Boris the Kipper Waver

Well, now we have all seen Boris waving a kipper and blaming the EU in a let's face it, speech to woo the hearts of all those who haven't a brain in their heads. "Hold on" you might say, "didn't the media almost universally report this with the corrective that what he said was mistaken, therefore, false!" "Yes" I reply, "they surely and most gratifyingly did." But you know what? That will not change the reality one little bit. Boris will gain, not lose out of that little scenario. This is the place we live in folks. The shouters and the blamers and easy solution peddlars are winning the popular vote.

But the real kicker in that little mistake, (which again won't matter a jot to the voters), was that it was Britain that had made the rule that Boris was railing against. And the thing that those who whinge on about us having lost our sovereignty to the EU don't get, is that most of those rules and regulations were made in order to bless, to protect, to enhance communities and individuals. I think that's what governments try to do as well, except that they have voters to please in a way that the EU does not, at least not in the same kind of way. This means that they can be more objective in setting down laws for the benefit of the majority whereas the national politicians have to have one eye on the vote at the next election. Unfortunately, what is most popular is not always what will actually benefit the majority, strangely enough.

The other little quirk with rule making is this: whilst many rules and laws are made with the hope of addressing and sorting something that has surfaced as being wrong either through omission or mistake or inability to keep pace with changing social circumstances, there will always be those innocents whom the rule affects adversely through some combination of factors unseen and unimagined by the rule makers. When their predicament comes to light, this brings about in us all a sense of indignation at the general stupidity and thoughtlessness of the legislators. I think of these situations much like the eddies created by a strong current flowing. The main stream is in the right direction but there will be bits that don't quite tick the box. This and the more general and mistaken rant about giving us back our sovereignty has set opinion against the EU in those places where the population count is highest and the feelings of resentment are most easily exploited.

Still, I do have hope that in Parliament, there are enough sensible people to steer us to a least damaging of outcomes. That I think is the best we can hope for. As Barnier said, "Brexit is not a game where there is a win win option. It is a lose lose game."

Dazed? me too, and angry.

The latest round of events involving our Ambassador to the USA, Sir Kim Darroch, has stunned me. Not the disclosure of what he said in his confidential reports, for that is the professional duty of our diplomats. Honest assessments are needed, confidential but honest to be sure. No, what is beyond stunning is the peeved, childish, petulant absurdity of the tweets issued by that man who instead of being the respected leader of the largest country in the "free" world, is looking like he wants to be despotic ruler of all. His beyond acceptable level of primary school rhetoric is embarrassing to serious politicians all over the globe, and encouraging to thin skinned dictators fearful of any kind of criticism. "He's like me" they're thinking. Frankly he is an embarrassment to the USA way beyond the 50's and 60's stereotypes of the ignorant bragging tourist from over the pond. And not only is he mouthing off insults about this diplomat whose opinions he should have in true statesmanship either ignored or simply said something flat and neutral, but he is insulting our Prime Minister. Whether or not you are a fan of our PM, whether or not you think she has done a good job, is entirely beside the point. What is to the point is that there should be universal outrage that that man has had the temerity to insult her in public using the only forum that suits him: limited vocabulary and length, Give him more and he simply repeats himself anyway. 

As if this were not enough, we have Boris Johnson refusing to endorse, support, stand alongside Sir Kim when the opportunity to robustly do so was given him on an open plate in the TV debate on Tuesday. Instead he mouths off about what he would do when PM, and to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, this was a grovelling wink and nod to America's White House. And make no mistake about it, this complete mess of a candidate for the PM's job is going to get it. The handful of people (relatively speaking) who make up the Tory party membership have a starry eyed majority within their ranks who think that Johnson is the big strong lad who tells it like it is. In the event we may find that just over 60,000 people have presented us with our new leader. I hope with all my heart that I will be proved wrong, but I fear I may be right. Not that I prefer his rival much more, but it's a case of anything, anyone but Johnson.

But these people who will vote for Johnson simply represent the average voter who gave us this s.....storm we call Brexit in the first place, and who skilled manipulators of public opinion can easily influence, are what we have, both here and their equivalents who gave us the USA President too.  Democracy needs a reset. I do not know what the answer is, but please let there be one, for at the moment it seems to be the day of the big mouthed blamers and easy solution makers as far as democracy is concerned. I do believe that more of us need to start speaking out and calling out the idiocy we see in some of the politics and politicians of our day, like the Biblical prophets of old. At the moment, we have a few brave newspapers and that is about it. Our television journalists are embarrassingly neutral, and the church is ridiculously silent. Let's start to do a bit more, eh?

