THE LEGEND OF 'ANTISEMITIC LABOUR AND THE SOCIALIST GRAIL'

The current political discourse in Britain is just nuts.

The level of hypocrisy and flippant political rhetoric thrown around on social media has reached fever pitch, truly. Not only among the masses, but among political pundits and politicians, journalists and activists etc - those we once upon a time relied upon to be subjective. Every day we're confronted with new confirmations that this country - and more generally, the world as a whole - is going down the toilet, yet most of seem to be obsessed with using these events to score points off their 'chosen adversary'. Regardless of how tenuous the link.

We've got natural disasters arguably linked to climate change ravaging millions of people, with some scientists saying by 2050, we're screwed. We have open physical abuse and violation of citizens in Spain. Britain about to dive face-first off an economic cliff, under an incalculably incompetent government. Towers of poor people bursting into flames, with no money to house them, but ample to bribe folks in Northern Ireland, fix a giant clock, and redecorate Buckingham Palace. Airlines closing, and businesses fleeing the country like rats from a sinking ship. Beyond Britain, though the Western media have mostly abandoned the subject, the migrant crisis continues in the Mediterranean - and has according to reports, intensified. Genocide in Yemen - a conflict in the Middle East that gets ignored due to lack of vested Western interest. Then the worst and most horrific mass shooting in in American history, under a US government now saying it's OK to murder gay people, nigh on the verge of going full-on 'Third Reich'. (But the American version... the 'best version, it's gonna be great.')

Yet somehow, bizarrely, a good portion of political debate in Britain seems to have swung back round to whether the Labour Party is antisemitic or not.

'The pressing issue of our time'.

The Labour Conference

The minute the subject was raised at the Labour Party conference, seemingly out of nowhere, some of us sighed and said 'uh-oh, here we go.' It was pretty inevitable. Now the momentum seems to be with Corbyn (that pun seems to be unavoidable, apologies), I wondered how long it would be before we were all 'Jew-bashing Holocaust deniers' once again. Not long, as it turns out.

Then an American-Israeli author named Miko Peled made a comment at the conference regarding free-speech, and where you should draw the line: in essence saying (I'm paraphrasing):

'Yes, you should be free to criticise everything from the Holocaust to the actions of Palestine, but Israel's testament as to how it treats Palestine is about as reliable as Nazis defending their actions, or supporters of apartheid in South Africa'. 

That is a fairly brutal way of putting it, I grant. And liable to incite an emotional reaction; but perhaps that's the point? In truth, I cannot fault the sentiment. Peled didn't mention Holocaust denial, but that's somehow been made the focus. It's completely missing his intended point. Which is exactly yes, we should be free to discuss and debate ideas, however distasteful and uncomfortable - or even ludicrous, such as Holocaust denial - but not for the perpetrators of arguably heinous offences to legitimise their crimes. Their particular 'testament' is too biased.

That message has been obscured entirely.

But even if you disagree, or find even that position offensive, how are the comments of one party member representative of all? If that was the case, surely the odd balls of Conservative and UKIP should have sunk their parties long ago?

Mindboggling

I just find it mind-boggling. The minute you say anything that dares grant even the slightest concession to the Palestinian side of the argument, even if you're Jewish yourself, you are instantly slurred an 'antisemite'. And it goes further. That same day of the conference, when I was perhaps stupidly sucked into political debate on Twitter, I ended up being slurred an antisemite simply for saying there are powerful Jewish elites in Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood. Which to me, honestly is just a given! Apparently, describing them as Jewish is what makes me 'a racist' though - a detail I'd refute til I'm blue in the face.

But these were not typical buffoons spouting such nonsense; these were political correspondents from The Irish Times and The Guardian, one of whose sentiments got retweeted by J.K bloody Rowling of all people! It was upsetting and ridiculous in equal measure. The fact that - like Miko Peled - I'm half Jewish myself, and am also ironically the son of an Austrian Jewish holocaust survivor? Or that anything and everything I've ever argued for is fairness and equality - to look at both sides of any argument? Well, apparently such details are neither here nor there in Britain's political discourse of today. 'You disagree with me? Or state a detail I find uncomfortable? That's prejudice.'

