Hallow's Eve.

Hallow's Eve. Hello.

We're still waiting to see where the Brexit Party will stand candidates. How many and where they stand should be interesting. It's Labour dominating the airwaves at the moment though. To be fair Corbyn is a great campaigner and as barmy as I think their policies are I feel they'll do okay. I keep seeing a lot of normal-type people sharing pro-Corbyn stuff on social media. I remember back in 2017 seeing lots of people getting on board with Corbyn online. I wasn't really surprised when they did well. Again, I've said this before on here. I think Blairite Labourism was always on the wane and that Corbyn was a shot in the arm electorally. Also the message, though incoherent is appealing to many people. The whole redistribution line. Lots of people just intuitively like it.

Hopefully they'll get wiped out across the country, but they shouldn't be underestimated.

On a lighter note I tried to make my Dominic Cummings pumpkin image a little more horrific and Halloween looking. I think this is the best it's going to get.

Dominic Pumpkins

I attempted to do a Halloween image of Dominic Cummings ..didn't quite work out 😄

(..who remembers this slasher movie

from the 70's. - Night of the Living SpAd)

Mildly disturbing rather than terrifying.

It does give me something to post today though as there isn't too much to talk about. Everyone seems to still be in the huddle re strategies.

I'm not as smart as Dominic Cummings

My cynicism was firmly misplaced. I very much doubted that this parliament would vote for an election, but it seems we've now got one nailed on for December. Cummings has delivered a whopping poll lead for Boris and now has brought to pass the wanted general election. Very impressive stuff!

(Think I might try to knock up a Halloween image in his honour - his head is very pumpkin shaped).

The election is now another Rubik's Cube to crack, what with all the potentially vote splitting candidates standing. The big thing is now to see how the Brexit Party position themselves. I really hope common sense prevails and the Brexit Party and the Conservatives mutually reinforce each other instead of going head to head.

My constituency of Middlesbrough..

My biggest problem now is deciding how I will vote. I thought it would be a simple choice between Labour and the Brexit Party. With BP getting my X in the box. However, we now have an independent candidate on the block. One Antony High. The mayor's deputy.

(Antony High for Independent)

Normally it would be easy to dismiss an independent candidate. However, this seems very much different. The current mayor is very popular in the area. Has a very strong presence on social media locally, and absolutely smashed the vote in the mayoral elections in May.

The position of mayor was previously held by Labour, but this time round they got obliterated.

The Labour candidate pulled in only 6,692 votes. The newly elected Andy Preston an enormous 17,418. So quite a landslide.

(The full results

..might have to click to enlarge that image)

I'm imagining the campaign to get Antony High elected will be equally well ran, and no doubt he'll have the open support of the mayor himself.

So the big question; where does he stand on Brexit?

On Facebook he stated;

*BREXIT matters - and so should the referendum Vote! Let me clearly set my stance on the nations biggest political issue - Middlesbrough and the UK voted to leave!

So he seems to respect the outcome of the vote and accept the general direction of travel. How brexity he is though is difficult to ascertain. The mayor campaigned to remain in the EU in 2016, but since then has took a neutral stance and generally focuses on local issues.

Obviously the danger of having two candidates two choose from means there's a real danger the vote will be split. Consequently I may end up just having to go with the flow of the town. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. No doubt things will move pretty quickly now.

Labour Go GE

Well, shows how much I know. Wake up this morning to find that Labour are indeed backing a December election.

(Labour to back early GE, BBC)

Exciting times! ..maybe

People's Vote, Just £2.99.

I'm typing just as we're waiting for the vote in parliament on Boris's election plan.

 ..here we go;

..Boris loses. Just 299 for.

My feeling is that parliament is now pivoting towards a 2nd referendum. Earlier Jo Swinson stood up in the house and put forth her case for a December 9th election. She batted away any idea of a "People's Vote", stating there were not the numbers in the house for it. I can't imagine they've given up that easily though.

The fact that the Conservatives, SNP and Liberal Democrats are all on an election footing with a clear position on Brexit means that the pressure is well and truly on Labour. I expect that Labour politicians will be forced to choose between an election and a referendum. Given how ill situated they are for an election they'll perhaps go with the latter.

Everyone Wants An Election Now (!)

Well, I watched Marr. Blunt was on. He seemed like a decent bloke. Anyway, today we have news that the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have hatched a plan to have a general election on the 9th of December. Three days earlier than the Boris proposal.

Again, we see this flipping of the narrative. With Jo Swinson (and to an extent Marr himself when he interviewed James Cleverly) accusing the Conservatives of now running from an election. Just crazy to watch.

It's hard to say what will happen now. No doubt this newly proposed GE plan is just an attempt to take control of the agenda and play for ever more time. Perhaps they've calculated that Boris will never agree to their proposals, which will then give them leverage. As per the narrative above;

"..but we offered Boris a chance to have an election and he refused to take it!" *shocked face*

We'll then get a constant blame game where all the parties are accusing each other of blocking an election. Meaning every politician will then have an excuse for why we're not having one.

Perhaps I'm doing them a disservice though. Maybe they see that an election is now inevitable and that they'll have to face the public sooner or later. So are getting on the front foot and making sure things are set in place on their terms.

However, it's hard to imagine they've dropped their preference for a referendum and are now willing to give Boris the election he wants.

Should be an interesting week whatever happens though :)

Brexitland, Calm Before The Storm, Or Not

A quiet day in Brexitland, I think, unless I've missed something. Main talk seems to be about the possibility that Macron will veto an extension. That won't happen. Would be great if it did, but I can't really see it. Monday should be interesting. No doubt we might get some hints of what will happen tomorrow when politicians do the rounds on Marr. I'm expecting drama - not on the Marr Show, I think James Blunt is on actually lol. On Monday. If we get Brexit or an election next week I'll be amazed. My expectation is ever more delay.

Local Politics

I think I may start discussing local politics on here a little bit. Personally I'm not expecting an election anytime soon, but the general consensus seems to be that there's one very near on the horizon. If that's the case then local politics suddenly becomes quite interesting. As in my particular area it seems to be shaping up to be a little bit of a conundrum. I was thinking it was just going to be a simple choice between The Brexit Party and Labour. However, that may not quite be the case. So it could be puzzling.

Normally I don't really discuss local politics on here as a) it's a little dull, and b) it's a little close. And by that I mean that things are always more personal when you're in a small goldfish bowl.

With national politics I feel like a little mouse running around at the feet of giants. Unnoticed. Able to express my opinions for the most part knowing that whatever I say won't have too much impact. For instance, the little mock up image of Jeremy Corbyn from the last post.

(...this one)

You could say it's a little bit mean and unfair satirising people like this. However, none of the people depicted will probably ever see this image. They all earn a lot more money than I do. I'll probably never have to bump into them in the street ..and they want to run the actual country, so the huge amount of power they want means they have to accept a huge amount of criticism. Even if it's just in the form of silly images like this.

When it comes to local politics though it's on quite a different scale. The people involved are much less powerful, much less well known, and earn much less money. They're often just completely regular people. In contrast they also receive much less media attention. So even a tiny blog like this may have a much larger voice relative to the topic it's commenting upon.

I'd feel a little bad making an image like the one above if the focus was some local person standing for election and trying to make a difference. That much effort to be critical simply wouldn't be justified. Not even if their political views were completely off the scale, or out of whack with my own.

Plus I may bump into them in the street (!)

So blogging about local politics is a bit like taking a hammer to crack a nut. It's a bit unfair passing judgement on people and effectively doing a paparazzi job on them. Especially when it's so easy to offer criticism when you're sat behind a laptop screen.

