through: the more they will be mistrusted. Rushing all through parliament without rethink by the People does not engender any trust whatsoever, Important risky direction require contingency plans World Trade Tariffs are not a good enough one?

The other ‘Liberal’ people taking to the streets in objection to the new President, for me, don’t either! It never ceases to amaze me just how many cloaks of camouflage people/parties are capable of donning and changing, frequently to serve self-interest.

There are people for the best of reasons have admirable sentiment and intent and are totally unaware of the larger orchestration of ‘the cloaks’, forever cavorting in background haze!

On the stage of Right and Left - one side has good ideas but no way of implementing them. The other has means of implementing them, no good ideas - and no intention of implementing any from the other side.

My brief foray into local politics for four years made this clear. Now as spectator I continue to observe it on the grander larger stage! I hope before I move on, others will have joined the enlightened, so it is in fact performed “on stage” and the farce not continued in “real life”.

Blog 8                                                                                          30/01/2017

New Horizons?

Looking at a particular illustration: rather than ‘the grand’ or larger picture, we are all familiar with the ‘side stepper’. Some of these steppers are more adept than others. I refer to the politician under scrutiny by an interviewer.  Imperceptibly, almost - the interviewee changes the original football pitch. The football pitch on which the game started!

The interviewer can be left none the wiser and rather frustrated, the viewers may feel there are other issues they were unaware of, and feel a little foolish: whereas the politician blithely leaves the studio feeling satisfied the waters are muddied sufficiently and may continue unabashed. The public will continue not to view that which was not intended.

The actions of any individual wishing to distract another asking a question (that they would prefer not to answer): are known. One, may be visual- pointing to some movement in the far distance, or perhaps in the immediate vicinity. Making the question and often the questioner not the main issue at present time or staging a mini-accident/distraction; those adept at this could give a much longer list

My thoughts in writing this perhaps illustrate that clarity is probably unachievable. Focus on one factor without surrounding circumstance: distorts. Add an interplay of players; and the art of time casting a different light makes all nebulous.

One of the greatest deflections I perceive at present, although it has been happening possibly in this country since the 1960’s is by blaming- the other side (in what has been a two-party system), or it could be displacement to another country, or another person. Observation of squabbles between young children illustrate this. Siblings are capable of elaborate plots to implicate the other at a very early age!

One apparent reason is to deflect attention from themselves. When individuals started to be highlighted as “evil” (the George W. Bush speech after 9/11) this appeared to be a new ball game.

It may be recognised that countries appear, at times to act with the nature of individuals. Some, we need to admit, are more mature that others. Some with older experience, (although more may be expected of them), may deliberately seek to influence those with less.

The balance of weight of weaponry on two sides created a type of ‘peace’ after WW2, fear also being a factor: by recognition of the might of the modern bomb. The inhabitants of Japan, their children, children’s children bear testament.

The issue basically is based on blindness and a presumption of superiority and a right to exist where others don’t. This can only work with a strong sense of nationalism and identity. If groups are portrayed as alien and dehumanised, castigated through lies and generally unworthy- it is easier apparently to drop bombs on them. If too, they are portrayed as some threat to the dominant race it is easier to manipulate ‘their people’ into (through fear) which leads to persecuting the down trodden further (Afghanistan is rated as one of the poorest nations on Earth).

The root is ‘money’. The West, relies on sale of weaponry and wars to test latest new developments with a view to producing more. The difference today is some of us at least, are aware of the mammoth wide scale suffering this is causing. Another change being a development of global both in finance, trade and the movement of peoples.

To conduct war - you need enemies. Weapon production is mammoth business and reliable. It has been a corner stone in injecting a boost into the system a, a system now favouring fewer and fewer. There is little incentive for the powerful to rely on anything else, or change. Change requires more effort and imagination and after all they have done very well so why change it?

Politicians morph into corporations which is of mutual benefit to some individuals. At the same time funded from the Public purse.

There is now an awareness, a waking up and it is only through public opinion and the ballot box, that Joe Blogs: me - the people next door, can change anything.

