By all reports – decades of them – Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip, has always been a bit of a stubborn bastard, to put it kindly. 

His dedication to getting his own way is legendary, and apart from some very public faux pas, he mostly seems to inflict this only upon his own family.

Until now.

Last week, the 97-year-old rolled his Land Rover Freelander. In doing so, he hit a Kia with two women and a nine-month-old baby in it.

The Prince was fine and passed a breathalyzer and a vision test; the others involved were shaken, and one had a broken wrist. Two days later, ol’ Philip was out driving his new replacement Land Rover without a seatbelt. The rich are different, etc. etc. etc.

The instant headlines were predictable: why was a 97-year-old driving? It’s the wrong question to ask. We should instead be asking why someone who was apparently a danger on a public roadway was driving. Aging drivers is a hot potato subject, but I’ve got my oven mitts on, so here goes.

Every province has steps in place to start testing and monitoring drivers as they age. And every province has older drivers who push back against this, calling it discriminatory as they fear for their independence. 

It’s not a nice topic, but it is an increasingly important one as our population ages, our roads get more crowded, and our politicians get more scared of losing votes from reliable places. It’s the elephant in the car.

Being old does not mean you are a poor driver. If you went strictly by eyesight, reflexes and other benefits enjoyed by youth, our teen drivers should be the best on the road. Insurance companies and parents know otherwise. Seniors are right in arguing that experience has a great deal to do with driver skill.

Read more:

https://driving.ca/land-rover/features/feature-story/lorraine-complains-...

Image at top doing email rounds...

In early January, the British parliament debated one of the country's most pressing problems. Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur responsible for extreme poverty, had made a harsh accusation against the United Kingdom's government at the end of last year. After a two-week journey through the fifth richest country in the world, Alston, who mostly focuses on Africa and Central America, had argued that Theresa May's government had systematically pushed countless British citizens into poverty. He said, "this is not just a disgrace but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one," and went on to also highlight the country's rising child poverty rates.

This accusation had to be addressed. When the debate in the lower house took place on a Monday evening, only 14 of the 650 parliamentarians were present in the Commons Chamber. The minister responsible sent a deputy in her place. He promised to take Alston's report "seriously." Then the 30 minutes dedicated to the agenda point were over. 

This coming Tuesday, the British parliament will once again debate Brexit. Many of the lawmakers will struggle to get even standing room space in the lower house. The discussion will once again stretch on for hours. Although everything has already been said, not everyone has spoken. If things go as expected, it will then be even more likely that Brexit, which is currently scheduled for March 29, will be pushed back once more. Maybe a few months. Maybe even a year. 

What do the two debates have to do with one another? More than one might think. The contrast between the empty and the full chamber reveal what this country and its politicians still have energy for -- and for what they don't. The more time and energy are absorbed by Brexit, the black hole of British democracy, the more likely it becomes that voters will take their revenge.

When Theresa May became prime minister in July 2016, shortly after the Brexit referendum, she seemed to anticipate that the 52 percent of Brits who voted to leave the European Union hadn't merely done so because they passionately hated the EU. She dedicated her first speech to the nation to the millions of British people who, after years of forced austerity, were only "just managing." She called it a "burning injustice" that "if you are born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others." May promised she would, in all her governmental decisions, "not think of the powerful, but of you."

A Government Turning in Circles

Two and a half years have passed since then, and all of May's decisions since that point have been either wrong or were reversed shortly after being announced. Most of these decisions were related to Brexit. There was, unfortunately, no time for the "burning injustice." It's no surprise then that the situation has worsened since then. 

The UN Special Rapporteur's report only shows one part of the overall malaise. Nine years after the Conservative-led government introduced a brutal austerity policy in the wake of the financial crisis, the country has partly been ruined by the process. A study recently concluded that almost 4 million children in the UK grow up in families that cannot afford healthy food. A new welfare system, called Universal Credit, was supposed to make it easier for them to get welfare -- but has thus far mainly made it easier for them to become poor.