So if I do start posting about the local aspects of any upcoming election I'll need to try extra hard to be extra nice and sympathetic. Also from what I've seen of local politics as an observer in the past it seems like it can be very petty. At the last round of local elections back in May that especially seemed to be the case. I could've easily blogged about all that drama, but it's probably sensible to stay well away and observe the battlefield from a safe distance.

The Limbo ..how low will Labour go

The Labour Party have stooped to a new record low in the political limbo. That's limbo as in the game where you dance under a pole, not "political limbo" - which is where they could well and truly be heading if we ever do have a general election.

It looks like they're going to vote against yet another one.

(..look at John McDonnell there on the end)

I don't want to type too much as I'm too busy following all the drama and catching up. I'm actually sat watching Question Time on the BBC as we speak. It's only just started and the first person to speak is a Labour politician whose first point was that winter isn't an ideal time to have an election because the weather's bad. lmao

Bizarro World Politics

I've been reading today about the apparent divisions in No. 10. This article was a good read;

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

It seemed to confirm what I thought regarding Cummings trying to bounce Corbyn into an election, and failing to anticipate that he would block one.

So it's nice to know I've been reading some things correctly. Assuming it really is that simple that is, and that it all wasn't part of some bigger strategy.

It's always been my opinion that the Remainers will cling tightly to their parliamentary majority and not risk it with an election - it's their one remaining pillar. That's if we exclude the judiciary xD. We just have to wait to see if I'm right in thinking that the SNP will block an election now. I saw an SNP politician speaking earlier today which only strengthened my belief that they'll strive to avoid one.

According to the above article the other group (the not-Cummings group) around Boris are now not too keen on an election. Due to fears over losing Brexit altogether, preferring to keep trying to push the deal through. It's a tough decision to be fair. Personally, I'd probably be siding with Cummings (if it's even possible to reach an election) as there's also the risk of losing Brexit by allowing this parliament to keep going. They'll push for a customs union and referendum, or even a full revoke.

People say "they wouldn't dare to revoke", but it depends how you frame it. If it's "we'll revoke it, we don't want to but there simply isn't a way forward at the moment, people can decide at a general election" then they might just push it like that. They have a tendency to flip every argument anyway. They'd probably say "well, it was Brexiteers that said parties should put their views to a general election ..now they don't want to do that as they know they'll lose".

England.

In fact, for the last few weeks and months we've had the remain side saying "look, Brexiteers want to break up the union". So again we see this backwards bizarro world where those trying to conserve British sovereignty are constantly being accused of undermining it. Brexiteers shouldn't allow this to happen and should be using every time this argument pops up as an opportunity to point out, in regard Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, that Britain is actually giving powers back to its constituent parts, whereas the EU is taking them away.

Britain is building a modern and flexible union of free nations. The EU is moving backwards, creating a big cumbersome, sovereignty-devouring blob on the map.

This is a huge feather in Britain's cap. We shouldn't be on the back foot when discussing these things. I appreciate it is very difficult though when everything gets the bizarro treatment from the mainstream media.

It's another thing I ultimately view as win-win however, as if Britain does break up then England will rise from the ashes like a phoenix. (Very needlessly dramatic, but I couldn't resist).

Disdain of Britain is usually just disdain for England, stemming from the semi-false belief that England has conquered and suppressed the rest of the British Isles. So that in effect Britain is England viewed through that lens. Conversely though, the reality is if you destroy Britain you just get more England. Perhaps it is England that is shackled?

Ireland.

Also, and this is maybe for a different post, the way the current Boris deal is set up for Northern Ireland is quite interesting. Though admittedly I don't fully understand it or the situation. It looks very flexible to me, and I can see why the DUP are fearful that it provides a potential path towards reunification. I think it does, as if life in the EU is looking rosy then the temptation will be to throw the lot in with the rest of Ireland.

However, the beauty with keeping that border open and flexing to the Irish Sea is that it potentially helps to provide an escape root for the Republic of Ireland too if the EU goes badly. A unified Ireland that leaves the EU and uses the pound would look very attractive to me if I were Irish. Best of all worlds potentially. Probably piss a lot of people off on both sides too though to be fair. Nevertheless the flexibility, and the inevitable back and forth arising from such a situation may allow for a truly new solution like this to emerge.

Guessing Games.

So yesterday I was a little bit pensive and unsure what to post. Today it's a little similar, only it's compounded by the fact that I've just cut my finger whilst making something to eat 😄 So I'm struggling to type with one hand at the moment.

Anyhow, today I've followed a lot of the action and it's been busy. The Labour Party have looked very much on the back foot all day. I'm starting to see the cracks. They're getting very jaded by the process it seems. From following things on Twitter I feel that the Dominic Cummings stratagems are working quite well. Playing a bad hand quite expertly. Though again, as with yesterday I'm so disinclined to trust the various players in this game that I find myself wondering if everything I see is sincere.

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill passed with fairly impressive numbers, relatively speaking. However, the 'timetable' for getting it through the house was voted down. It's difficult to tell how many voted for the bill tactically, knowing they could simply block the timetable. I would suspect that many are playing this chess game (lots of game metaphors today) so though the bill passing was impressive I would suspect that the numbers are still heavily against Boris.

The government have now chosen to pause the legislation. Which, I think means we now wait to see what sort of extension the EU offer. To me any speculation about this is pointless as the EU will always offer extension on top of extension.

All talk now seems to be about an election. I still don't see us getting there anytime soon though, as an election would also need to be voted on by the house, and it doesn't serve remainer interests to have one. There seems to be an assumption that the SNP will vote for one, which may be true, but I can imagine again that they'll do what's strategically necessary to block Brexit. Listening to Ian Blackford in particular (SNP leader in the House of Commons) I think he would literally say up is down and black is white if it was politically expedient. So saying they want an election and actually voting for one are two different things. Even more so with the Liberal Democrats and Labour.

Hopefully my instinct is wrong and some kind of Brexit finds a route through, but I lack optimism.

Also, it's looking like any sort of leave on October 31st is now completely dead and buried. So that means Boris hasn't "died in a ditch" and continues on, inside the EU, beyond that date. That means now the knives are even more out for Boris from people on the hard Brexit side, as there's the feeling that he hasn't delivered and could've stood firmer.

From what I'm reading some people seem to think that there were mechanisms for forcing through a "no deal" but that No. 10 lacked the "political will". Personally I can't really see how they could deliver that in a fully lawful way given the situation in parliament. So I'm happy to place the blame elsewhere. Others aren't so forgiving though, and sadly I'm not really in a position to know with any certainty if they have a point or not. The arcana of law and parliamentary proceedings being beyond me.

Farage and the Brexit Party

Over the last few days Farage has been quite strongly against this Boris deal. As have other hard Brexiteers. Now another deadline has been crossed that chasm seems to be getting bigger. The dream team going into any election is Farage/Brexit Party and Cummings/Boris/Conservatives. If both groups are taking a different position who do you support? Who are the real Brexiteers?

Are both groups genuine with genuine convictions - just slightly different viewpoints and strategies. Or can one group (or both) actually not be trusted. Are the Tories simply interested in winning power and maintaining the establishment status quo? On the other hand are Farage and the Brexit Party just being unrealistic and overly idealistic about Brexit? Or are they self-interested and insincere themselves? [Sorry for being so cynical, it's nothing personal if you're in either camp, but you get so accustomed to seeing insincerity that blind trust feels massively foolish. So I have to ask.]

It's so much easier, and nicer, when you can just take everything at face value.

