Category Archives: thoughts

current affairs, thoughts

Carry On Living

Over the last few days everyone has done their fair share of wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to the referendum result to leave the EU.
Whether the voters meant what they said or not; and whether we like it or not; that was the opinion of the British voters.
While I would prefer to remain in the EU, it is now time for us all to shut up and get on with life.
Why? Because we have no option.
All the possible routes for changing the decision are essentially closed. This is outlined in a very interesting Briefing Paper Brexit: What happens next? from the House of Commons Library (which is about as independent as you can get) issued on Friday 24 June.
Let’s look at some of the options, through the eyes of this Briefing Paper.
[Note that this is NOT legal opinion but my reading of the aforementioned Briefing Paper and a number of other legal pieces I’ve seen.]
Must the Government respect the vote to leave?

No, but politically it is highly unlikely that the Government would ignore the result.

Referring to a David Allen Green column in the Financial Times on 14 June:

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable.

If any future Prime Minister ignores the result, basically they cook their goose. And they are all astute enough to know that.
What happens now in the EU and the UK?
As far as you and I are concerned, nothing in the immediate term.

The UK ‘deal’ agreed in February 2016 on the UK in the EU will not come into force.
Although the UK has voted to leave the EU, from 24 June until the point of departure from the EU the UK is still a member of the EU. Nothing about the UK’s EU membership will change initially.
… … …
The UK will continue to apply EU law and to participate in the making of EU law in Brussels. There is no need to give immediate notice of withdrawal under Article 50 TEU [Treaty on European Union] …
As David Cameron has said he will not lead the exit negotiations, there will now be a period of three or four months before a new prime minister will notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw. During this time the UK and the EU will be able to “take stock and work out who, and by reference to what strategy, the negotiations will be conducted”.

It is likely that parliament will need to set up a joint Lords & Commons select committee to scrutinise the withdrawal procedure. This is going to cost us as they will need large numbers of support staff, office space etc. — there is an estimated 80K pages of legislation which will need scrutinising.
Is Article 50 TEU the only route to leaving the EU?

The Article 50 TEU route is the legal way to leave the EU under EU and international treaty law …
… … …
The UK Government has ratified a whole series of EU Treaties, meaning that it is bound by the obligations under those treaties as a matter of international law. Repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and/or other EU-based domestic legislation would not remove those international law obligations.
One of the main principles of customary international law is that agreements are binding and must be performed in good faith … [this is] reaffirmed in article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which the UK is a party.

Of course we could just ignore the rules, break the treaty obligations and be in contempt of international law. Who knows what the consequences of such an approach would be, but you can be sure it would not be pretty.
What about the devolution angle?
Quoting Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of Oxford University the Briefing Paper suggests that although the UK Parliament may repeal the European Communities Act 1972, this would not bring an end to the domestic incorporation of EU law in the devolved nations.

It would still be necessary to amend the relevant parts of devolution legislation. But this would be no simple matter and could lead to a constitutional crisis. Although the UK Parliament may amend the devolution Acts, the UK government has stated that it will not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the devolved legislature. This requires a Legislative Consent Motion [in the devolved parliaments] However, the devolved legislatures might be reluctant to grant assent, especially as one feature of the ‘Vow’ made to the Scottish electorate was a commitment to entrench the Scottish Parliament’s powers … So the need to amend devolution legislation renders a UK EU exit constitutionally highly problematic.

And that says nothing about the peace agreements in Northern Ireland.
What if Parliament does not pass legislation to implement EU withdrawal?

Parliament could vote against the adoption of any legislation linked to withdrawal – an amendment to or repeal of the ECA, for example … but this would not prevent the UK’s exit from the EU if the UK Government had already notified the EU under Article 50 TEU. Article 50 stipulates withdrawal two years from formal notification, with or without a withdrawal agreement.

As I read it, and I’m sure I’ve seen this opinion in print somewhere, the decision to invoke Article 50 is with the government, not parliament. Once Article 50 is invoked then separation will happen automatically regardless of whether there is any agreement or not — no-one can stop this, but the timescale could be extended by consent of all 27 remaining EU member states. Parliament cannot legislate to prevent separation if Article 50 has been invoked. All they could do is, before Article 50 is invoked, instruct the government not to do so. The government could ignore them, of course, but that would [in my view] bring about a massive constitutional crisis; but then so could ignoring the referendum result.
Could Scotland stay in the EU without the rest of the UK?
Essentially, no.

