Just this passing thought on our time (with apologies to the Oldham Tinkers).
At Parliament it used to good,
To see them think of country’s good,
But now the game has changed, tha’ll see,
They can’t talk truthful on TV.Boris Johnson is a cunt,
Boris Johnson is a cunt,
Eee, aye, addie,
Boris Johnson is a cunt.
Why can no-one get their heads round what is actually the position on Brexit?
This from an article in yesterday’s Guardian:
… the UK leaving without a deal on 31 October. In practice, this can only happen if the EU turns down the UK’s request for an article 50 extension or Johnson breaks the law by ignoring parliament.
So far, so good. But then in the next sentence on the government’s publicity campaign:
… UK’s October no deal exit, as well as being factually incorrect (as it addresses an event which cannot now occur) …
Which directly contradicts the previous statement.
In fact the first statement is the correct one, as outlined in the Law & Lawyers blog. Following the last minute action in Parliament which resulted in the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 there are three situations which (legally) can now occur:
So the first statement in the Guardian article is the correct one. There are two instances when the UK will leave the EU on 31 October with no deal:
And yet people now believe that leaving with no-deal on 31 October is not now possible.
Logic? What logic?
I’ve been working up to writing this for some while; today I’ve been pushed over the edge.
So when will MPs, and others, wake up?
While I agree with Lord Heseltine that imposing a No-Deal Brexit is an attack (“intolerable” was the adjective he used) on democracy, Parliament cannot block No-Deal just by saying they don’t want it – in fact they did this months ago. And Caroline Lucas calling for an emergency female cabinet to block No-Deal, is, frankly, pissing into the wind.
My understanding (which may not be complete) is that there are only two ways in which Parliament can prevent a No-Deal Brexit:
(1) By passing a motion agreeing to, and instructing the executive to ratify, the deal which is currently on the table.
or
(2) By passing a motion instructing the executive to cancel the Article 50 declaration.
Even so they could be ignored, but at the cost of an even bigger constitutional crisis.
The clock is ticking inexorably towards 31 October. Parliament and the Executive have effectively run out of time to do anything. So unless the Government come up with something radically new and (as a minimum) get the EU to agree to a further postponement of the leave date (all very unlikely in my estimation), then the UK will crash out of the EU on 31 October – no deal, no backstop, a hard border with Ireland, no transition period, no proper preparation, no international trade for months … and no international standing because having faffed around at nothing for three years who would trust us?
All of that can be averted by Parliament only by one of the above two actions. They can talk all they like, but they’re powerless to stop No-Deal otherwise.
When will they wake up?
Gawdelpus!
A few days ago one of our favourite Zen masters, Brad Warner, wrote a blog post under the title What You Don’t Speak Out Against You Co-sign? He was responding to a comment that “what you don’t speak out against you co-sign” and taking him to task for not openly campaigning against Donald Trump and all that he stands for. Needless to say Brad disagreed, as I do too.
Let’s start off being clear. “What you don’t speak out against you co-sign” means “If you don’t speak out against something then you are supporting, aiding, facilitating, even encouraging it”.
As Brad says, this is a very common way of thinking. It goes along with the “if good men do nothing …” trope. But it isn’t true and it is (designed to be) divisive and create factions. It is nothing short of moral blackmail.
Many people see their target as some variant of evil. So if you don’t campaign, demonstrate or protest against Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Brexit, pervasive CCTV, fossil fuels, or whatever, then you condone them and you are the work of the Devil. Not so.
In Brad’s words:
If someone characterizes you as evil, do you want to be friends with them? Do you want to support the things they support? Do you want to listen to their reasons for calling you evil? Or are you more likely to say, “Well screw you!” and deliberately support whatever it is they’re against?
… …
The stance that [such people] are taking will only drive more people to support the [cause] they hate.
So their efforts become a self-denying ordinance.