Also of course, and I'll make this the final point, it's not simply about trust, it's also about bottle to some extent. It's very easy to say you'll take the country out on "no deal", but when you're in that position it's not so easy to be as brash and confident. So, even if Boris could've pushed more for a "no deal" would it be an indication of dishonesty if he didn't. Or would it just be an indication of cold feet and caution?

We need a Trump type leader really to do this, but with our system I think even he would need a majority in parliament to make strong, decisive executive decisions.

..turning cogs

Hmm.. there's a lot I could write about re Brexit, but I don't quite know where to start or what to focus on. So I think it's probably best to keep it short and come back tomorrow with some fresh thoughts.

There are so many cogs. It's like looking at the inside of a watch and trying to figure out what's turning what. Who's turning who perhaps. At least with mechanics you're safe in the knowledge that it can be worked out if you're patient and apply yourself. With politics though you have to surmise the intentions of people as well as their actions. Even if you could assume everyone was acting sincerely it would be difficult, once you start trying to factor in the doubt it becomes impossible.

That all sounds very conspiratorial doesn't it :) Though I guess that gets to the heart of why I don't quite know what to write or where to start. The realisation that I can't really know what's happening, therefore it's foolish to try to give a commentary.

No doubt I'll re-find my arrogance tomorrow and give it a damn good go though 😈

A B C D E or F A

I'm sat here listening to Farage on LBC. His overriding complaint seems to be that the Boris deal is another awful treaty that we shouldn't sign up to. I have sympathy for his position, but I really feel we have to start doing things the way the EU do things if we're going to get anywhere.

When the EU propose a new treaty requesting more powers they'll ask for A, B and C. If there's push back and they can't get B or C they say "oh well, we'll have another treaty in five years time and come back for B and C then". Asking for D and E in the process. Slowly but surely accruing powers over time.

(In fact, as I'm listening a caller has just phoned in making the same point I'm making here more or less - calling this Boris deal a "half-Brexit" and a stepping stone towards more Brexit in the future.)

We need to now get what circumstances dictate we can get. Then come back for more later.

Super Saturday, Strange Situation

A very odd day today. Sadly it was another where I couldn't follow everything as much as I'd have liked. I saw a few hours of parliament earlier today, then spent an hour or so catching up just now.

We've had Brexit blocking shenanigans courtesy of the Letwin amendment. Meaning no actual vote on the deal today. Then in the last few hours Boris has sent the letter to the EU requesting an extension. Only, he hasn't signed it, and has sent another explaining the situation and why he believes an extension would be a disaster - which he did sign. The old double letter work around.

The is what I find mildly unsettling. Obviously I'm fully behind Boris in spirit, but I really can't see how he wins the inevitable court case. They will simply say his actions go against the spirit and intention of the Benn Act. Perhaps there is some way around this which I'm missing. Perhaps there is some big master plan. I don't know.

Again, there have been so many tricks from the remain side that I'm fully on board with Boris from a moral stand point, but the courts have not been a friend of Brexit. So they're not just going to let him semi-ignore the act. It's like if you close your front door on someone and tell them they can't come in. They can't just come in through the window and say "ah, you didn't say anything about not going through the window." It doesn't work like that. We all know what was meant. It's clear and obvious from the context regardless of the specific wording.

Also this will give Remainers a heightened sense of righteousness and another "moral" cause to rally around. Perhaps this is the Dominic Cummings plan. Certainly the next time parliament sits (thank God they're not sitting on Sundays now too) then we'll have a stream of speeches and outrage over the "law breaking". It could be insufferable.

It's hard to tell what the courts will do as well. What judgement or punishment will they dish out, if any? What can they do? Remainers are already talking about jail (!) That sounds ridiculous, but it sets the bar high in the public mind - so anything less might seem more reasonable.

And what will the EU do now? They have the letter so presumably they have the option. I bet they just wait for the court case, then when it judges against Boris, use that as legitimacy to give an extension. That's of course if we get a judgement before the 31st. Which I really have no idea how likely that is or what the timetable will be.

My overriding worry is that we reach a point where officers of the law are in some situation where they're forced to choose between following the courts or following the government. Not necessarily over this specific issue, but perhaps further down the line. Surely it can't come to that though. In this case I would imagine that Team Boris, as with the last court case, will just respect the judgement of the court and move on ..but that sets a precedent where parliament can turn the PM into a marionette without actually taking charge themselves. It's crazy.

Also this is the second time now the moral high ground has been conceded. So it's possibly eating into the Brexit narrative in a way that's counterproductive. The charge from remain was always that leave won unlawfully. Now we'll potentially be reinforcing that narrative. Then again what else can Boris really do. The only real other option is to limp along getting pushed around by a parliament that refuses the opportunity to form a government itself. I fear we will now be in a situation where we have rule by a coalition of remain parliament and court judgements. Where they can pass any law through parliament and use the courts to force it through regardless who the leader is.

It's late and it's been a long day though. So perhaps I'm needlessly overthinking.

Vote Jesus, Get Buddha

I didn't send a nicely worded email asking my MP to vote for the deal. Having looked at what the Labour front bench seem to be saying it would be pretty pointless. Even if it was read. Though perhaps I may change my mind later on. Maybe thousands of constituents are currently doing the same thing. So who knows, perhaps the sheer weight of appeal could make a slight difference.

Looking at the overall big picture though I'm actually not too worried whatever happens. I think these are the potential scenarios.

• The vote gets passed
• The vote doesn't pass and we head on to a "no deal" leave (though I still don't see how they get round the Benn Act)
• We somehow end up going to a general election
• We have a second referendum - either tagged onto this deal or reached by some other route

Now I'm being brave here as no doubt there'll be all manner of drama and shenanigans tomorrow and over the next two weeks. So any sort of predictions are potentially foolish. However, going through these options I think eventually all lead to some kind of leave.

• The vote gets passed

We leave.

• The vote doesn't pass and we head on to a "no deal" leave

We leave.

• We somehow end up going to a general election

Providing the Brexit Party don't go full kamikaze and attack the Tory vote then we should see a leave majority. Giving a mandate for an even harder leave and removing many of the Remainers in parliament.

• We have a second referendum

This is the least attractive option. As I've mentioned before my main opposition to this is that it would be a form of national humiliation. It's like being asked a question by a school bully - you give the wrong answer and they grab you by the scruff of the neck and say "I'll ask you again". However, given the British psyche I think it's highly likely that we'd give the same answer whatever the circumstances. Even if on paper it's 'Remain versus a soft Brexit'.

The biggest danger with this would be the Brexit Party and other hard Brexiteers going down the principled route of boycotting the entire thing. In fact, I think if we end up in this situation there'll be a lot of propaganda covertly from the remain side pushing leavers towards that position. After all, it makes perfect sense to split and weaken the opposition vote.

I can understand why people like Nigel Farage are currently saying they would boycott any referendum without a full, clean break leave on the ballot paper. It's a good strategy to help us avoid that prospect. It would be stupid to agree to such a vote. That would give the idea legitimacy in many people's eyes. However, if that situation is thrust upon us it's important to accept the situation and just get on with things. It's very rare that you get to vote for the perfect option. Nearly all elections are about voting for the least worst option. Sadly we don't get to vote for Jesus or Buddha at elections, or some other perfect being or perfectly right outcome. We have to vote for the path, not the destination.

Again, if the leave side doesn't boycott I think we win that as well.

We'll see what happens tomorrow now.

Boris Houdini Deal

Well, busy day! Boris has brought back a deal!

I've been out most of the day so I've had to spend the last hour or so catching up. Yesterday I spoke of instincts. My instinct so far is that this is a very decent deal. I'm calling it the Houdini Deal. Getting significant changes to the May Deal with his hands tied behind his back by the removal (or seeming removal) of "no deal" by parliament is quite a feat.