The will of the many

If you've been lamenting the newsworthy current political mess as something new as opposed to the politics of yesteryear which seemed positively dull and boring  "ah, those were the days" says one wit quoted in "The Week", then think again. If you are becoming disillusioned with "the will of the people" and "the people have spoken", you can at least take comfort from the fact that this is nothing new at all.
Perhaps the first recorded instance of the people speaking is in the Bible, at Exodus Chapter 32, where the people of Israel in the absence of Moses' return from up the mountain, clamour for any old gods to go with them on their journey. Aaron, the brother of Moses and one of the Senior Management Team 😉, like our Tories who put the Referendum into their prospectus, fearing the loss of popularity and votes, tells the people to collect their gold baubles and he melts them down and casts them into a golden calf. "Behold your god he cries." Uh oh. There was trouble ahead when Moses did eventually get back to camp. One of the other oft missed wee bits of advice from back then is "Don't follow the crowd to do wrong." (Exodus Chapter 23.2)

On a similar theme, Francis Bacon doesn't rate our objectivity very highly when it comes to reasoning: "The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion, either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself, draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate." He probably wasn't a fan of universal suffrage.

So now we are into a competition amongst the Tories to see who can become leader and Prime Minister. Unfortunately the most attractive least blowhard, most sane and reasonable of the candidates won't I suspect, make it to the final cut. Big Boris is out front at the moment and I imagine the typical Tory member (my own stereotype admittedly) being absolutely wowed by him and his blustering confidence and easy solutions.

I liked the results of the European Parliament elections where those of us who are remainers went for a nice spread of parties that we felt represented us. I think a similar result in a UK national election would help our democracy immensely. I hope the voting public agree and don't return to the old default voting positions out of a sense of "now it really matters and I better vote for one of the big 2".
It's a long road till then though.

The Future: October 31.

OK so here it is. October 31st 2019. Boris Johnson is prime minister and he takes Britain out of Europe without a deal. You read it here first. It will take something like a miracle to stop this happening. Boris' lack of everything except confidence is actually enough to get him through to party leadership. I've listened to reasonably intelligent sounding students who were members of the Tory party as they spoke of their possible support for him. It doesn't seem to matter how palpably inept you are, the voting public are capable of infinitely deeper gullibility, blindness, and stupid choices. And that's a shame as some of the candidates for leadership do look promising. But they lack the public recognition that would get them through and past the big names. However it still is a poisoned chalice.

The Guardian carried a headline "Broken by Brexit" with regard to Theresa May's resignation. But she won't be the only one. Nothing will have changed in terms of the parliamentary attitudes or numbers. A new leader will have the same obstacles and objections to deal with. That's why we'll reach October 31st in the same deadlock we are in now, and Boris will, if he can, simply walk away with huge issues of how we now manage our relationship with Europe unresolved. Businesses will go broke, there will be far reaching hardship, and those nutters with loud voices who believed him and love him will hail him as their hero anyway. Brexit may not break Boris. He'll just break everything else.

Bercow's Coup

You have to laugh. I laughed with the joy of one who has just seen order slapped on to chaos. "Some will love thee some will hate thee" so runs the line of the hymn. I love him. The government, and other simpering MP's all joined the whacky chorus of "The people have spoken" so there could be no second bite at this one. Yet when it came to the result of a vote within the House that the government didn't like, all consistency, all logical argument was thrown out of the window without reserve, without a second thought. And like the courtiers surrounding the King with no clothes, no-one shouted "Foul!" or "Hypocrisy!" when a second vote was mooted and then a third.....save good ol' John boy. Except of course he didn't use such aggressive language. He used the language of Parliamentary convention, which is as it should be. Even in much lesser courts, the convention of "No Return to a second vote until reasonable time has elapsed" holds. I think it is 6 months for Kirk Sessions in the Church of Scotland. This is good practice for as well as no immediate return to a decision, there is the sensible conclusion that after some time, minds may indeed change as new evidence or circumstances present, and that a second round of deliberation may be fair enough. But what holds for Parliamentary Business should also then hold for Referendums. (Pedantic note - the Latin has no plural for this word. Consensus has settled on adding an "s".) Moreover, there is also a rule that most committees hold with which says that should there be a vote on something that deeply affects the insititution, such as its constitution or membership, then the vote needs a percentage well over 50% to pass. That certainly should have been the case in the Brexit Referendum.

Some people think that Bercow did what he did in order to hussle a "No deal" situation. I disagree. I believe he well knew that this would gain us the a lifeline of an extension, leading in the end to a softer, trading links continuing, Brexit. I believe that despite the fact that we are all well and truly fed up with this Brexit nonsense, a delay is worth it if we get a deal in place. 