Scotland is currently not a ‘state’ under international law capable of signing and ratifying international treaties. Nor does it have power over international relations, which are reserved to Westminster … under the Scotland Act 1998:
… … …
Scotland could not therefore be an EU Member State in its own right, or even sign an Association Agreement with the EU, however much either side wished for it.

But if Scotland became independent?
The answer, essentially, still seems to be, no. International law governs how treaties are continued if a signatory state divides. Reading the Briefing Paper these rules seem to mean Scotland would have to gain independence and then apply to join the EU.
[But this is complex and I refer you read the Briefing Paper in detail.]
A second independence referendum (in Scotland)?
Although Nicola Sturgeon considers the trigger of “significant and Material change in circumstances” in the SNP 2016 election manifesto has been fulfilled, she still doesn’t have the power to hold another referendum.

The Scotland Act 2016 did not give the Scottish Parliament law-making powers in relation to referendums, so UK consent would be required for another referendum.
Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum was called under an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to devolve the power to hold such a referendum for a limited period, ending on 31 December 2014.

Can France re-negotiate the Le Touquet treaty?

This bilateral treaty governs the ‘juxtaposed’ immigration controls for France and the UK.
… … …
France could break the Le Touquet treaty unilaterally (even if the UK did not leave the EU).
Article 23 of the Treaty of Le Touquet, establishing ‘juxtaposed’ immigration controls for France and the UK, [allows] either France or the UK [to] terminate the arrangements [unilaterally] …

What about the EU itself; what can it do?
As I understand it the EU can do little except get their ducks lined up and sit on their hands until Article 50 is invoked. They cannot force the UK to invoke Article 50 (whether sooner or later, and despite what they might like) unless or until it wishes to do so. And invoking Article 50 is the thing which triggers the formal exit negotiations. Whether the EU would be prepared to enter into informal negotiations prior to the UK invoking Article 50 is a moot point, but they seem to have said they will not do so — and why should they?
So what about this parliamentary petition to (retrospectively) change the referendum rules or force another vote?
That, my friend, is a side show; albeit a popular one. It isn’t going to happen, even if it does get debated in parliament. Parliament almost never indulges in retrospective legislation. And the government would need to find good material cause to politically justify running another referendum. Doing anything else would be political suicide — but then we’ve seen a fair amount of that already.
So what can we do?
Basically nothing. We’ve (collectively) told the politicians what we want them to do. They have to work out for themselves how to manage the fall-out — that’s what they’re paid to do.
All we can do is to get on with life and watch the fireworks. Keep an eye on your finances; don’t spend money you haven’t got; and be prepared to move money around — but then you do that anyway. Markets can go up as well as down; so can salaries; and pensions; and prices. Just stay watchful.
And we still need to watch what our “lords & masters” are doing and ensure they are held to account — especially now.
So, I’m sorry, guys & gals, we just have to get on with the mess we (collectively) have made for ourselves and live our lives as best we can.
In the words of the Irish comedian, the late Dave Allen, “May your god go with you”.

science, thoughts

Nasty Niffs

None of us like nasty, putrid, smells. I’m thinking of the things we actually find disgusting like shit, vomit and decaying corpses. Nor is it a subject we normally wish to dwell on.
However the other evening I was set thinking by a particularly pungent and foul pile of turd produced by one of our kittens …
Have you ever noticed how these odours are particularly good at lingering in the nostrils long after their source has been removed? Why is that?
We know that disgust is a universal human trait, and that there is a fairly common set of trigger odours — things like putrescine and cadaverine — found in all human societies and cultures. And this is for good reason. Evolution has programmed us to react to these odours to ensure we stay away from their source as these are substances which are likely to be harmful to us.
These odour molecules are mostly either organic sulphur or nitrogen compounds — think hydrogen sulphide (rotten eggs) and ammonia. And it isn’t just bodily decay or excrement that lingers. Another scent I’ve noticed lingering is the acrid (sulphurous) smoke from burning rubber, lino etc. It generally does seem to be the smells one hates which seem to last.
But why? What is the mechanism whereby these odours appear to linger?
Is it a trait which evolution has fixed because it is useful? Or is it a random effect of the chemistry involved which just hasn’t been evolved out? One assumes the former. But how?
Cadaverine and putrescene are relatively small diamines (ammonia derivatives) which result from the breakdown of amino acids. Other pungent and lasting odour molecules are sulphur based and can bond especially tightly to other organic molecules (ie. they’re “sticky”).
That seems to lead us to a number of possible mechanisms by which the effect, whether positively evolved in, or not evolved out, could work:

  1. The molecules concerned could be more soluble in, or more adherent to, the mucus which lines our nasal passages compared with other odour molecules. Thus they would be available longer to the odour receptors. (As the molecules are likely quite polar, both mechanisms are possible.)
  2. It could be that the mucus itself protects the molecules (whether dissolved or adhered) from whatever enzymes would naturally break them down.
  3. Then there is the question of their binding to the olfactory receptor itself. Do they bind so tightly that they cannot be freed to be degraded by the body’s chemistry?
  4. Or does their binding with the olfactory receptor change the molecule’s conformation, or hide it, from the degrading enzymes?
  5. Or again, it may not be chemical at all. The effect may be in the brain, with the nerve messages themselves being retained for a protracted period, even after the odour molecule has been broken down.

And there may well be other mechanisms. The mechanism maybe different for different molecules. And the above mechanisms are not mutually exclusive; particular odourants may be subject to multiple mechanisms.
Which in itself tells us nothing about the possible evolutionary mechanism.
I can’t believe that no-one has done any work on this. Some scientist, somewhere, has surely investigated the longevity of nasty niffs. A quick search hasn’t turned up anything very useful, so does anyone know? I’m curious!

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #5

And so we crawl our way to the last of my current series of Five Questions.

★★★★★

Question 5: If you could write a note to your younger self, what would you say in only two words?
Wow! Two words is actually quite hard. Almost everything one can think of is at least four words.
So one is tempted to go with the advice forum Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: DON’T PANIC!
But I think instead the advice I could best have used and learnt to implement when younger was:

QUIT WORRYING!

Just learn to let everything flow over you, although that does mean I no longer do “excited”, “panic” or “real anger” any more. I’ll happily forego the “excited” in return from the relief from “panic” and “anger”.

★★★★★

OK, so that’s the end of this series of Five Questions. I hope you’ve enjoyed it, maybe learnt something (if only about the oddness of my mind) and possibly even had a think yourself.
If I can find enough good questions I may do another series later in the year. So if you have a good question, or something you want to ask, then do please get in touch.
Meanwhile, be good!

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #4

Ah, so we’re getting towards the end with this the fourth of the current round of Five Questions.

★★★★☆

Question 4: Would you ever admit to being racist?
Yes, of course …
Hello. My name is Keith and I am a racist.
I wish I wasn’t thus, but I am.
In fact whether we like it or not we are all racists, although some are better at hiding it than others.
Yes, that’s right, we are all racists. It is a tribal thing.
We have sports teams, religions, political parties and socioeconomic classes. And yes, people of different colours, ethnicities and languages. We go through life knowing and interacting with people like “us”, lodging contentious feelings towards “them”. We do it now, and we always have.
Like all animals we all identify with, and thus instinctively prefer, our own tribe and our own territory. And thus by implication we dislike — in extreme cases even hate — the next tribe. The tribe that lives the other side of the river or mountain. Or the one up the valley who are a different colour. I’m green, I’m right, I’m good; you’re red, you’re wrong, nasty, diseased etc.
Neighbouring groups of chimpanzees will fight with each other. As will meerkats and many other species. Yes, this is partly territorial; but to me that is all part of racism. Many animals will ostracise, even kill, a comrade who is a different colour (say, albino).
We do this naturally; at least it is not something most of us are overtly taught. If anything we have to be taught not to do this.
Some of us learn better than others. And some of us can apply the lessons better than others. It’s a bit like learning woodwork or French at school — some can, easily; others never can. I like to think I am one of the better amongst us, but I’m probably not the best person to judge that.
But underneath I am still a racist. We are all racists. All we can ever do is learn to subdue it.