I'm in quite a good mood about it all. I'm currently sat with Jools Holland on - some good artists, most I've never heard of. I'm tempted to rewind it and listen again, but I guess I'm going to have to tune in to Question Time next. Hopefully it won't infuriate me like it usually does. Either way though good times.

Boris now just has to get the deal through this parliament. Which I can't really see happening to be honest, but having seen an actual deal with actual changes I'm now feeling optimistic, even if my head says otherwise. I may even write a nicely worded email tomorrow to my remainer-Labour MP asking him to back it. Though I don't expect it would make much difference, even if it was read. Seems like the least I can do though given that Boris seems to have delivered.

Brexit, Where Are We?

The short answer is; I don't know lol. I think in someways my judgement on the Brexit process was much better when I was taking a broad view and judging things purely on instinct. At the moment I'm following too many opinions and taking in too much detail. At least that's my feeling at the moment anyway. I think there's definitely an art to getting a good picture of a situation.

There are so many variables at the moment, and that's just taking things on face value. Will Boris agree a deal? Will the EU agree to a deal? Will the Brexiteers in parliament agree to a deal? Will any of the many Remainers agree to something?

You really are just second guessing people when you look at things like that. Even if you go through every single person in the process and try to calculate the likelihoods there are just too many things to consider. This is why good political instincts can often be superior to any information based analysis.

Instinct - what is it?

People tend to think of "instinct" as something without any basis in fact. A kind of "magical-thinking" or emotional tendency. Like some kind of gamblers luck that only ever exists as an accident, and that people believing it and "trusting their instincts" are foolishly acting on impulse. Conning themselves into believing that what they want to do is also the right thing to do, leading them to abandon sense, logic and reason.

However, I believe that "instinct" is a type of intelligence. An intelligence markedly different to the standard "thinking" process. That processes information in an altogether different way. I'll explain how I think it works below.

..using an example, as ever. Imagine...

(CafeCOol)

Imagine there's a cafe that you regularly go to. Let's say you go there with a friend every Wednesday morning. Now if you go there regularly after a while you'll begin to get a sense of what it's like in there. There may be other customers that go there often that you get used to seeing. You'll maybe get a sense of what the food's like, how the coffee tastes. How busy it usually is on a Wednesday morning. How quick the service is. If they normally have the heating on too high, or not enough. All these little things you'll get a sense of. You don't even have to consciously think about any of this. It just naturally happens. You just get used to that environment through the experience.

Now let's say you go there one Wednesday and there are two people sat in the cafe having a coffee, but unbeknownst to you they're just acting. Pretending to be regular customers. Perhaps they're part of some undercover TV show. Perhaps they're planning on mugging customers after they've left the shop. Maybe they're working for MI5 and are there to spy on you and your friend O_o

Either way they're not regular customers and you have no knowledge that that's the case.

Now when you first walk in you may get a feeling that "something's not right in here". There's no obvious indication that things aren't right. Nothing big you can point out, but it's a sense. A feeling. Perhaps you mention this feeling to your friend, but they reply curtly with a "don't be silly", like you're claiming to be having some psychic premonition. Something impossible from a rationalist standpoint and therefore something completely ridiculous that should be dismissed and ignored.

Well, I would proffer that that feeling, far from being something "magical" or "otherworldly", is in fact something based on the way your body and senses are processing information.

When you normally enter the cafe you're met with a constant stream of information. Visual information, audio information. Information in the form of taste and smell, temperature information. Every time you go in this happens, and though the information's always different you never the less get a feel for all the similar information. Again, as before, you get a sense of what it's "normally" like in there. How busy it normally is on a Wednesday morning. How quick the service is. How friendly the staff are, and so on and so forth.

However, this time when you go in and your senses get this stream of information it's perhaps more different than normal. It may just be little things. Perhaps the seating arrangement is slightly different. Perhaps the staff seem a bit more bubbly than normal. The two "actors", sat pretending to be customers. Maybe there are slight aspects of their behaviour that don't seem quite normal. Maybe tiny things - like how they're holding their coffee cup. Or other slight things like minor aspects of their clothing or hairstyle. Things that don't quite fit with the normal cafe clientele. Things you might not notice consciously, but that you pick up as part of that overall stream of information - little things that make up part of the overall informational picture. A picture that this day doesn't look quite right.

"Something looks different, have you had your hair done or something??"

All this information may just be nothing. It may just be that things are a little more different than normal. However, it may be that something is going on and there is something to be concerned about. Either way it's worth bearing in mind this instinctive feeling, and it's not irrational nor "trippy" to do so. It's a form of information processing. Just one you're not necessarily consciously aware of or thinking about.

Your body is processing all this information and giving you an overall sense of the situation - far faster than your brain could ever process this information through any sort of logical induction. In fact all this sensory information is so constant and numerous that it would be impossible for you to process it this way even if you consciously tried.

So in a way this "instinct" is a form of intelligence. A form of information processing that works differently to, and in tandem with, our conscious rationale. Our body processes this information in real time as it comes to us through our senses, resulting in a general feeling.

Of course, it must be stated that your feeling that something was up wouldn't prove that something was up, or that the two odd customers were indeed actors. Your instinct could be wrong. Or alternately your instinct could be right, but you may have misread it or misattributed it. For example, you may be right that things are different in the cafe, but that could be for other reasons. Perhaps the heating has broke. Or perhaps they've had a delivery on Wednesday when normally they get it on a Thursday and things are different because of that.

Still, your instinct is a useful thing to be mindful of, and something that can be very valuable when it comes to decision making ..provided you always bear in mind that it may be wrong and that it can be misread. Instinct can never provide proof, it can only give a probability. However, by marrying instinct with sequential evidenced-based reasoning (i.e. a logical chain of thought built on first principles or primary evidence) you end up with two forms of intelligence that enhance each other - rather than dismissing the one for the other.

Often people tend to lean towards just one. Some people tend be more instinctive - not really being inclined to think things through. Whereas other people tend to be more logical and rational - however those people also tend to be the people that dismiss instinct and gut reaction as hocus pocus or senseless emotion. It may partly be a biological thing, with everyone naturally falling somewhere on a spectrum between the two types. Perhaps this is why women tend to be seen as more instinctive - women's intuition - and men more "rational" and "less emotional" in their decision making.

I think it's best to try to hone the two as they both compliment each other well.

Returning to the cafe example. If you entered and got the feeling "something ain't right here" then it's best to bear that feeling in mind, but to then also look for further clear evidence that you can make a rational conclusion from. So if you find no further evidence to back up your "feeling" then it's probably sensible to recognise that your feeling was wrong or misguided. Or that perhaps you were being needlessly emotional.

However, let's say in your heightened state of awareness you notice a cameraman across the street filming through the cafe window then your instincts were probably good, and "yes, something unusual probably is going on here". Your friend ignoring his instincts (and yours), or simply having instincts dulled through lack of use, may have never noticed this cameraman because he was unable to pick up the smaller subconscious clues.

Finally, back to Breixt..

Finally, returning to Brexit (I'm sorry, this was a little long wasn't it!) I think instinct is useful when getting an overall sense of things. There's so much information, and it's coming at you in such a constant flow that it's impossible to simply process it all as a calculation. Plus of course, politics is real life too, so all everyday information flows into it as well.

This also plays into themes I've touched upon before. Such as how the "educated" and "informed" folk often decry the less articulate and less knowledgeable people. For example, many "normal" people will often struggle to give detailed information about how the EU works. However, they nevertheless have a very good "instinctive" knowledge of it. They live in this flow of information - literally living with and under the EU and Westminster - and consequently have a very good sense of what's going on and how it's impacting on their lives.