Also implicit in this is (a) that there is one right and one wrong answer, and (b) that there is only one way to protest. Some must choose to refrain from joining in with the noise everyone else is making. Protesting noisily is seldom effective. In general, protests and petitions work only to reinforce the determination to do whatever is being protested against. They may convince those who are already of like mind to join your bandwagon, but to many, like me, they are annoying and pointless – even if I agree with the sentiments.
Don’t get me wrong. I object just as strongly to the same things (see list above) as anyone else. But I choose not be be mouthy about it or jump on bandwagons. Like Brad I am not skilled in political rhetoric, and whatever I might wish to say has already been said a thousand times over by those more skilled (and likely more knowledgeable) than me. So I would largely be wasting my breath.
Everything goes through cycles and fashions; always has, always will. Ultimately “we are where we are” and “what will happen will happen” – although by “right action” we can indeed hope to affect the outcomes. But what is “right action” for you may not be so for me.
Essentially it doesn’t matter what I say. Brexit will happen or it won’t happen. North Korea will blow us all sky high, or it won’t. Rinse and repeat, with your cause du jour.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t speak out about things we fundamentally disagree with, but there won’t be thousands not speaking out because I keep quiet: there is already plenty of discussion and debate. Your mileage may vary.
Like Brad, I believe there is a better way, at least for me. First of all staying silent (or maybe just quieter) helps protect my sanity – something which is precarious enough for most of us at the best of times. The Dalai Lama always talks about compassion, and self-care is only having compassion for oneself. Without self-compassion and self-care you are not able, and not there, to show compassion for others.
Keeping silent has other benefits too. It provides quiet space where other topics, perhaps of more immediate personal importance or urgency, can be discussed. And, when appropriate, it also allows controversialists and facilitators (as I like to think I am) help others see the wood for the trees and take an appropriately thoughtful and nuanced approach, rather than jumping on some blinkered, raucous bandwagon.
There’s more than one way to stop the crocodile running off with the sausages.
For another perspective on this see Silent Protests Are Still Protests.
Devastating though it is, Vulcan failed in his mission to reduce Notre Dame de Paris to a pile of ash and rubble. I enjoy watching disasters like this, and plane crashes, not from a a sense of morbid curiosity but from a forensic and analytical perspective; I’m curious about the how, why, what was the cause, and what next.
While one hates to see any medieval, historic, and important building – let alone a church – reduced as it has been, it is equally irritating to see Vulcan not finish the job! The Brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris did an heroic job, against all the odds, and won. But let’s be honest, this fire is a grand calamity for the cathedral, for France, and for the French. And it is a truly sorry sight.
It could easily have been so much worse. As one Parisian official has said there was a critical 15-30 minutes, which I presume is referring to the time when the flames reached the NW and SW towers but was contained before it took hold there. If either tower had gone up in flames all bets were off as those towers contain the bells which would almost certainly have fallen, destroying masonry and probably bringing down a large amount of the stone structure if only through a domino effect.
The French government has committed to rebuild the cathedral and somewhere around €1bn of private money has already been pledged to help finance this. Such is the understandable, predictable, knee-jerk reaction. But should Notre Dame be rebuilt? I suggest that maybe it shouldn’t – and not just because of the horrendous cost.
Clearly the remaining structure has to be made safe. After that why not conserve what remains to preserve the medieval splendour. Then do something modern (but, of course this being France, tasteful) which will commemorate the fire as a remarkable event in the cathedral’s history and the heroic efforts of les pompiers. Why not install a transparent (glass, probably) roof so that light (the light of God?) continues to shine through the holes in the stone vaulting emphasising what very nearly didn’t survive. After all the photographic record, and existing skills, are so good that there is little to be gained from remaking the lost parts. Well at least that’s what I would be tempted to do.