Read more:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-brexit-distracted-the-uk-...

Following a recent automobile accident in which two others were injured, the husband of England's Queen Elizabeth II has acknowledged the inevitable and handed over his driver's license and the ignition keys to an undetermined number of eminently-driveable vehicles, according to a report from the New York Times.

"After careful consideration, the Duke of Edinburgh has taken the decision to voluntarily surrender his driving license," announced a Buckingham Palace spokesperson on Saturday, referring to the prince by his official title.

A collision that occurred last month near a royal property in a rural area some 100 miles north of London sparked the move, according to reports.

The January 17 crash saw the royal consort's UK-built Land Rover SUV flip over and collide with another car, injuring its occupants.

The prince was unharmed but was reported to have been significantly shaken by the accident, particularly as one of the occupants of the other vehicle — who was not hurt — turned out to be a nine-month-old baby.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/art_living/201902101072281571-UK-Prince-Philip-s...

Read from top.

Britain: Lifeless, defeated and living an "over the top" moment

In the First World War, Britain's psychopathic generals sent millions of men to their deaths, ordering them "over the top" into the direct line of fire

What has happened to the United Kingdom? What has happened to its people, full of flair, known for their inventions, their contribution to music, their inventiveness, their bravery and their determination to protect their nation even in times of its darkest hours?

They have done this time and again while the mesh which makes up the fabric of the peoples of the UK formed, a mix of many tribes from across Europe, from the first Celts who walked across the land bridge between what is now the Netherlands and East Anglia, to the nomadic tribes which moved in from the Continent at a later date - the Atrebates (France/Belgium), the Belgae, then later the Roman legions with their myriad patchwork of nationalities, the unwanted Angles and Saxons and Jutes from Northern Germany (the British tribes asked the Romans to send a legion to help them numerous times, which they did willingly), then the Vikings and finally the Normans. Looking at the country today, with its ten languages, we see a pan-European reality which is the essence of the British peoples.

The majority of the British people do not want Brexit

Today, with most British people not wanting Brexit, at all, especially the young whose future is at stake, especially the Scots where not one single constituency voted for Brexit, especially Northern Ireland which voted Remain, what do we see? The entire population slumped in their armchairs, saying "yeah whatever" as an apparently unhinged Prime Minister Theresa May vows to march the lemmings off the cliff on March 29, come what may, and to Hell with the consequences. In an insult to democracy she ignores the calls for a Second Referendum and where is the Opposition, which is supposed to represent the people if the government cannot?

The population in general has given up, shrugged and accepted defeat at the hand of a few conservative elements who did not have a clue what they were doing on the day of the Referendum in 2016. Many of those who voted for Brexit are now dead, many younger people can now vote and although the British media has launched a virtual blackout of the Remain cause while poster campaigns showing former Remainers saying they now wish to Leave proliferate, the demographic reality is that today the majority of the British people do not want Brexit

And why not? Because they are not stupid. They know that today the world is composed of large trading blocks. They know that economies are no longer autarkic but inter-linked and global. They know that when you belong to a large trading block you do your trade with that block without paying. They know that if you leave, you have to pay to do the same trade, but without any voice in the proceedings. They know that the UK does half its trade with the EU. They know that some pie-in-the-sky quixotesque idea about suddenly doing trade with New Zealand 11,393 miles away is not the answer because switching from trading with a block the other side of the channel and doing deals with far-flung former colonies involves something called transportation costs. They know that the EU 27 will stick together as a trading block of some 450 million people while the UK tries to turn itself into some kind of nationalist, racist rathole of some 65 million.

Yet what do they do? The Brexiteers, mainly the elderly, the uneducated, the nationalists, those living in cloud cuckoo land and the sickenking opportunists orchestrating them with campaigns of nonsense and barefaced lies, are standing back and cheering from the sidelines. But what about the majority, the Remainers?