Whereas people bogged down in the detail, or focusing on one particular aspect (or on the political soap opera), will miss the larger picture. Though again, a balanced approach is no doubt best.

The country, perhaps instinctively, decided to leave. Maybe this overall instinct is a better judge of the situation than any reasoned argument a single person can structure and put forth.

In fact, one of the good things about democracy is that you get an easy way to gauge this "wisdom of the crowd". Though I'm getting onto a slightly different topic here (it's getting longer isn't it !). It's similar to individual instinct, though in this case the organism is an entire country. For instance, if 60% of people say healthcare isn't working, but your view or experience is that it is working you could be right and the 60% could be wrong. A general feeling. Be it the feeling of a person, or of a whole country can potentially be wrong of course. However, it's still useful to bear in mind what the collective view is. It's another clue or tool in your tool belt and it would be foolish to simply ignore it.

And I'll leave it there.

Always posting, always raining.

I've been posting daily since May now. That's really flew by. I would've been a little bit surprised back in May if someone had told me I'd still be posting daily now - normally I get bored pretty quickly and these sort of things fizzle out. However, this has been surprisingly easy (apart from the occasional days when I nearly forget). It's quite a good little exercise and I'm now wondering why I didn't start doing it much earlier.

Also, on a minor note, I saw it mentioned in a newspaper article that there were fewer Extinction Rebellion protesters out yesterday because of the weather. I got soaked when I was out and about in it - we're heavily into autumn now. I was saying a few weeks back that the weather always plays a huge and unappreciated factor in these things. It means I can take a perverse kind of pleasure whenever it rains knowing that it'll dampen all the crazy protests.

Queen's Speech..

I'll keep it short today. So little to say. I watched the Queen's Speech earlier. The pageantry was interesting. Only spoilt by the endless negativity from the press and opposition politicians. Constantly pointing out that all Boris's plans are just empty gestures and electioneering that he has no way of enacting. However, it's because of them, or least the opposition politicians anyway, that he can't enact anything ..and they refuse to call an election. So it just all sounds absurd.

Voter ID - Both Sides of the Argument

So the government are planning to bring in legislation to require voters to show ID when they cast their vote. This is something I have a bit of a unique perspective on. As I support this idea (I think voter fraud is a serious, serious concern), but this legislation could affect me as I own neither a passport, nor a driving license. I saw someone on Twitter state that 11 million people fall into this category. I'm not sure how accurate that number is, but I can imagine that it's not too far off the mark.

(Voter ID - Google search)

I have no driving license as I failed my driving test twice, ..and it'll be a long time before I attempt that again. (I don't think I'm quite cut out for driving. Little real interest in cars plus a nervous disposition isn't a great combination.) I don't have a passport as my beliefs about climate change mean I've completely boycotted all flying. Just kidding. It's because I have an incredibly dull life and no money to spice it up.

So unless I get a passport sorted out sometime before the next general election (probably a decent stretch of time to be fair with this parliament) then I may have a problem casting my vote. Which will not be good.

Now people often bend their beliefs to suit their own personal circumstances, and it's tempting to do that. However, I won't be doing that, and I'm sticking with my support for this. Voting is incredibly important and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some kind of ID. This means I'll probably bite the bullet and fork out for a passport at some point in the not too distant future.

Work and whinge..

It does give me a little opportunity to have a bit of a whinge though. The ID issue is one that's been a bit of a bugbear of mine for a while. Not just in regards voting.

For example, when getting a job. Having the correct ID can be a huge hurdle for people when they're trying to get into work. I think the government should be making it much easier for people to get ID. It's so necessary for so many things. We waste so much money on all manner of silly schemes trying to help people into work. Massive waste (maybe one for another post). Yet something as simple as not having ID can block someone from finding employment. Why not have some kind of scheme helping people to do this?

It's similar with references in regards work. It's easy if you're successful and in work, but if you're unsuccessful getting people to vouch for your existence can be surprisingly difficult.

Of course, it's similar when applying for a passport. When I eventually get round to doing that I'll need to find someone who can "confirm my identity", and of course this has to be someone from a "recognised profession". Sadly with my limited social circle of mainly working class people I don't know too many barristers, civil servants or police officers. Hopefully, I'll be able to find someone fitting the description somewhere on the peripheries of my social group, but it could be a problem for me.

On top of this you're essentially asking a favour of someone too. Getting them to take time out of their busy day to send an email or do something like that on your behalf. "Have you signed my passport photo yet??", "Sorry to go on, but could you send that email for me please?" You feel a bit rude. Especially if it's someone you're not close to or only know vaguely ..and annoyingly close friends and family members are strictly off limits when it comes to getting references.

It's even worse with references for jobs. It's not so bad if you apply for a job once in a blue moon, but if you're unemployed and applying for jobs every week then you feel like you're taking a huge liberty with people by giving their name, address and phone number to an endless string of people and companies. Finding people willing to put up with that is obviously quite hard. Again, looking at ways to help people with things like this would be a huge and very practical way of helping people into work.

Saying "I have no references" obviously doesn't look great, and sometimes online applications require references simply for you to complete the form.

I remember a long time ago being unemployed and applying for a job at what was then the Royal Mail. I needed a "professional" to sign a photo for me to prove my identity, and was struggling to find someone fitting that description. I went to the job centre and asked for help only to be told that no one there could sign it and that it wasn't their problem. These were the same people that were pressing me every week on what I was doing to look for work and so forth, ..and handing me government money every fortnight too! Again though, it wasn't their fault really, more a systemic issue, and of course a product of my own failings to some extent.

Windrush..

We saw a similar problem with the Windrush generation issue. Again, that was a problem with ID. A problem of people, often poorer people, simply not being able to prove their identity. Or rather in this case prove their right to be in the UK. Again, if there was some easily accessible scheme open to everyone to help people with proving things like this then we could avoid such problems. After all governments and other bodies have so much information on people we should be able to easily cross reference other information if a single document or piece of paperwork goes missing somewhere along the line. The government certainly aren't as demanding about ID when they want something from us that's for sure. So it's a bit unfair on people if they've paid tax all their life to suddenly be told they "don't exist" because they lack a specific proof.

So I guess my overall position would be that I believe people should be required to show ID to vote, but that I'd also like the government to do much more to make it easy and simple for people to get that ID if they introduce such a scheme.

Surf The Algorithms

I'm sat listening to Mountain At My Gates by Foals. In between a bit of Tame Impala. YouTube mix. One of the few places on YouTube and elsewhere where the algorithms haven't been hijacked and perverted by politics and censorship. At least I think and hope anyway. Music's certainly the only thing left on YouTube where I can put a degree of faith in the next video autoplay.

Is this a music blog now? Perhaps I would surf the algorithms better if it was.

On the politics front it's mainly been Brexit and Extinction Rebellion. It is all globalism isn't it. Both things. That's what it's all about. Brexit - sign up to one-world-ism and further centralisation, or leave. Extinction Rebellion - likewise a push to harmonise all the countries of the world, and get 'global' regulation for 'global' problems.

Obviously both sides of the argument are perfectly legitimate. It's fine to advocate for a one world vision if that's what you believe. We probably should be having that debate. However, I just wish the people pushing for it would be more honest. I posted about the Extinction Rebellion demands last night on Twitter. I even got a few retweets (!) I'll run through it again here.

(A well-funded operation)

Aside from the fact that "making demands" sounds like something a hostage taker would do (though apt, as they are after all attempting to hold capital cities hostage). Their demands are essentially demands to overturn and subvert the democratic process.

An extreme analysis of their aims perhaps? Read 'em yourself.