A Routine Witch Hunt

It's not a flash in the pan. This theme has been an undercurrent of discussions surrounding the Labour Party since Corbyn first became leader. The reason, simply put, is Corbyn's adamant criticism of Israel's aggression. He insists that both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict have legitimate grievances, and he sticks to it. That's really the nub of it. Yet somehow that equates as anyone who supports Corbyn's Labour being an 'antisemite.'

It's a damnable witch hunt. I for one can certainly say I've never spoken to anyone on the left of politics who's 'antisemitic', or in fact prejudiced against anyone for their ethnicity or religion. That's kinda the point of being on the left! Written on the tin. Or being 'liberal' at any rate. True antisemitism? That's all the far-right's turf, and deep down everyone knows that.

Which leads me neatly to a post I saw this morning, concerning Jewish citizens harassed in the U.S. A Jewish bakery in Brooklyn received an openly racist and Nazi-supporting threat in the mail. Nasty stuff. The threat of fascism being legitimised in America is very, very real - again, anyone should be able to see that.

Yet bizarrely, the first and only comment on my friend's post about this horrific abuse in the U.S? Well... it was a pop at at the UK Labour Party:

Yep... when I see a Swastika, the very first thing I associate and think to talk about is Jeremy Corbyn and/or Labour. Honestly, how ridiculous. Right or wrong, I bit back at this silly person. I'm sick of hearing it to be frank, and such smears deserve to be held accountable. But I remained polite. The lady's response? Cries of implied 'abuse', labelling me a 'troll'. 'Here we go, another Corbynista'. Orders to 'cease and desist'. Somewhat pitiful appeals that flippant slurs are OK if you're a 'good person who opposes racism'. Or if unbelievably, you also happen to be 'a member of the Labour Party'. (Perhaps therein lies a big part of the problem.)

Then she tries to 'shame me' for detracting from the original issue of Jews being persecuted in Brooklyn - conveniently ignoring she was the one who detracted from it in the first place!

NO. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. If you're gonna post bullsh*t, have the guts to back it up. Provide some evidence, or at least a coherent justification - don't scarper like a coward, attempt to close down the discussion where YOU want to leave it, protesting that anyone who calls you out is 'abusive'. It's beyond pathetic.

Sadly, the person whose post it was joined in deeming me inappropriate for saying their friend was wrong. I'm apparently 'narrow-minded' for calling out someone who's being narrow-minded. I hear it and see it all the time in political discourse... you're a 'bully' if you attempt to push back against a bully. You're a 'racist' if you dare criticise a nation that suffers racism. You're 'prejudiced' if you call out prejudice. You're condemned as 'offensive' for using an expletive, by someone arguing for the real-life persecution of actual human beings. Where does it end? It's like anti-logic, and it's driving me potty.

A Fashionable Ruse

This fashionable ruse is now aped by politicians and journalists, who do exactly the same thing. It started with Angela Eagle, when she didn't like being contradicted and held accountable for her smears of 'antisemitism' and the alleged 'targeted hate campaign' within Labour, back in 2016.

That legacy is now we've got the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Boris Johnson, and countless other Tory toads frequently postulating that any who oppose their views are simply 'abusive'. As if the criticisms and hostility they face are somehow born of prejudice for them as individuals, rather than the noxious stuff coming out their own gobs.

My greatest fear however, is this 'abuse' is currently being primed as justification for the removal of free speech on the internet. Eg: the one and only thing that stands in the way of their propagated 'legends'.

Very much like the legend of 'Antisemitic Labour and the Socialist Grail'. Coming to a crap cinema near you.

