What you think I should believe is the problem.
Quote: Belief
What you think I should believe is the problem.
What you think I should believe is the problem.
More Auction Oddities
Here’s the latest in the odd and eccentric from our local auction house catalogue. Sadly on this occasion there are no stuffed capybara, but there is …
A large oil portrait of a gentleman seated half-length with a cello and bow, wearing a blue jacket, white stock and frilled cuffs …
[What sort of eccentric dresses his ‘cello?]
A large William IV gilt chimney glass with scrolling leaf and flower decoration
[WTF? Oh it’s a mirror.]
A collection of South or Central American stone carvings, Pre-Columbian or later, comprising a large mask, a dagger, an engraved fragment, a ring, and seven other small pieces
[Well that covers a multitude of sins. Basically we have no clue what date they are; could be anything from the Creation to yesterday.]
Tribal art African hardwood elephant seat on carved base
A vintage Japanese ‘sit up and beg’ bicycle ‘Tomtom Fruits’ by Shiga Maruishi No. 89416632
[No, even having seen a photo, it doesn’t make sense to me either!]
A quantity of picture frames, a leather travelling make up case from Harrods, photo frames, plant pots, glass jars, a stacking system of shelves, Laurel & Hardy fridge magnets, crafting items
Five boxes of chilled packaging
[Didn’t know they had a cold store!]
Two shelves of general items including photo frames, flower pots, kitchenalia, a Carltonware Oriental pot, old biscuit tins, crafting colouring items, etc.
[You know you have to worry when you see etc. in a lot description.]
Five suitcases of varying sizes, a quantity of briefcases and sports bags, three small deed boxes and a money tin, a quantity of files, a set of jump leads, etc.
A wooden model sailing boat, a quantity of wooden jewellery boxes, some in oriental style with brass mounts, a silver-plated hipflask, a quantity of animal figurines, revolving wooden hors d’oeuvres set, a Grecian bust on stand, a quantity of Christmas decorations including a snow globe and a wooden Christmas tree ornaments in the shapes of Russian dolls, a Villeroy and Boch Father Christmas trinket box plus others, two Maling lustre bowls and a quantity of American Geographical Society’ Around The World’ programmes including Russia and Venezuela, etc.
[We had this pile of old toot and didn’t know what to do with it.]
A cased Rummy game, two Wedgewood collectors plates, three 1940s Film Award annuals and a cased car DVD player
A small table, the octagonal top interestingly covered in copper and acid etched with leaves and a tray with a display of butterfly wings
[All in the best possible taste.]
A collection of various items including an Imperial -Good Companion cased typewriter, a small quantity of cameras including a Diodem box No2 and Kodak, an old suitcase with original labels including Cunard White Star, a pair of brass candlesticks and a copper warming canister in oak stand
A cast iron unicorn door stop (above)
A large milk churn, hand painted decoration by a local Mouth-artist, a folding garden parasol on hardwood frame and a nest of three metal framed glass topped coffee tables with map inserts
[More great taste!]
A shelf of decorative clown ornaments
A modern musical box surmounted by an elaborate model drum kit, under Perspex cover (above)
A late 19th century Concert Roller Organ, in mahogany with stencilled decoration, with eighteen rollers (below)
[Now that really is interesting; I’ve never seen one of these before.]
An early 19th century set of hand-coloured engraved cards of the Kings of England, in mica paper slip case, a Sallis’s Illustrated Game of Doctor Busby, in original slip case, and a miniature 1871 Royal Wedding edition of The Graphic
A garden ornament of probably Venus, well patinated
A stained glass fire screen, incorporating pieces of old possibly Cathedral glass interposed with newer pieces
A child’s toboggan with metal frame, wooden legs and wooden slats for sitting on, lot also includes a large toy lion with green eyes, pale yellow ochre coat and pale mane
Not the most interesting of sales, although it also contains a quantity of ceramic which sound boring and look hideous.
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,
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”.
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:
- 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.)
- It could be that the mucus itself protects the molecules (whether dissolved or adhered) from whatever enzymes would naturally break them down.
- 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?
- Or does their binding with the olfactory receptor change the molecule’s conformation, or hide it, from the degrading enzymes?
- 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!
Wolf, Dog, Cat …
This is today’s B.C. cartoon. It says “wolf” but it could just as well say dog or cat — especially cat!
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!
Weekly Photograph
More pussy porn this week …
I’m sure you understand that the Tuxedo Twins (aka. Rosie & Wiz) have nowhere nice to sleep, only a heap of old slippers, a rope toy and dead catnip mice.
Please, we have nowhere nice to sleep
Greenford; June 2016
Click the image for larger views on Flickr
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.
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.
Alternative Garden Bridge
As reported in the Guardian a few days ago, architects Allies & Morrison have come up with a much more affordable version of London’s proposed Garden Bridge — an ill-conceived, cabalistic vanity project if ever there was one. And because it is affordable, and thus won’t be burdened with huge debts or the demands of corporate sponsors, it can be a truly open public space. Basically they are proposing to reuse some of the space on Blackfriars Bridge — a resource which already exists. This sounds eminently feasible.
The Garden Bridge project should be killed — and no I don’t believe Mayor Sadiq Khan when he says it will cost more to cancel it than complete it. This alternative deserves to gain traction.
Read the full Guardian article and Allies & Morrison’s description.