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

I want my country back

I want my country back
This is the constant refrain of the collection of spivs and barrow-boys who are hectoring us to vote to leave the EU.
And which of us wouldn’t agree?
I certainly would like my country back. But not the country of the “good old days” — formerly known as “these trying times” — as so well hammed up by AA Gill in last weekend’s Sunday Times [no link to the original as it’s paywalled, but the text has been posted on Facebook].
What I want is a country of sanity.
A country without gratuitous violence and sexual abuse.
A country where we all treat everyone as an equal …
… and other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A country which is not run by self-serving, sleazy, megalomaniacs.
A country where there is a right to privacy, but also transparent & honest government …
… a right to free education up to and including university first degree level …
… a right to properly funded, excellent healthcare, free at the point of use, for all.
A society without corporate greed and unnecessary obsolescence.
A country which cares more for the environment than it does for corporate profit.
A country without a “me, me, me” “now, now, now” culture of instant gratification and ever mounting personal debt.
A country where sexuality, nudity and “soft drug” use are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised.
A country where (like Bhutan) Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product as the measure of success.
I don’t care about the golden days of the Hovis bread adverts, when all men wore hats and ties, beer was 2p a pint, and we all lived in hovels with a privvy at the bottom of the yard. I’m not asking for them to return. And I’m not asking for Utopia.
I’m quite content to take a modern society with modern conveniences. I just believe we have the balance completely wrong.
And it is this lack of balance which is basically screwing us.
Unfortunately we are not going to even think about this, let alone get anywhere near it, with the present set of political lizards, whether they’re in parliament & local government or whether they’re journalists, commentators or other media hangers-on. There are just too many entrenched attitudes and vested interests. Turkeys vote neither for Christmas nor Thanksgiving.
We aren’t going to get it either by voting to leave the EU or remain in the EU. In this sense the EU referendum is as pointless and meaningless as it is tedious and divisive.
No, the only way we are going to achieve this is by a complete paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that happens to the whole country, not just a few intelligent idiots like me. It has to be a vision of the majority. A vision which the majority can find a way to implement in our governance structures. A vision which we, the people, can make stick.
I don’t know how we do this. I don’t even know how we start to do this. I really don’t.
But I do know that this is what we desperately need.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #3

And so question three of the latest round of Five Questions.

★★★☆☆

Question 3: Is masturbation a homosexual act?
There’s a body of very right wing, conservative Christianity (maybe other theisms too) which maintains that solo male masturbation (after all women would never do such a thing) is a homosexual act (the man is touching a penis) and therefore must indeed lead to the horrors of homosexuality.
I see the logic, in as far as it goes, but I don’t agree. For me homosexuality is defined as involving two (or more) persons of the same gender; one just doesn’t hack it. Whatever one might think about Onanism (and I view it as beneficial) homosexual it isn’t.
Thus I reject the idea. Not just because it is wrong, but also because it is believed by some set of wacky nut-jobs, who I neither like nor trust.
And anyway so what if masturbation is a homosexual act? Do all of us (male and female) not have at least a tiny percentage of homosexual leanings? And why does it matter anyway?
Get a life, guys!

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

Despair, or not?

I’m beginning to get despondent — no, let’s have this right, I’m now getting ever more deeply despondent — about the EU Referendum on 23 June.
I’m worried that the great British public will vote to LEAVE the EU. They certainly will if the current opinion polls are anything to go by as most seem to be showing LEAVE several points ahead with relatively few undecided voters. Typically the polls I’ve seen in the last week seem to be showing roughly REMAIN on 42% and LEAVE on 44%.
What deepened my worries is the state of mind of the “unthinking masses”. There’s a group on Facebook for the town where I grew up — a town now predominantly populated by people I can only best describe as “Essex chavs” (although that does do an injustice to many). Someone bravely put a poll on the Facebook group asking what people would vote. When I looked a few minutes ago the figures were REMAIN 28, LEAVE 158.
WHAT! Yes, that’s right, almost 6:1 in favour of LEAVE. I find that really scary because it implies that the LEAVE campaign’s fear-mongering, mostly on immigration, has got through to the minds of the less critical masses.
I fear that Joe Public is going to vote according to his tribal and xenophobic, Daily Mail, mindset — just as in many other things he (and she) will always vote with their wallet. Even many immigrants, and children of immigrants, are saying they’ll vote LEAVE because of immigration.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m OK with a LEAVE vote as long as it is based on some concrete foundations. However I know that Joe Public doesn’t work that way; he votes according to his fears and predilections, not because of good logic. Remember the old research which says that 5% of people can think and do; 5% of people cannot think; the other 90% can thing but just can’t be bothered — and that is partly because they have never been properly taught to do so.
It is going to take an awful lot of thinking citizens to overcome odds like that.
Part of the problem is that people cannot grasp that this whole thing is a big gamble; but a gamble where no-one knows what any of the odds are! This was summed up a couple of days ago by Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com under the title How to vote in the EU referendum. His article is quite nicely balanced; Lewis points out the good and the bad with the EU. Here are a few key snippets:

It’s the biggest consumer decision any of us will ever make. It affects our economy, foreign policy, immigration policy, security and sovereignty. Our vote on whether the UK should leave the EU will reverberate through our lifetimes, and those of our children and grandchildren.
… … …
My mailbag’s been drowning with questions and concerns. The biggest being: “Please just tell us the facts, what’ll happen if we leave?” I’m sorry, but the most important thing to understand is: there are no facts about what happens next.
Anyone who tells you they KNOW what’ll happen if we leave the EU is a liar. Predicting exact numbers for economic, immigration or house price change is nonsense. What’s proposed is unprecedented. All the studies, models and hypotheses are based on assumptions — that’s guesstimate and hope.