MIGHT THE TORIES SACRIFICE A PAWN, TO SAVE PIECES OF GREATER WORTH?

Many months ago, prior to the general election, I wrote something for Evolve asking the seemingly facetious question, "is Theresa May actually TRYING to lose this election?" Simply put, May and the Tory government seemed so reckless, so inanely incompetent, it was almost like they wanted to hand over the 'poison chalice' of Brexit, knowing full well it will be an unmitigated disaster. It was also the most popular theory in a poll of 7.5K people.

It seemed that theory was truly out the window, as obviously the Tories won. Kind of, any way. May clung to power like an angry toddler to a dummy, at any rate.

Many months have passed since then, and the difference in attitude towards the likelihood of Corbyn's potential premiership could not be more different. Almost ridiculously so. There are different angles to be found, but even the most ardent Tory mouthpieces are hinting it's likely JC will, or at least could, be our next Prime Minister.

Then, that went a step further. In the past 48 hours, I've heard 'announcements' on MSM morning TV programmes etc that some bookies predict he will be Prime Minister "before the end of the year". That Labour are "preparing for government" etc. Erm... even ignoring that's exceedingly unlikely unless the government somehow abdicates, it's almost like the powers-that-be are now trying to feed a different 'reality' into our collective subconscious. And again I find myself asking questions. I can't help it. Whenever I am 'fed' ideas, my brain forces me to look at the reasons 'why' I'm possibly being fed them. It's like chess. You don't just look at the piece moved by your opponent, but also what manoeuvres they're enabling for the others. You step back, looking at the entire situation.

Harsh Reality

Face it... Brexit is a catastrophe. It's already lashed our nation economically and socially on untold scale, and hasn't even happened yet. It's damaged our reputation globally (with anyone other than Trump's America that is), and anyone with a brain can see it makes no sense for us to tumble off a cliff like this. It seems utterly doomed. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's going to happen. On the contrary, the rich and powerful tax-dodgers who've engineered it all, I think, will see it through at any and all costs now. It seems unavoidable. 'Will of the people' and all that.

If the Tories were exceedingly clever and manipulative (and make no mistake, they are), they might theoretically recognise whichever government is at the helm for this sh*t-storm WILL go down with the ship. And possibly in perpetuity. After all, the British people will undoubtedly regret this 'decision', those of modest means will any way - when and if supplies from Europe are stopped and/or slapped with tariffs. When the little Englanders start to appreciate we produce little of our own, save for dodgy financial services the EU precisely wanted to restrict.

So a wise chess player might sacrifice the pawns, to save key pieces on the back line. What might that look like? That may just mean more daggers in the Conservative Party - that Theresa May will be made the 'fall guy', and a new monstrosity will gush forth from the Tory ether of hideousness. But, if Brexit is in fact ultimately doomed to be a disaster, it might also conceivably make sense for the Tories to allow responsibility for this grisly transition to fall into the hands of their beleaguered opponents. The equivalent of 'passing a turn' in a board game or quiz.

When a new government steps in, the status quo doesn't change overnight, and certain 'chess pieces' have already been moved. There's a knock-on effect. If Corbyn stepped in tomorrow, the DUP have already got their cool £1bn bribe, the small matter of Tory election fraud has already been swept under the table, and promises David Cameron made - such as enacting Part 2 of the Leveson Enquiry have been long forgotten. Countless matters decided under a near decade of Tory rule would simply be small-fry compared to the juggernauts Corbyn would have to tackle. Many would slip through the cracks. And when they did, his opponents would say: "look... he's failing."

