Bluff or fact

As the 29th March looms ever closer, the political infighting in Britain has increased to fever pitch. So too has the scare mongering aimed at stopping BREXIT, delaying it or forcing MPs to back Teresa May's deal.

Many of today's papers are running stories telling us that Whitehall officials say they could introduce martial law to stop “civil disobedience”, amid the fears over a no-deal Brexit.

Government staff are looking at introducing legislation under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 which would allow ministers to impose curfews, travel bans, confiscate property and deploy the armed forces to stop rioting.

This leaked threat might seem to strengthens the case for at the least postponing BREXIT but that may not be its intention. More sceptical souls see it as May's way of trying to force the hands of those who voted against her deal to think again on Tuesday.

Let's face it, May has steadfastly ruled out a second referendum, stopping a "no deal" BREXIT or a delay to allow time for a renegotiation. As far as she is concerned, Britain leaves the EU on the 29th March either with or without a deal full stop. The choice is either accepting what many regard as a bad deal or potential chaos. Besides the threat of martial law, there is concern about the supply of medicines, queues of lorries waiting for custom checks and even a shortage of food. It really is Hobson's choice. 

If I had been allowed to vote, I would have put my cross by remain and I would have been on the losing side. Even though I still believe that Britain would be better staying in Europe, I accept that the "will of the people" was to leave, hopefully in an orderly way.

Sadly, it doesn't look as though there will be anything orderly about Britain's exit from Europe. Whichever route is taken, there will be acrimony that will divide the country for a long, long time to come. David Cameron, what were you thinking of.