These are straight from Rebellion.Earth 

(click to enlarge)

First up. Declare a climate emergency. A little vague, but a decision, if taken up by governments, that would put 'climate concerns' as they see them front and centre of all government policy.

Secondly. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. Just 6 years time, 5 if they give us this Christmas off.

Thirdly, and this is the real one to watch out for. "Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice."

Notice that "be led". Nice.

"..but it's a "citizens" assembly" you say, "that can't be too bad right? That's just us, isn't it?"

Well, how is this assembly chosen? Who decides how it is chosen? What is the criteria?

Fortunately they tell us.

"The Citizens’ Assembly will be run by non-governmental organisations.."

So, NGOs. Great.

"Similar to jury service, members will be randomly selected from across the country."

"Similar" to jury service. Of course, with jury duty you're forced by law to sit, but this won't be the case with Citizens' Assemblies (at least I hope not, that would be even worse).

This brings us to one of the many problems with Citizens' Assemblies. What about all the millions of people that wouldn't want to take part - even if they were asked to. Who has the time or inclination to go and do something like this. Sitting there in public debating climate issues. Especially when they have other commitments like work and children.

In normal democratic societies we tend to call the people that want to go and do this politicians. And most people normally prefer to vote for a politician to go and do this for them.

"The process will be designed to ensure that the Assembly reflects the whole country in terms of characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level and geography."

Ahh, so it will also be "designed". Again, who does this designing? And how are these "designers" accountable to the general public? How can we be sure there's no bias in that process? We can't exactly vote them out can we.

"Assembly members will hear balanced information from experts and those most affected by the emergency."

Again, who chooses these "experts"? Who decides what constitutes "balanced information"?

To be blunt it all looks to me like a way for NGOs to press governments to accept their positions and advice, using the veneer that it's "public opinion". The peoples' voice.

Of course, such assemblies could also be used by governments to push through agendas the public won't vote for using this same veneer. For instance, they could create a Citizens' Assembly to "decide Brexit" in a way that's desirable to them. Then stating; "but look the "citizens" have "told us" to do this." This is what you want.

In fact, a few months ago we noted that Rory Stewart was pushing this very idea in regards Brexit. Oh my! See how it works yet? This is not a policy of environmentalism. It's a policy of globalism.

Again, as I noted earlier. It's fine to advocate for globalism, but this is a very devious way to do it. Why aren't Extinction Rebellion standing candidates at elections? They're perfectly free to do it. They certainly seem to have the funding. But they aren't. Very telling. Yet they want a "Citizens' Assembly".

However, we already have one. It's called parliament.

The Brexit Party - I'm Guessing Proportional Representation Will Be Part Of The Plan

I'm currently listening to Nigel Farage speak live in Watford at the Brexit Party rally. I say live it's from last night, but you get the meaning. He's in rousing form. He was preceded by Richard Tice who ran through some of the Brexit Party policies. They're on the front foot with a lot of this stuff. So I think they'll be in good shape going into any election. They're running quite a tight and tidy ship.

Richard Tice did allude to proportional representation in his run-through though. This is the one major policy issue I have big reservations about. Personally I'm against it for many reasons. I go through some of those here;

https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/05/will-brexit-party-be-harbinger-of-pr.html

However, I also think it's a bit of a faux pas electorally too. Why complicate things with what would be a divisive issue. Last time we had a referendum to change the system to the alternative vote it lost pretty heftily. There are so many other big issues, even aside from Brexit. Plus there are larger voting reform issues to fix first. For a start both the postal voting issue and the House of Lords (Richard Tice mentioned both of these, so they will definitely be on the agenda). Almost everyone agrees the House of Lords needs reform so it's not going to be a vote-loser. Postal voting could be controversial, but it needs reforming, and it's easy to explain to people how open the system is to voter fraud. So both of those are sensible policies to pursue. Why then throw PR into the mix?

Also, with our current system the problem is that it favours the two party system. However, I would speculate that a major reason for this is the media. Traditionally people have received most of their information about politics from the mainstream media, and the media have a tendency to present things as a binary selection. As a Pepsi vs Coke choice. Partly because television as a format naturally favours good vs bad battles and confrontations, and partly of course because the people who have power also tend to have a big investment and control of the media. So it favours the status quo to exclude outsiders and deny them such a powerful platform.

With the rise of social media though that is all breaking down, and parties and individuals now have ways of matching the mainstream when it comes to reaching an audience. This may partly be why we're seeing the two party system already begin to break down now. So again, why rush to ditch the political system when it might finally be beginning to work in our favour. PR potentially could end up being a lifeline to existing parties that are on the way down.

It's probably all a bit of a moot point anyway though, as if the Tories are the main party with a Brexit Party side cart, then they'll probably kick it out the park. So once again, why complicate things by promising it as a policy only to ditch it out of necessity in reality.

v. short

Nothing much today. So nice and short. That's it :)

Referendum: No Deal vs EU Army

So back to Brexit. I've just watched Tony Blair on The Andrew Neil Show arguing his case for a second referendum. The biggest problem I have with the idea of a second referendum is that we can't trust this parliament to frame the question fairly. Obviously the other big problem is that we've already had the referendum. So even a win for remain would just make it 1-1.

He was also arguing against a general election. Unsurprisingly. Which I can understand as a general election must be a pretty terrifying prospect for people on the remain side. In fact, personally I'm now back to my default position of not expecting an election any time soon. I think parliament will cause chaos. I think they will block leaving. I think they will cling on to their green benches long enough to bring about a referendum, or some other mechanism to stop Brexit.

I hope I'm wrong and the government can wrangle some way out of this bind, but I don't expect it.

Anyway, returning to the idea of a referendum. Aside from the fact that the question will be loaded. I'm actually not that fearful of it. Whatever the question posed the real question will be a simple one.

No Deal vs EU army

I think the remain faction are imagining any referendum will be the fear of "no deal" versus their seemingly more moderate option. However, once again I think they're misreading both the mood and shrewdness of the nation. The fear of "no deal" is wearing off. [The. Boy. Cried. Wolf.] The fear of an EU army is becoming realised, and ever more evidenced.

The Carbon Poll Tax

Last night I finished my post with the common phrase;

"If they could tax the air we breathe they would."

(Oh and it was a new series of Only Connect for the record :D)

Now it's my opinion that the whole carbon tax issue is part of the onward march towards globalism or one-world-ism. In the short term it's designed to harmonise and meld together the economic policies of individual countries. In the longer term I suspect it will act as the ultimate poll tax. Where every individual is taxed according to their "carbon footprint".

I'm saying poll tax, a poll tax is a fixed tax that everyone pays regardless of income. So that might not quite be the best moniker, nor description of how it works. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how it will work exactly. Either way though I imagine it will be a tax encompassing all things that are taxable, and used to weigh each and every single individual.

The electricity you use - well, that has a carbon footprint. The food you eat - a carbon footprint too. The journeys you make - likewise, a carbon footprint. Every action and product can be measured in carbon.

We even breathe out carbon dioxide of course. Is that added to our overall personal and taxable carbon footprint? "Surely not, don't be silly" you say.

However, they're already stating that we shouldn't be eating meat because the emissions from cows are contributing to climate change (!)

Now personally I don't believe this and think it's just more silly propaganda (I'm a vegetarian so I won't be losing any sleep over it anyhow). Either way though if they're counting cow's farts then why not human breath. After all the logic is the same. There are just so many cows - it all adds up. With 8 billion humans it must also add up too.

So in summary, a one world government, where everyone is measured by their carbon use. What a nice tidy system. How fortunate we are to have a "climate crisis" to push us all in this glorious direction. It couldn't have been planned in a boardroom better.