In fact, it fits quite beautifully. If Labour don't prevent Brexit, and the whole country falls to ruin... and Corbyn has nothing left to work with other than an isolated bankrupt island at war with itself, economically crippled and globally despised? When the businesses have all fled elsewhere, but the British elites have adequately protected their interests, shielding their assets from accountability to the British tax-payer? Who will then be blamed? Who will then be the scapegoat? Many among the British people have already shown themselves to be inanely gullible, to swallow whatever nonsense they are told by their papers and TV sets. If those forces again set their sights on the new 'socialist experiment' in Britain under Corbyn as being to blame for the Brexit fallout, as opposed to the vicious capitalist protectionism that drove it, the British people WILL buy it hook line and sinker. The Tories would be back in power in a heartbeat, and the experiment would be over - a mere 'bump in the road'. Capitalist forces would again seize the reins, with even more gusto,

It's alarmingly neat.

Best Case Scenario

That's not to say I think it would somehow be preferable for the Tories to remain in power. The sooner they're out the better. But Corbyn needs to be aware they will unequivocally be planning for that turn of events, and what their next move will be. Now the obvious momentum is with Corbyn (pardon the pun), tactics will undoubtedly have changed - and someone, somewhere in the Conservative Party will now be thinking about the 'long game'.

Of course, if Corbyn does get into power, he could hypothetically pull the rug out from beneath them - by reversing Brexit. (If that's even possible now.) By allowing himself a chance to remedy the ills of this nation from a position of Britain having kept its economic integrity and security intact, he might ACTUALLY repair this country.

For me personally, I have always hoped - and will continue to hope - this is Corbyn's 'ace in the hole'. That even if he is Eurosceptic, he would not plummet this nation into potential financial and social catastrophe if he genuinely thought it imminent. That he's a man of enough modesty, he would put our actual interests ahead of populism and 'nationalistic pride'.

I'll keep hoping.

Featured image: 'Checkmate Satan' by Ry-Spirit.

BREAKING NEWS: UKIP's new leader named as KFC Colonel

BREAKING NEWS: UKIP's new leader named as KFC Colonel.

Other contenders for the role, which included Ronald McDonald, the zombie corpse of Enoch Powell, and the guy from the Go Compare commercials, are all said to be "not too bothered".

Releasing a statement, the Colonel said:

"I very much look forward to leading a party that's about as relevant as scurvy."

"Clearly there's no point in us even existing, as the Tories basically stole every one of our policies. WE made xenophobia cool again, but they get all the credit. It's not fair. So I'm now arguing for the UK to gain its independence of Planet Earth."

"I'd also like to mention, my new limited edition Tennessee Jack Burger is available until October 8th."

WHY BILLIONAIRES ARE CATCHING ON THAT 'UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME' IS OUR ONLY HOPE

The problem with listening to the value and content of what people say, rather than focusing on personal feelings towards them, is that just occasionally even monsters make a good point.

In a sense, it must be far simpler to simply 'pick a team' and run with whatever they say, absent of the requirement to think for oneself - what I'd argue most of the country does in regard to supporting the Conservative Party. 'I don't care if Jacob-Rees Mogg wants Britain to adopt workplace rights akin to that of India or for people in full-time work to starve: he hates Jeremy Corbyn and supports Brexit, so he's the guy for me.'

Of course, the other name for that mentality, is 'tribalism'.

Bring On The Branson

I for one have felt, and for some time, that introduction of a 'Universal Basic Income' for all citizens is quite literally the only way our society can survive and endure in harmony. Therefore it's an issue I'm exceedingly happy won't go away, and that actually, people of note are now starting to speak out about it too.

Richard Branson, of all people, has apparently come out in favour of Universal Basic Income. Along with other multi-billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.

I do think it's quite telling that the billionaires speaking out about this are not 'establishment cronies' or people born to wealth and privilege, but the 'self-made' ones. The billionaires who've arguably made their fortunes, at least initially, through an intent to improve and advance humankind.

This provides them quite a unique perspective. Not only are they literally sitting at the very top of the tree, with global resources and insider knowledge most people could never even conceive of, but on some level, they also have empathy or fleeting memory of what it was like to not have those things.