The American President has distracted or focused away from US problems- the third world within- lack of mental health care, shootings by police, and unrest by pointing at Muslims. Mass murders in public places are frequently due to mental health issues (break down of community structure), alienation of individuals. and/or the number of weapons widely available to the public. On the other hand the President has offered hope to the dispossessed needing jobs even a new view on world order by suggesting working with Russia and its allies to find strategies to deal with extremism in the ME.

Monitoring Muslims complies with the finding of the new enemy after 1989 when the Cold War ceased, but it is apparent the embers are being stoked again. Other embers are being stoked of elitist Western supremacy. Whether this is due to fading memory of WW2 and Hiroshima, or due to Western economies dependence on arms creation, or Western wish to be omnipotent by having Power to destroy: or some, or all of these - is an open to question.

The basing of economies on the suffering of multitudes, the destruction (as in Iraq, Syria and Palestine) of their Cultures while preaching something other, war making, protection of boundaries, aggression tends to be more male than female. Perhaps it is admirable to celebrate difference but as lines become blurred that too needs to be acknowledged.

Those ‘Liberals’ who wished a different outcome to the US election the only alternative was of continued destabilisation of the ME. The previous President however well-intentioned continued almost like the previousone. It was done more covertly, but in the same direction.  The Democrats there, and the Blairites both merely dress up the unpalatable to make palatable like a sugar-coated pill perhaps naked reality could offer more – at present? Let us hope so.  

Mankind's Deterrents

26/01/2017

Blog 7 

Mankind’s Deterrents

The giving of blind faith is measured – using security of the Realm and bravado engender little confidence in present government. Good will can be fickle. The issue of the failed Trident missile in June last year around the same time as the Referendum and it’s concealment strike badly at this.

Theresa May reiterates her commitment to involve “the whole” the UK but with little explanation, a potential trade deal with US has not been explained as well as detail about Brexit: these three make heavy demand on public confidence plus now more serious -Trident.

Taking, only Trident renewal: the swiftness of the David Cameron’s resignation after the Brexit vote, the appointment of our PM and Government, many were still in shock when the renewal of Trident was discussed in Parliament, rather too promptly. It appears now that as the test on missile launch failed, by withholding this important information it is likely to have had effect on the outcome. Reasons given have not been convincing.

Our Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved from Foreign Secretary and prior Defence. He had previously proclaimed his support for Trident renewal suggesting the standing of Britain on the World stage depended upon it. Both America and Britain have depended upon it since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. A type of Power by the threat of destruction.

It does not apparently factor that by having the most powerful (or at least one of them). “deterrent” within the arsenal of biological and  chemical, it is an encouragement to others, in order to defend themselves, to have the same or some equivalent protection. It also needs to be factored, that the more “deterrents” there are, the more likely there is to be accident or serious incident. This perhaps could leave areas on the Planet unviable for habitation.

In the Climate changing more rapidly than scientists predicted and the type and location of the changes unpredictable i.e. whether due to the Arctic melting ice stressing ocean currents and creating an ice age, or extensive droughts, or flooding, or all: much of the Planet may become unpleasant or uninhabitable. Population increase has led to large conurbations possibly more vulnerable to sea rise.

The deterrent is massive with potential of vast contamination. It is always more costly than present estimate of £40bn and that is just on submarines. Is it as a deterrent more likely to be used when there appears not to be available a more measured and appropriate response?  One warhead has 7-8x the capacity of all the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each Trident II D5 missile can carry five warheads. One submarine can carry eight missiles. Each missile costs £17mn bought from the US. It becomes momentarily visible just what big business this is.

Perhaps a versatility of response which is more flexible would be prudent. Feet on the ground may provide help in crisis as well as defence? Britain and America continue to claim greatness in a World where cyber-attack possibly is now more of a threat. A threat possibly to the use of the West’s weapons themselves? Drop bombs may increase enemy resistance in the longer term: perhaps attention could be given to not creating so many enemies in the first place?