..now just ask the question; where do Extinction Rebellion get their funding?

Brextinction Rebellion

I'd like to type more today, but I've been on phones and laptops so much over the last 24 hours that my fingers are literally aching :( I need a holiday for my hands I think. Blogging ain't easy. No one knows how hard I have it.

Anyway, there are a few things going on. The MP Heidi Allen has just joined the Lib Dems. I won't repeat what I said a few months ago about the Lib Dems absorbing renegade politicians, but it's a trend I very much welcome. It's a bit like herding sheep. Only in this case the sheep are self-herding.

The Brexit debate is also continuing full steam. No. 10 seem to be really hunkering down for the fight. Unless it's all bluff of course. They certainly seem to be going all out to create the impression that leaving without a deal on October 31st is still very much on the cards. The following article from The Spectator is well worth a read;

How Number 10 view the state of the negotiations

We've also had the Extinction Rebellion protests in London and elsewhere today. This is the topic I could write a fair bit about today (could I be arsed). I may come back to it over the next few weeks and days (apparently these protests are scheduled for two full weeks, so plenty of opportunity). Needless to say I'll leave with this common old saying as a precursor, which I'm probably misquoting.

"If they could tax the air we breathe they would."

Now I'm going to go and make some soup, if I can even be bothered. Then sit down and watch Only Connect, which I've only just noticed was on today. Is it a new series now?? Hopefully that means there'll be a few more episodes on the iPlayer to watch that I've missed. Exciting times.

Marmaduke Days

Stalemate and speculation continues. Nothing much can really be said at the moment in regards Brexit. So I'll leave it at that. A bit of minor amusement did pop up recently when it emerged that Boris Johnson had written a movie script a few years ago. Or so the following article states at least anyway.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/boris-and-the-undiscovered-film-pitch-starring-scarlett-johansson-and-a-hero-called-marmaduke-a4254151.html

I only really mention it here as his lead character was called Marmaduke Montmorency Burton. Quite a mouthful. We mentioned names with the "double M" sound a few posts ago. This one has the quadruple.

A feeling of stalemate..

So we seem to be in a bit of a stand off at the moment in regards Brexit, and it all seems to revolve around whether Boris will obey the Benn Act or not.

Part of the problem is that since the last deadline was brushed aside so readily the word "deadline" itself has now lost all meaning. No one, on either side, really believes it is a deadline. It can never be the last minute, as more minutes can always just be added.

Of course, this doubles the danger in a way. As if someone does start believing it's a deadline. Or takes advantage of the option to do so. Then the other side will be even less prepared for that than they otherwise would be.

So communication issues are a huge problem. (Or opportunity if you choose to see it that way.)

I have no idea what will happen. I don't even have a good inkling, which is unusual for me.

Apparently, according to Twitter anyway, Dominic Cummings is telling government advisers that if we get a "no" from Brussels this week we'll be gone. No deal. I've actually been reading more of the Cummings blog too. You tend to get a good sense of someone once you've read enough of what they've written (I think). The more I read the more I like him. That doesn't mean that he's right about everything of course, or that people in government will end up listening to him. It does provide some optimism though.

Irish border..

Another thing perhaps worth mentioning now that I think of it is the Irish border issue. Obviously this is the big sticking point at the moment. Personally I believe all the problems are completely solvable and that it's just an unwillingness on the part of remainers to embrace the solutions. Or a deliberate use of the issue to block Brexit full stop.

I do wonder if they're overplaying the issue though in a way that will backfire. I think British people in general are getting quite sick of it. Obviously the blame for the problems in Ireland are often placed on Britain, but whatever the root cause no one alive today can be blamed for the Reformation. So people are starting to think; "why is this our problem?", "why are we constantly getting the blame for what's happening in Ireland?". After all, it's not like Northern Ireland is filled with gold mines or massive oil reserves that are being shipped across the Irish Sea to line English pockets.

So perhaps all this will lead to a unified Ireland in the long run. Not because of the process in Northern Ireland itself, but more because English people will start saying "right, okay Ireland, okay EU, you have the problem. It's yours now. We're off".

It's slightly similar with Scotland. We constantly have to put up with the SNP blaming England for everything, but it just gets annoying and you stop even listening. You almost start willing them to become independent. It's sad really as England has a great shared heritage with Scotland (as all these islands do). I myself am part Scottish. In fact, most people will have forebears coming from all parts of these islands - what about our heritage being destroyed, tut, tut (!) Plus it's a bit silly to crave an independent unified island of Ireland, based on the fact that it is indeed an island, while at the same time dreaming of a dis-unified other island.

Scotland was a huge partner in empire era Britain, and it all had its beginnings pretty much when the Scottish King James VI took the English throne and started ruling English people. So it's never as simple as England bad, Scotland good. Or English bad, Irish good for that matter.

Again though, as I've stated before. Even if England is the big bad heart of the British Empire, and owner of all its failings. Nevertheless, as things stand, and as they have been in recent decades;

Britain is giving sovereignty back to its constituent parts. The EU is taking it away.

Rory Walks 'Round London

So Rory Stewart is leaving the Tory Party and standing down at the next election to run for mayor of London. He's now going to be walking around London apparently. Might be a bit of an eye-opener for him.

Xenophobic Empires

Today I just want to briefly touch upon the idea that the drive to build empires and have a single unified polity is often driven by xenophobia. Normally we tend to think of xenophobia as being a driver towards nationalism - which in part it is. However, it also works in the opposite direction. Something which is often missed or forgotten.

The drive to have everyone living under the same system often stems from the natural human fear that "other" countries or groups will wage war on your group. Something which is perfectly rational to fear, as countries and groups do go to war with each other at times. So the feeling is; if we can get everyone under one umbrella this can't happen anymore.

It's an argument we often hear in relation to the EU of course. With it being claimed that the union is responsible for the decades of peace in Europe.

However, this attitude betrays a lack of trust and faith in other groups. It's essentially stating "we can't trust these people to have independence, as if we do they may use it aggressively to our disadvantage - so we need them subdued under a single system".

It's a little bit like saying; if only everyone was white we wouldn't have racism. It attempts to achieve harmony, but only through the eradication of differences. Rather than through a genuine toleration of differences.

So in a sense both nationalism and one-world-ism stem from similar human desires.


**********

(Yesterday I posted an article touching upon similar themes on my other blog;

https://birkhallsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/10/why-empires-fall-capital-suction.html

I even did some nice jazzy images for it. I'll get back to commenting upon everyday endless Brexit politics tomorrow. It feels like we're actually heading towards some kind of deal at the moment, but maybe I'm just needlessly getting my hopes up.)

Boris Border Plan

It seems Boris now has a plan on the table, including a potential fix to the Irish border issue. We'll now see what the EU has to say about it. Could be an interesting next 3 or 4 days.

Free Movement in a Post-Brexit World

Freedom of movement is a beautiful concept, a noble ideal, and one of the big pluses in regard the EU. If not in a practical sense, then at least in its visionary scope.

Of course, the Brexit argument on face value appears to be a choice between national sovereignty without free movement, or federalisation with it. So I can totally understand why people on the remain side of the argument lament the loss of free movement that will come with Britain leaving.

However, there are ways of having free movement between nations without surrendering sovereignty. I'll briefly outline one way of doing this below. I'm calling it the Scott System, after myself cheekily :)

..the system

In this system two countries can agree to freedom of movement for a period of time, with it then being renewed or discontinued at the end of this period.

In my example I'm stating 10 years (though it could be anything). It would also be useful if this period began and ended at easily memorable dates in time.

In my example the first period begins; 1st January 2021.

And ends; 31st December 2030.