Look at the Media and you find a virtual blackout of statistics indicating that today a Remain vote would garner a 60% approval, indeed it is easy to see memes of people who claimed that they voted Remain but now want to Leave, a clear sign of manipulation and an attempt by the authorities to hide the ugly truth that the British electorate made a mistake, and in no other country on Earth would a too-close-to-call decision on such a huge issue in a consultative referendum be allowed to destroy the country.

Yet Theresa May ploughs ahead and people sit at home blinking at the television set, as they see the future of their country being taken away from them, led by someone whose department "lost" the child sex abuse papers regarding shocking allegations of pedophilia at Westminster, by someone who spent two and a half years negotiating a deal with the EU, signed it with the other 27 members without speaking to anyone at home, and only then decided to put it through Parliament, eventually, got utterly humiliated, then today comes back and expects the 27 to change.

Like, is she unhinged, or what?

Where are the British people? Sitting on their backsides saying "yeah, whatever". If the politicians are worried about the backlash from the Brexiteers if they do not deliver Brexit, then they should be more worried about the Remainers, now clearly a majority, if they do. To avoid a disaster, people have to make their voice heard through all the legal means available.

Brexit, in the opinion of the vast majority of experts, will spell disaster for the UK. The Union will probably break up (why should Scotland and Northern Ireland be dragged out of the EU just because a percentage of English people did not understand the implications of what they were doing?), prices will inevitably rise, exports will fall, jobs will be lost, massively, the pound will drop, the economic spiral will turn downwards, exponentially and within six months the entire population will be clamoring to come back inside.

To the back of the queue. Other candidates will now be ahead

It is sad to see a country sell its future over such ridiculous and unfounded ideals, to see the UK's youth facing a sad, limited life while the EU party carries on, the other side of the Channel. Even sadder, to see a population cowed into submission, disinterested, defeated, sullen, sad and so silent. It is sickening to see such a total lack of information, and common sense, in an entire population. The conclusion is that the British people are no longer what they were, or what they have always claimed to be. It is a nation of racist, nationalistic couch potatoes allowing a lunatic to lead them off the cliff. One would find more energy and verve among a smack of jellyfish floundering on some beach after David Cameron has stung them.

Main picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin#/media/File:Pied_Piper2.jpg

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru  

Twitter: @TimothyBHinchey

timothy.hinchey@gmail.com

See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/142237-britain_lifeless/

The only way the EU could accept the UK back in the fold should be with two major added conditions: 

a) give up the Pound and become a full Euro country.

b) give up the (US controlled) five eyes spy network (with verified execution).

Only then the black-sheep-UK or the UK-prodigal-daughter can rejoin the EU family...

See also:

Interview with Kenneth Clarke on Brexit

'We Can't Carry On Being So Insane'

In an interview, former British government minister Kenneth Clarke, the longest-serving member of the House of Commons, discusses the destructive force of Brexit and the "fanatics" inside his own Conservative Party, who he believes are still seeking revenge against Margaret Thatcher.

Interview Conducted By Jörg Schindler

Before he extends his hand in greeting at his office, Kenneth Clarke says he's never seen such a "crazy situation" in all his whole life. The politician, a veteran of the Conservative Party, will soon have spent a half-century in the British parliament. He's been a part of many of the biggest battles over Europe in Westminster. He served as a government minister under Margaret Thatcher, John Major and David Cameron and might well have made it to the top, "if I hadn't been so pro-European," as he confides. Next to Michael Heseltine, many consider Clarke to be the best prime minister Britain never had. 

The 78-year-old member of parliament says he has never seen the kind of discord that has unfolded in recent weeks as the deadline for Brexit approaches.

In an interview, he discusses if and how things might proceed from here. 

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Clarke, you seem to be pretty relaxed considering the circumstances.

Clarke: Yes, well, it is a bizarre situation at the moment. Since the prime minister has committed herself to persuade the Europeans to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement, everybody is waiting for a miraculous solution. In the meantime, the government is trying to avoid having any serious business in the House of Commons. On Monday, we spent a whole day debating sports! I have been here a very long time, but I have never seen such a crazy situation in all my life on such a serious subject.