The Brexit Paradox

What is it that Parliament doesn't understand about the sentence, "There is no other deal."? This isn't just a statement coined by bolshy negotiators who want to play hard ball with the UK. This isn't a bargaining chip to be disbelieved by canny experts at brinkmanship. It's a consequence of the Government's interpretation of the referendum result. They interpret "out" as a complete uncoupling from Europe with no trade arrangements which come with any other conditions. In that case, you need a hard border somewhere. The only way that Norway and Switzerland have avoided this is by accepting the free movement principle. It is one of the government's red lines that free movement should end. As one interpretation of the referendum I understand this, given the kind of rhetoric which was used to get the result. So there has to be a hard border, even from the UK Government's point of view, never mind Brussels.  The paradox is that Parliament both wants it and detests it. It wants it because it delivers a solid uncoupling from Europe. It detests it because Ireland is joined to Europe at the hip. We either split Ireland in half, or we make Northern Ireland look like part of Europe and a poor relation of the UK (according to the Ulster politicians and many within the Tory party). Neither option is seen as acceptable. Talk about the past coming back to haunt us. Northern Ireland has been a rod with which the teacher History has beaten us well and truly for many years now.

So what do we think is to be gained by sending Mrs May on a fool's errand? The gung ho Brexiteers will like this as it uses up precious time and brings us to a "no deal" scenario with ease, and that's what they want. Some of the Remainers like this too as they hope that the consensus in Parliament will overrule this possibility and steer us back to a more robust linkage with Europe. I personally favour a more robust linkage with Europe for many reasons, but chiefly because I do not like isolationism. It is a disease which is spreading like cancer through many countries and gives rise to a fearful nationalism which looks on the incomers with hostility and jealousy and blames them for everything from overcrowded schools to a health service which doesn't pander to every need of the deserving righteous.

I also do not like the idea that there is a game of them and us going on. This pathetic wishful thinking about having our sovereignty restored to us is a result of seeing Brussels and the European Parliament as the enemy, making rules in order to squeeze us, bleed us and legislate away our freedom to abuse workers, ignore global issues, and generally disregard the welfare of workers and the vulnerable with disdain. We are all human beings. European laws are made for the good of the majority. Together we are better. Our own country is has enough variety in it to make arguing for parts of it to be independent a very credible discussion. The North of England already sees the South as the enemy of its material well being and casts an envious eye in Scotland's direction. So please let's not endorse that point of view. That will bring us back to tribal fiefdoms and feuds between villages ten miles apart. And still we won't be one tiny bit happier.

So that is why I do hope that as we near the end of March that the soft Brexiteers in Parliament will be able to seize control and steer us away from the "abyss" to which Angela Merkel has been heard to refer. But what will actually happen is anyone's guess.

Is it a mad bad world?

OK, so reasonable, sane people who don't have a right wing or protectionist agenda tend to loathe Trump, and this week's events in Israel have not helped one little bit. We long for the nuanced, thoughtful, non provocative Obama style. But here's the thing: it seems to be the case that the Trump style gets results. North Korea talking to the USA? (Sure this may collapse if North Korea feels there is too strong a nuclear agenda here), And I reflect on history's bad and powerful people who created stable and peaceful empires (at a cost), and the warring and jealous and feuding factions held in check by them. Is it the case I ask myself, that we need the madder, riskier types in power from time to time, so that a kind of balance of events flows? (Obviously this argument has its limits - Hitler for instance isn't a good advert for the case.) I wonder if the EU will fracture too, for lack of coherent leadership which committees cannot give. Is it the case that we humans just can't co-exist peacefully wherever money, power, resources and influence matter, and that wherever they do, look out?

Moving from all of the above to another story that is international this week, the wedding of Megan Markle to Harry Windsor. The media is feasting on the choicer portions of some aspects of the American cousins responses to it all. I heard one comment refer to the cousins' resentment that Megan had hardly been in touch with them and I wondered how much communication ever happened between them, especially before Megan hit the acting scene as big as she had? Were they that interested back in the day? Communication is two-way isn't it, but we hear the moans only when one of the parties hits the big time, and the others feel ditched, because their sense of entitlement to share the spoils has been ignored.

Ah, that spectre - a sense of entitlement. How that has come to haunt our educational and health institutions. Teachers can be worn down by a small minority of parents who feel entitled to more, health centre appointments are snatched up by the same kind of patient, and our voluntary community organisations can be wrecked by them. Eventually gate keepers are posted, and they become so used to the belligerent and demanding, that the meek and mild are met with the same tone and barrier building attitudes that were put in place for the aggressors.

I don't believe that there are more bad people than good in the world. Indeed I strongly believe the opposite to be the case. It's just that the bad and the mad seem to have so much more impact. And that takes us back to the start of my piece.