As much as I'm sure the likes of Branson, Musk and Zuckerberg have each behaved like absolute hound-dogs in their respective careers, each lusted after money/power/influence etc and stepped on people to get there, it is still fundamentally possible to want to rise to the top and, in general terms, want the best for average people too.

The best example I can think of is Tony Blair and Brexit. I, like many, despise the man for his role in creating the world we live in today. For destroying ethics of socialism in the UK, for his war crimes and his pandering to George Bush, for his unashamed profiteering since leaving office, and his sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. But when Blair spoke out about Brexit, I agreed with every damned word he said. And I do genuinely believe it was motivated by him not wanting to see his country go down the toilet, not personal interest. That's a difficult concept to make peace with, I know. (As much so as being a Corbyn supporter, but not wanting the UK to belly-flop out of EU membership.)

I have my issues with Branson. Particularly the way his company Virgin are quietly privatising and taking over the NHS behind closed doors. The way he's established himself as a kingpin over our transport and entertainment, and now our health too. I certainly do not approve of some of the circles he travels in. He is undoubtedly a hypocrite in countless ways, and responsible for many problems. But nor will I deny when the man is talking sense, or smear his motivations for doing so.

In fact, he may be better placed to know what's really coming down the line than most of us.

Time To Face Facts

To spell it out, society could be headed for disaster. Automation, and the gradual erosion of countless industries in favour of mechanised and internet based commerce, is a ticking time bomb. There will simply be nowhere near enough jobs to sustain our bloated populations very soon - fact.

Doing things in a more efficient and technologically advanced way is a worthy pursuit - but not if it takes jobs away from millions of people, forcing them into poverty and irrelevancy. There will be no 'commerce' when no-one has anything. So that technological progress must benefit all of humankind, not just the select few, who then wouldn't need to give anything back to society at all.

It stands to reason, if humankind has advanced to a stage where much of the demanding work can be done effortlessly and by automation, that stage has been reached through a communal effort. The people calling the shots may not want to acknowledge it, but they enjoy the fruits of hundreds of years of labour and scientific progress: our shared advance as a species.

If that 'progress' now effectively produces money (eg: commerce/industry) on tap, it needs to be shared out. That is fair. Every citizen needs to be given enough to survive, and enjoy a basic quality of life - a chance to taste and enjoy the few pleasures this world has to offer. Regardless of what they have done or haven't done, of what job they've got or where/how they were educated, where they happened to be born etc. Everyone gets to live - at least a little.

Britain's 'Culture of Benefits'

How the right-wing, and those who supposedly oppose Britain's 'benefit culture' would cry out!!! I can hear their disapproval screaming through the ether...

But Universal Basic Income is not a 'hand-out' in the traditional sense. It might simply ensure our UK society is a vaguely half-way decent and ethical place to live. Surely even hideously rich people must get to a point where they want to live among a population that's vaguely happy?? Truly imagine a British society where far FAR more people are unemployed than employed: absent of either purpose, or income - with no way to survive or provide for themselves.

The mind boggles at the thought, but that's what's coming for western society unless something is done. An economy does not work if only a tiny few have all the money. A multi-millionaire might have the resources of 10,000 people, but he/she doesn't buy 10,000 pairs of trousers/shoes, take 10,000 trips to the cinema, have 10,000 weddings etc.

Also, the notion of UBI is undeniably fair. Even those in work and well-off would receive exactly the same. Nobody could complain! It would simply take account of the fact we're moving into a world where jobs are not as widely available, and that commerce is now realistically in the hands of an unacceptable few. Universal Income could quite literally make people's lives better, reduce the stigmatisation of being unemployed, and ease tensions between communities/classes.

Seems to me, we should stop demonising the idea as being some kind of 'free-loader's dream', and start examining Universal Basic Income as a very pragmatic and potential solution to a problem that isn't going to go away.

More to the point, forward thinking nations like Finland are already doing it. And proving it works.