I’ve been to Notre Dame twice, and I didn’t like it. It didn’t just leave me cold, I had a feeling of the sinister, even evil, there – and that’s unusual for me in a church (despite my lack of belief). So from an totally personal perspective I would not have been too distraught had the whole building been destroyed. But that’s not to be (at least yet) and a major rebuild of some form will happen. Which is probably as it should be.
I’ve been thinking recently about the UK’s current political mess. I don’t pretend that what follows is necessarily new or entirely original – I’ve certainly seen parts of it elsewhere, see for instance here and here – but I do find it illuminating as well as rather worrying.
It seems to me that the situation we’re in at the moment is a very nice combination of Henry VIII and Charles I. Bear with me …
First there was Henry VIII telling he Pope for f*** off (1532-4), for no reason other than his own vanity; and being excommunicated for his pains (1535). He also managed to ensure he was able to amend, or institute, any law he chose, at any time, with never-ending powers (effectively ignoring Magna Carta).
A hundred years later we have Charles I who thought he could rule by divine right, while ignoring and/or riding roughshod over Parliament. But Parliament was having none of it, thus leading to the Civil War and Interregnum of 1642-1660. Parliament, of course, won. When the Commonwealth fell apart (as such chaos so often does), the Restoration in 1660 brought a country with a more robust form of parliamentary government.
This seems to me to be more than a little like where we are at the moment.
We have a government (executive) who are basically telling the EU to f*** off, with exactly the reaction one would expect from an EU who hold all the cards. The executive are granting themselves Henry VIII powers – the ability to amend large swathes of legislation, as they choose, with no reference to Parliament. And they’re attempting to side-line and/or bully Parliament. Yet again Parliament is having none of it (despite not knowing what they do want) and is fighting back.
Ultimately I suspect Parliament will win (possibly with a little help from the Judiciary), but not before there’s been huge damage inflicted on the country as a whole. Eventually (in maybe 10 or 20 years) the country will hopefully emerge with strengthened parliamentary government and a fully codified and written constitution, although perhaps at the expense of a break-up of the federation.
But it will take many decades for the country to recover economic prosperity, and then only if the plunge into being an under-developed third-world country can be avoided. However I’ll not be here to see it.
It isn’t going to be pretty, or comfortable.
May your god go with you.
So once again this year I’ve retrieved my crystal ball from the back of the wardrobe and dusted it off. However it is extremely cloudy so despite regular consultations over the last month what follows are my guesses at what may happen during 2019.
As before, I’ve divided the predictions into sections: UK (Brexit), UK (Other), World and Personal. I figured that Brexit is sufficiently horrible all on its own it deserved a section to itself. Note also that various items are currently redacted (although I have them documented) as some might consider them over-sensitive.
Disclaimer. I remind you that these are just my ideas of what could happen; they’re based solely on hunches and gut feel; I have no inside knowledge, I haven’t been studying the form, and I have a success rate of about 20%. So if you base any decision on any of this I will take no responsibility for your wanton act of idiocy or its consequences.
UK (Brexit)
UK (Other)
World
Personal
Obviously I’m going to keep a tally and will publish the results at the end of the year. I wonder if I’ll do any better than the pathetic 20% I scored in 2018?
This time last year I made a series of predictions about what would happen during 2017. So what did I get right, and what wrong?
[Some names have been redacted to protect the sensitive and vulnerable.]
UK
World
Personal
With a hit rate of only 20% that’s not a very impressive year! Definitely could do better.
I’ll be posting my predictions for 2018 in the next few days, so if you have any good predictions please do share them.
Three (I think) important articles recently about teenagers and sex. As usual we bring you key quotes, although I would recommend reading the articles themselves (none is long).
The first article reports on Labour MP Jess Phillips’ contention that the discussion of female pleasure is essential to redress the gender power imbalance.
Teach schoolgirls about orgasms (Guardian; 8 November 2018)
Schoolgirls should be taught about orgasms in sex education lesson … girls should be taught about sex from a young age in order to form healthy sexual relationships when they become adults.