So, for example, Britain and Canada could agree to have complete free movement starting on this date. Then at the end of the period if it's working fine they could both simply renew it and continue for another 10 years, or if either is unhappy or feels it's not working discontinue it and end the free movement.

Within this you could then have rules and preconditions stipulating what the rights are for people that do go to live in the opposing country. In my system I would state that anyone who lives in the other country for 5 years automatically gets citizenship in that country.

So, if you go to live in Canada in 2022 you get full citizen rights if you're still living there in 2027 - regardless of whether free movement is renewed or cancelled in 2030.

However, let's say you go to live there in 2028 (two years before the deadline), you then go with the knowledge that if the arrangement isn't renewed your right to be there ends, and it's then at the discretion of the Canadian government to decide if and how long you stay. As it would be under standard (non-free movement) circumstances pretty much.

If they do continue the free movement though, and you're still there in 2033 then you get full citizenship after the 5 years. As in the previous example.

This way everyone knows where they stand, whatever happens. Unlike the EU now where there are no provisions for what happens to citizens if a country chooses to leave - as is that country's democratic right. With this way people understand what the potential circumstances are. So if they choose to take a job or buy a home in another country they know full well what opportunities/risks they're embracing.

Multiple Arrangements with Multiple Countries..

On top of this countries would be able to have such bilateral arrangements with as many other countries as they liked. So Britain could have free movement with, let's say, Canada, France and Germany (this is assuming they aren't in the EU and bound by its laws), while simultaneously Canada could have such arrangement with Britain, the US and Iceland.

British citizens would understand that they have the freedom to go to live and work in Canada, France, and Germany.

Canadian citizens would understand that they have the freedom to do the same in Britain, the US, and Iceland.

...However, Canadians wouldn't have the right to live and work in France and Germany. Nor would British people have the right to do this in the US or Iceland.

This may seem confusing at first, but it's no different to free movement now. Where British people understand they can work and travel in EU countries, but don't have the same rights when it comes to non-EU places such as the US or Turkey.

If all countries used the same dating period for their various bilateral agreements it would simplify things even more so.

Over time each country then could expand the number of countries they have these agreements with (if each country freely chooses to do so of course).

So, for example, Britain could agree to have free movement arrangements with Canada and the US starting on 1st January 2021. Then, after ten years if this is working and people are happy with it, agree to extra arrangements with say France or Mexico. Starting on 1st January 2031. And so on and so forth.

..how to stop people going to countries they're not supposed to be in.

Of course, people will ask; if countries have multiple agreements with multiple countries, how do you stop people going to countries that their country doesn't have an agreement with. For instance, if Britain and Canada have an agreement, and Canada and the US have an agreement, but the US and Britain doesn't have an agreement. How do you stop British people going to the US or vice versa.

Firstly, border checks could still take place. Obviously free movement suggests "completely borderless" to most people. However, checks at airports and borders are hardly a huge inconvenience. It's perfectly reasonable. We have to give our I.D. every time we buy alcohol at a supermarket. So, if you have the opportunity to go and work, live and potentially become a full citizen in another country having to show a passport at a border once in a while isn't really a hardship.

Secondly, and this is the real beauty of this system, as each country has the power to end free movement with a country at the end of the 10 year period they can use this as leverage. So, as in the example above, let's say the US are unhappy that British people are illegally coming to their country via Canada. They can then either end their free movement with Canada, or use the threat of this to get Canada to take action to respect their borders more. Canada, in turn, if they value their arrangement with the US, can then either control their borders better, end their free movement with Britain. Or use the threat of this to put pressure on Britain to get their people to respect the law more fully.

After all, it is about respecting the law of each country. And why would countries want to continue arrangements with countries and people that don't respect their country and their laws? In this system they would have the power to choose who they have free movement with and how long they continue this for. Meaning that if countries want the benefits of free movement they also need to show appreciation for the countries they're doing this with.

Personally I think this would be a much better, and more flexible, system.

Brexember 1st

Oh, and it's Brexember now. I mean October. So we're in the actual month of Brexit now. Should it happen.

Immunity From Criticism

Yesterday there were headlines stating that Matt Hancock, the Tory health secretary, was "looking seriously" at compulsory vaccinations for school children.

Now I don't want to get into the argument about the safety of vaccines, but I do want to push a more fundamental point. That being the right to choose. Should the state really be forcing vaccines on people? Does this not transgress some fundamental human right?

Recently we've had the furore surrounding Boris allegedly putting his hand on the thigh of a female journalist 20 years ago. If our person is so inviolable then surely being pinned down and forcibly injected with a needle is much worse than someone playfully putting their hand on our leg. Where's the #MeToo on this one.

If the state has sovereignty in this area then who's making these decisions. The same incompetent people that have mishandled Brexit for the last three years? And if you say "no, experts are making these decisions", then again, like with the judges, who judges the experts?

Is it experts that make their living in the pharmaceutical and medical industries? How can we be sure there are no conflicts of interest? Or that financial drivers aren't overriding medical concerns?

Vaccines and other medicines are pretty hefty business. If every individual in a country needs a batch of vaccine then that's a pretty lucrative contract for whoever's knocking up those batches. Can we really be sure that a "non-expert" politician will have the will and the understanding to say "no, sorry, my country doesn't need this vaccine, we'll decline the offer" in the face of such industry pressure. Especially when we're creating a culture where anyone daring to question the value or safety of a vaccine is immediately decried as a "loon" or "conspiracy theorist".

I remember being given the measles vaccine when I was about 13 or 14 years old ..even though I'd already had measles as a child. I remember making this point at the time, but it was just dismissed and I was told I still needed to have it. I understood only too well that we were all being immunised on mass like farm animals, with no regard to our personal circumstances. At least back then though parents had the right to take charge and say no. Though mine, like the politicians, were too bamboozled by the experts to do so.

The Matt Hancock suggestion of compulsory vaccination came with particular regard to measles, as it's apparently on the rise in Britain again. Though there are stories of people dying and having serious complications from measles, for most people the experience is a very minor one. You get some spots and have a few days off school. I distinctly remember it not being seen as that big a deal as a child. It was just one of those illnesses that most children got at some point in their childhood. So the idea that I needed to be vaccinated against it (regardless of whether I'd already had it) seemed a little odd at the time. I think this is how many people feel. They're being told by the experts it's an incredibly serious issue, but their personal life experience tells them that it isn't. This leads to suspicion. Compulsory vaccination would create this sense even more so.

So again, who decides what vaccines we should have, and how many. If not the individual. Where does it all stop? Is it really wise to play God with our immune systems to such an endless extent?

What if there is a downside? Is it wrong to ask this question?

Should we really be criticising people for their caution? And more to the point forcing them to comply.

I often wonder with the flu vaccines. Humans throughout their lifetime get a cold or the flu quite frequently. So perhaps there's some evolutionary benefit to this. After all, perfectly healthy people suffer from these things too. Perhaps getting a cold or the flu serves some purpose. Maybe it helps the body to clean out and reboot itself. For instance, when we get the flu we often get a temperature. The body no doubt needs this higher temperature to carry out certain functions. Perhaps these functions do more than just fight the flu.

Small children also tend to get all manner of tummy bugs and sniffly noses. Their bodies are of course developing quite a lot in these early years, so are these things a necessary part of this development.

We vaccinate against the flu and dream of curing the common cold ..but would this be a good thing? We've evolved in such a way that these things are a common part of life. Is this a failing of nature or is it a useful function?

I'm speculating here, but again, why shouldn't I? Is it not much more healthy to have vigorous debate and a diverse range of opinions. A free market, choice, and the evidence of the consequences of those choices.