THE MCGREGOR VS MAYWEATHER FIGHT: HONEST ANALYSIS FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT

I can't see anyone else saying it, so as usual, I will.

We apparently live in a world where two men can do an hour's work - in this instance beating the shIt out of one another - and earn in the region of $100 million each.

Far from being merely 'OK with that', most people seem to be applauding it. We should be up-in-arms, but supposed 'love of sport' distracts from something that otherwise is deeply abhorrent.

Try explaining to a parent whose child may die because they can't afford the medical bills, that one guy who hits things for a living deserves to have every luxury this world can afford many times over - enough to provide free schools and hospitals if he so wanted - while their child suffers, left to die.

Try explaining to the family thrown out on the street because they can't afford rent, that a frickin' boxer deserves more riches than most people will ever see if they lived ten lifetimes, and that his right to that wealth takes priority over theirs simply to have a roof above them. Try telling those wittering their lives away on minimum wage and using food-banks etc that ANY man or woman on this planet should have so much, while they and their families deserve so little.

In a nutshell, this is why I believe in socialism. Market capitalism has become obscene, an ugly and bloated beast.

If you look down the road... really look, it seems obvious to me that 'little people' will only tolerate this so far. Revolution always comes when those at the top are too greedy. Whether they're monarchs, generals, aristocracy, clergy, presidents, landowners, tycoons or corporations - they are all variants of the same. 'Feudal overlords'.

There's only two ways this can end. Either 'little people' will somehow reclaim democratic society and restore a sense of propriety and balance, or those at the top who control the purse-strings will, at some stage, go to obscene lengths to control the masses and preserve their monopoly. It's like a mathematical equation that simply has to eventually balance out.

However that takes shape, it won't be pretty.

But hey, I do hope everyone enjoyed the guys smacking one another. 😁

#McGregorMayWeather

FAR FROM DISBANDING 'CONSPIRACIES' CONCERNING 9/11, THERESA MAY JUST GAVE THEM WEIGHT

The majority of the 9/11 attackers (allegedly) came from Saudi Arabia.

Saudia Arabia are not an 'enemy', but an ALLY of the west. And despite outcry, both the US and UK categorically refuse to give up that alliance. That in itself raises questions. Big ones. But whatever you do or don't believe about the tragic events of that day, the simple fact is, there's simply never been any attack in history shrouded in so much confusion and controversy, with so many 'official' details that don't add up - ever.

After fifteen plus years of ongoing pain and anger for the victims' friends and families, fifteen years of 'conspiracy theories' and explanations that simply refuse to go away, finally a UK government report was demanded into the potential involvement of our 'ally', Saudi Arabia. Finally, some of the speculation could perhaps have been put to bed. But after years and yeeeears of compilation, Theresa May has categorically refused to allow the British public to know the contents of that report. Not once, but twice now.

Rationalise that how you will, but to my sensibilities, that means there's something in it she doesn't want Joe Public to know. That sounds obvious perhaps, but WHY would May not want us to know? I'll tell you. Because if the Saudi government were involved, that means one of two things - there are literally no other alternatives. Either 1) our 'ally' betrayed us and were involved with the most horrific crime on western soil in history, but we bizarrely/suspiciously remain allied to them any way, or 2) they acted as a faithful ally, working in coordination.

Let's face it, neither option is great.

What if the Saudis weren't involved, I hear you cry. Fair question. Then why on earth would May suppress that? Surely anything to make her distasteful alliance more palatable for the public would be a positive thing; a boon to be wheeled out in her favour? Again, it just doesn't add up.

Yes, many might argue I'm ignoring countless variables here, that the report may contain sensitive information not relating to the issue, which can't be revealed. All manner of explanations are 'possible', that is true. But generally, if an animal has four legs, a tail, and barks, the likelihood is it's a dog. It's not somehow more rational to assume it's a sabre-tooth tiger.