[It is] vital to discuss female pleasure in order to “break down the culture of power imbalance between men and women” …
“I’m not suggesting we teach children how to masturbate, I’m suggesting we talk to them about the things they’re doing anyway.”
Women’s expectations “should be greater” and they should “start demanding more” during sex.
“I’ve made a career out of being able to talk about difficult things, and that comes from growing up in an environment where nothing was embarrassing.”
Phillips is campaigning for sex education in [all] secondary schools to be compulsory by 2020 … [E]ducating children about healthy relationships and their anatomy will reduce the risk of violence against women: “To liberate women and end violence is to break down the culture of power imbalance. Let’s stop people feeling ashamed.”
The second article is by Jess Phillips herself.
Yes, yes, yes: why female pleasure must be at the heart of sex education (Guardian; 13 November 2018)
By the time they started talking to us about [sex] at secondary school, I think in the third year (year 9), most of the girls in my class had had their first sexual encounters … The teachers were clearly counting on us not having had intercourse (although some of us had) because our sex education was about Aids … and babies. It was essentially a lesson in contraception.
Sex and relationships were never discussed in our contraceptive education. It was all about the dangers of a man climaxing … We were shown how to handle and dispose of men’s pleasure safely.
[T]he average member of the British public thinks men need sex more than women … This is a cultural norm we have all accepted and it seeps into how we live our lives and teach our children. Men don’t need sex any more than women, they just enjoy it more because it has a guaranteed payoff.
“Just say no” doesn’t work, so perhaps we need to try teaching young people about why they might want to say “yes”. What does good, healthy and happy sex look like, for example?
Girls masturbate, girls know all about what they like and want. They also know what boys like and want. Boys only know the latter. Girls and boys spend at least the first 10 years of their sex lives focusing exclusively on what boys want … Would it hurt to talk to both boys and girls about how sex should be for both parties? Giving girls a bit of hope that shagging won’t just lead to them dripping in breast milk or being a witness in a trial.
I don’t want young girls growing up thinking that sex is just something that happens to us. I want boys and girls to know that it should be about both people not just agreeing, but also enjoying it.
The third article is from a young Nigerian, Jennifer Amadi, who lost a close friend to a DIY abortion because everyone had been too scared to talk to teenagers about sex.
The world must not be too scared to talk about teenagers having sex (Guardian; 9 November 2018)
[T]the world is too scared to talk about teenagers having sex. And young people are losing their lives and livelihoods as a result.
I see these attitudes everywhere, from Nigeria to the UK. Parents who are too uncomfortable to have “the talk” with their kids, nurses who deny young girls contraceptives because they think they’re “too young to have sex”, education ministers who believe the best policy for addressing teenage pregnancies is a sound beating paired with expulsion rather than comprehensive sex education classes.
[P]oliticians … worry that supporting programmes that increase youth access to contraception will cost them their jobs … fearful leaders … earmark foreign aid for politically safe initiatives like abstinence-based sex-ed or programmes that only provide birth control to married women.
There are 1.2 billion people in the world between the ages of 10 to 19 and most live in developing countries …
[W]here the world fails to deliver for its young people … teenagers continue to have unintended pregnancies. Millions of girls experience health issues stemming from pregnancy and childbirth their bodies aren’t ready for, and efforts to improve gender equality are upended as teenage mothers are forced to drop out of school and face lifelong economic insecurity … this has the potential to put the economic and social progress of entire countries at risk, and has lasting implications for global trade, migration and foreign affairs.
[I]nvest in our young people so they can get reliable information about reproductive health and birth control. They decide when to have children and how many to have. They become the biggest generation of educated, empowered, working adults the world has seen. They break the cycle of poverty for their families and shape the future of their countries.
As I keep saying, time to wake up and smell the coffee. With the UK government currently looking at reforming sex education in the classroom this country has the opportunity to lead the world. But it needs imagination and bravery, something for which the UK government has never been noted.