Oh, and that applies equally to both sides of the debate! There are no facts; just guesses.
Lewis goes on to recommend that we “do some reading on useful independent sites that run through the issues” and suggests we start with The UK in a Changing Europe which is run by King’s College, London and pools balanced articles from all sides.
He then, quite rightly, points out …

… for most people this comes down to a risk assessment.
A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain. Yet don’t automatically read risk as a bad thing. It simply means there’s more uncertainty …
Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines …
Or we could in the long run become a nimble low-tax, low-regulation, tiger economy …
The likely truth is of course somewhere between the two. But most independent analysis suggests Brexit will be detrimental to the economy.
… … …
The volume of uncertainty means the only way to make the right decision is based on your political attitude to the EU, your gut instinct, and how risk-averse you are on each area that matters to you.

All I would say is please do this consciously, after carefully weighing the options, and don’t necessarily go just with your gut feelings (important though they are). In the words of Frank Zappa “a mind is like a parachute — it doesn’t work if it is not open“.
I happen to think that on balance leaving the EU would be the worse option — and heaven knows there’s so much about the EU I don’t like. But I could be wrong. We all could be wrong. As with all things there is no “RIGHT” answer.
And remember, again as Lewis comments, “the future is always a journey” but the path is crazy paving and you lay it yourself as you go along.
Good luck! We’re all going to need it whichever path we take.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #2

And so we come to answering question two of my latest round of Five Questions.

★★☆☆☆

Question 2: Give me an unpopular opinion you have
Oh, my word! There are so many of these. Here have a selection …

  1. Sex work of all kinds should be decriminalised – indeed encouraged.
  2. Every leisure centre and swimming pool (whether publicly or privately run) should be required to hold at least three one-hour mixed-sex nude sessions each week between 8am and 8pm with one of them on a weekday between 9am and 5pm and one at a weekend.
  3. All toilets should be omnisex. And all changing rooms should also be omnisex and without cubicles.
  4. All sports teams should be mixed-sex. (If the armed forces can do mixed sex frontline troops, why can’t sports teams?)
  5. The private motor car should be banned.

Well, no-one said you had to like them or that they had to be practical.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8 #1

OK, let’s go. Here’s the answer to the first of my latest round of Five Questions.

★☆☆☆☆

Question 1: Can we understand everything?
No. Not a hope in hell. At least I bloody hope we don’t.
One of the defining features of our species is our ability to make connections. From birth, we can’t help but recognise patterns — and hence we begin to understand how the world works. What goes for us individually applies to our species as well. The history of science is the history of seeing ever deeper connections between apparently unrelated phenomena. And there is no reason to suppose that this won’t continue ad infinitum.
However chimps, smart as they are compared with, say, tortoises, will (we assume) never grasp quantum theory, or even recognise the need for such a theory. And although we are smarter than chimps (at least for some measures of “smarter”), why shouldn’t there be concepts that are too big or too complex for our brains to handle? Even too big/complex for us to be aware of?
So isn’t it just arrogance to think that we will, one day, understand everything? And anyway, isn’t being able to understand everything a frightening prospect? Because then we would know what everyone else was thinking; all the time; about everything from apples to zoophilia. That way madness surely lies.

beliefs, personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 8

2 Comments

OMG it is over a year since I started the last round of Five Questions. So at long last I bring you another series.
Here in Series 8 we have a slightly more serious group of questions — although I don’t guarantee entirely serious answers. So without more ado …

★★★★★

The five questions for Series 8 are:

  1. Can we understand everything?
  2. Give me an unpopular opinion you have
  3. Is masturbation a homosexual act?
  4. Would you ever admit to being racist?
  5. If you could write a note to your younger self, what would you say in only two words?


Unlike the last series, I will post answers on a regular basis, because I’ve decided to write the answers up front, probably before this post even goes live! Yes, I know it’s cheating. But so what?
As always you’re all invited to sing along — I’d like it if you all joined in! You can either answer the questions, as I answer them, by posting in the comments or by posting your answers on your own blog (in which case just leave a comment here so we can find your words of wisdom).
The answer to Question 1 should appear in a couple of days time and then they’ll be at roughly weekly intervals.
Enjoy!