Until some actual explanations are forthcoming, the suspicion and controversy will continue. Bottom line? Whatever is contained in that report, and whatever is or isn't true (I've given up trying to make sense of it all), this shady behaviour by our government only gives weight to the supposed 'conspiracies'. Quite literally the very furthest thing from disbanding them.

MOTHER'S BRIEF HISTORY OF WORLD CONFLICT, AND THE ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR

'Mummy, why is there war in the Middle East?'

'Well darling, at the end of Word War I, the Western Allies broke up the Ottoman Empire, which had existed for hundreds of years and included most of the Islamic world - claiming ownership of various territories. Then at the end of World War II, they created a new country in the middle of one of those territories, right or wrong, and called it Israel. Then they spent 70+ years arming that country to the teeth, whilst simultaneously making sure the fragmented Muslim states around it stayed poor - who naturally allied with their enemies. It's a pressure cooker. They've been fighting ever since.'

'And Saudi Arabia? They're one of those surrounding nations, aren't they? Why aren't they poor too? How do they wage war and assert control?'

'With weapons and bombs supplied to them by Britain. They, like Israel, are supported with Western finance.'

'I see. What about Pakistan? I hear there's problems over there. What's that all about?'

'Well, before those World Wars, Britain conquered and ruled India. Pakistan was another Muslim nation forced out and brought to heel. When Britain finally gave it all back because it could no longer sustain its empire, it decided which bits Pakistan got and which India got. They've never been happy about that. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Oh dear. And North Korea? Why do they hate America so much?'

'Well, at the end of World War II, America and the Soviet Union - today known as Russia - split the country in two, taking half of it each. One prospered, and one didn't. And America punished the North for 70+ years for its enduring ties to Russia. Like in the Middle East, it's a proxy war between sabre-rattling super-powers. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Why all the problems in Africa?'

'Well, the British Empire and several other European nations - later America too - conquered the continent, divvying it up, selling off all its resources, and trading its people as slaves. Bit by bit, the continent was plundered, and when those powers gave up control, it was deliberately handed over to various competing tribes and left in turmoil, so the continent could never become strong, and illicit trade & supply deals could continue behind closed doors benefiting Western interests. They've been fighting ever since.'

'Wow. OK, what about closer to home? When you were growing up, there were problems in Ireland, weren't there? I've read about bombings and all sorts. I can't imagine it. Why were Irish people so angry?'

'Well... before it was called Britain, England spent centuries inflicting war and hardships on Ireland. Scotland and Wales too. Separated by sea, many people wanted Ireland to be its own independent country, and they spent centuries fighting back, until the English - now calling themselves British - were forced to retreat to all but a scrap of land, that is now called Northern Ireland. But Britain refused to let go of it, as a point of principle. And they've been fighting over it ever since.'

'Why are people talking about it now?'

'Because the dispute didn't really matter when we all became part of the EU, we all became Europeans - one people.'

'Is that why there haven't been any wars in Europe since World War II?'

'A big, big contributing factor - yes. Also, while we were united as one continent, Europe was a match economically and militarily for any of the emerging super-powers like Russia, China, and The USA. Britain was one of the most important nations at the table too. Now The EU is splintering, Britain and America are wobbling, and Russia is starting to lick its lips greedily.'

'So being part of the EU kept Britain safe - and Europe safe, and helped Britain to become secure and wealthy again in the carnage following the World Wars?'

'Yep, that's about it.'

'Why on earth would Britain give that up, or behave so ungraciously now?'

'Good question son, good question.'

'Have the EU started any wars, or pillaged anywhere?'

'No... no they haven't. They mostly just create laws to protect average citizens in every European country.'

'Hmm. All seems very strange to me Mum.'

'What's that dear?'

'If you look at everything we just talked about, all the  wars occurring today - or a good deal of them any way - there seems to be one inescapable common denominator.'

'What's that?'

'Britain. Us.'