DER SPIEGEL: Why has the prime minister chosen this path regardless of signals from the European Union that the Withdrawal Agreement is nonnegotiable?

Clarke: The prime minister is obsessed with keeping the Conservative Party in one piece. I have argued for months that the moderate majority of the House of Commons should come together on a cross-party basis. We can only reach an agreement if Tory remainers and Labour remainers strike a compromise. But Theresa May has not really reached out to them. Instead, she is making a desperate effort to win over the hardline right-wing people of our party.

DER SPIEGEL: Let's assume the European Union does make last-minute concessions on the so-called Northern Ireland backstop: Would that secure a majority in parliament?

Clarke: No. The hardcore euroskeptics in my party will never accept it. Some of them might wobble, but not enough I am afraid.

DER SPIEGEL: And then?

Clarke: I like to think that, in the end, common sense will prevail, and the prime minister will get her deal through. I just don't know how. We can't solve this in 50 days of childlike nonsense. We need a year or more to work it out.

DER SPIEGEL: But that would only buy time.

Clarke: We have a history of being quite good in processing democratic government. We can't carry on being so insane.

DER SPIEGEL: What are the deeper roots of the eternal struggle over Europe in your party?

Clarke: There was always a group of nationalists in the Tory party that didn't come to terms with our changed role in the world. In their eyes we have an imperial destiny. But that was fading away and we were becoming a rather pro-European party in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher. Remember, it was us who had to persuade the Germans and French of the single market.

DER SPIEGEL: But Thatcher turned into a euroskeptic herself at the end of her term as prime minister.

Clarke: She rejected Jacques Delors' idea of a more social Europe. Her fall in 1990 enraged the Tory far-right. They thought it was all a kind of pro-European plot. The European issue became symbolic of the betrayal of Margaret Thatcher. It became a spiritual event -- revenge for Margaret. And then there was the question of the euro and the Maastricht Treaty, which became symbols for the destruction of our independence and sovereignty.

DER SPIEGEL: Since Thatcher, every Tory leader tried to appease the euroskeptics, but all of them failed. Why has nobody learned a lesson?

Clarke: I don't know. This has been going on for years and years and years. You have to keep in mind that most of our national newspapers were bought by fanatic anti-European campaigners like Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch. The leadership of the Conservative Party was always frightened of them. After this dreadful decision to hold a referendum, David Cameron didn't campaign around the benefits of being in the EU. It would have annoyed the euroskeptics in our party and in the press. He didn't want to upset them. Instead, he told people that they would be poorer after Brexit, that house prices would fall. It was project fear -- and it didn't work out.

DER SPIEGEL: Cameron wanted to marginalize the hardline euroskeptics in the Tory party, but instead they are gaining ever more influence.

Clarke: They have formed a party within the party. They have their own leader, they have their own whip. I would love to see them leaving the party. It would help. And it would stop Theresa May in giving too high a priority to trying to keep these ultrafanatics on side.

DER SPIEGEL: The irreconcilability in the political system seems to be mirrored in British society. What is happening to your country?

Clarke: It's a very nasty climate out there. People are retreating into angry simplicities. Half the population is angry about politicians not getting on with it, they're not following the detail, they haven't a clue what the Irish backstop is, and they couldn't care less. They just want it to be over. The other half does follow quite fairly, intensely, more than usual. They are divided in angry remainers who are ever more ferociously for remaining and angry leavers who ever more ferociously feel they are being betrayed.

Read more:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-kenneth-clarke...

Read from top.

I repeat:

The only way the EU could accept the UK back in the fold should be with two major added conditions: 

a) give up the Pound and become a full Euro country.

b) give up the (US controlled) five eyes spy network (with verified execution).

Only then the black-sheep-UK or the UK-prodigal-daughter can rejoin the EU family...

See also:

the WW1 conspiracy...