There is an opportunity as the new American President had suggested, working with Russia to deal with the instability in the ME. Apart from Extremism, Climate Change is also a common threat. Holding a Moratorium on a Global strategy for dealing with the legacy of Nuclear waste: tackling together the stresses on the Planet for the Planet and its inhabitants, could be some common issues?

 

                                                                                                                                

A Breakfast Dinner

Blog 6                                                                                                                     18/01/2017

A Breakfast Dinner

Age may teach a judgement from a more overall distant view, both in physical and time-dimensions, it can, I hope, give valuable judgement. It is often said we would have made an alternative decision, if we had known that, then.

More and more I find track record and an awareness of the outcome of what has happened in the past in similar circumstances an indicator of a likelihood of something similar. All depends on memory unless you are a scholar. Sadly, brief life offers a dimmer - just when potentially we may be getting an understanding!

With the use of some of the attributes mentioned plus a great respect for balance- these are my present offers on the phenomena of Brexit- a name with a connotation of a large breakfast related to a dog’s dinner!

With the broader view with time and space it is only by comparison can we judge if one road may be of benefit over another. Often it is the secondary consequences of action which become the predominant issue, rather than the issue itself. It usually is over simplification just to grab an idea with conviction.

It is a sadness that I observe the phenomena of the divide. Binary is the order of the day as are computers. Today a better attribute is that individually we have our own ideas and minds, nuances of difference abound. Binary political Parties now are confused.

There is a choice to ignore different views, and Politicians to grasp their old friend ‘dogma’, just where did that land us in the past? Or, another trick may be to regain control/respect through the public being afraid, so gather support that way. Another ploy is all have a common enemy. If there are no common thoughts among us bring in a country or leader to hate. At least it helps to point all in a common direction. Is this not now wearing a little thin and becoming transparent?

The other potential controller is a significant down turn in the economy. At this time many are vulnerable when there is so much debt. The question is, is Brexit going to be successful. The Government faction leading are telling us it is as with UKIP.

Perhaps in Mrs May’s speech she tried to simplify our exit to avoid delay. Delay and uncertainty being bad for the economy, is this almost inevitable? If it is: at which stage would it be best to happen? Leaving the EU to sort out its own burdensome bureaucracy rather than this country employ droves of civil servants may be helpful? If indeed that is possible.

Perhaps magically the European Union could fly into the air and the pieces land in a more pleasing fashion with a movement to less, looser ties and a more overall agreement relating to immigration.

The chances of an effective independent immigration policy in Britain are not great. Successive governments have promised to control it for decades unsuccessfully. There are sounds from other EU countries that they too wish some control. The chances of agreed policies with these or/and the EU would I believe have a better opportunity of success and be less costly.

Usually, it does not make good sense to fall out with neighbours. Usually also, imbued with dogma and bravado may muster public enthusiasm temporarily, but when/if an economic downturn kicks in: it could well be great regret, rather than bravado for supporters of Brexit.

Starting negotiation with a new American President supporting Britain could well be treated with suspicion and mar good deals. The trade agreement TTIP with Europe has not been approved. Getting an agreement even through the back door could be favourable for the Americans. It needs to be remembered that the EU is a competitor.

Is this deal good for Britain? Does it involve GM crops and more pesticides and the sale of fracking equipment? American debt is enormous and dependant at present on the sale of armaments. The number of fines issued to foreign firms increases, barely a week goes by without one. Any trade agreement with them could increase our vulnerability.

Britain could jump out of a frying pan into a furnace. Another worrying factor is control of immigration and Brexit, is by trying to implement one in this present climate influenced by UKIP, could this lead to more racist attacks and bias: apart from making the Country more unpleasant? If this does not bother Brexiteers then unrest costs money- another down for the Economy.

Another alarming factor: is with the possibility of economic slowdown this could herald more deregulation. We have already in very recent memory been down this road. One would have hoped all would remember.

The good news is that our PM will not go ahead if ‘Leaving’ is worse than staying in, or rather more damaging. That was my understanding of her words. I just hope that this realization does not happen too late. My understanding says it could be.